1979-03-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that the federal government undertook five years ago to invest almost $6 million of taxpayers' money on the development and operation of a commercial restaurant, tavern and theatre at 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa, and in light of the fact that thousands of dollars worth of imported antiques are deteriorating in the basement, together with $50,000 worth of imported wine, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott):
That this House direct the Auditor General to undertake a detailed examination of the management, control and financial accounting practices of the National Capital Commission, with particular reference to the tendering procedures and the development of 10-12-18 York Street, Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House notes the tremendous increases that have taken place in the cost of food and clothing, which have a particular effect on Canada's senior citizens, and this House therefore calls on the government to establish a special consumer price index for senior citizens related to the things they have to buy,
and also to add a special supplement to the April pension cheques to help cover the severe increases in food and clothing costs announced today by Statistics Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO VANCOUVER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing necessity concerning an appearance by the Prime Minister at a question and answer session before students in Vancouver yesterday, and reports in the press today that he indulged in displays of temper.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.

[DOT] (mo)


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that as a result of recent efforts to reorganize and further devolve the Canadian Forestry Service, one of its crucial functions and programs, namely, the monitoring and management of forest inventories through remote sensing, will be phased out as a result of the departure of all scientific personnel attached to this program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon):

March 16, 1979
That this House require the minister of the environment to undertake whatever steps necessary to salvage whatever is left at the present time of this important program which has earned us recognition and a leading position in the world.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
As the grants of the National Film Board have been allocated in a punitive fashion with regard to the production of French films at St. Boniface and other Francophone centres outside Quebec, and as the production of films locally is an essential contribution to the cultural development of French minorities outside Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) instruct the National Film Board that grants be distributed equitably to ensure the Francophone public that facilities for the production of films are available in their locality.


Mr. Speaker:: The Flouse has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, this motions requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of the same Standing Order. According to his office, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) has absented himself from the House today, allegedly to deal with unspecified constituency matters but in fact to avoid dealing with today's alarming increase in the consumer price index.

Because this issue is of concern to ordinary Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House censure the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for his cowardly abandonment of his parliamentary duties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling).


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Of late, the government has taken to flagrant and blatant violation of the operation of our free market economy and has adopted a paternalistic attitude toward the populace. A case in point is the ban on the use of saccharin, Canada being the only country to have done so. This has resulted in the near demise of a number of small businesses providing a livelihood for a large number of communities across Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt):
That the government withdraw from frequent and excessive intervention into the lives of Canadians, reconsider its ban on saccharin and leave the ultimate choice of the product and the price to the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a very important matter.
In view of the financial straits Canadian authors find themselves in, especially the newer ones whose talents are unknown because publication costs are prohibitive, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That the House instruct the government to make funds available to these authors so that they can deposit a copy of their work in every public library in the country.
March 16, 1979


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. My question centres on the unfortunate 9.2 per cent level of inflation in this country this year as compared to last year.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council give the House the official government excuse for inflation being so high? Is it because of a foreign problem or a provincial problem? Is it because of the fact that anchovies are not being found off the coast of South America, as Mr. Turner used to say, or is it because the American satellite is very close to Jupiter? Can he give us the official excuse?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not interested in giving excuses with regard to the increases in prices that have been made public today. The hon. member could examine the situation, and he ought to know that the year to year increase is marginally greater than for the previous 12-month period. As the hon. member knows, if he wishes to read the material that has been made available, the principal cause for the increase in the CPI lies in the area of food prices.
He ought to know, as well, that the major component of that food price increase is the very substantial increase during the month in the price of beef. Hon. members spoke in the House on this subject earlier this week and they understand fully that this upward trend in beef prices arises from the normal beef cycle and the decision of producers to withhold sales in order to build up their herds. That is a fact. I have had the opportunity on previous occasions to mention the necessity of this development taking place. That is a fact; it is not an excuse. If the hon. member wants to read a little further, he will understand that the other major component of the increase in food prices relates to fresh vegetables which are imported from other countries.
Oral Questions
Those are facts. The hon. member may want to deal in excuses, but I do not. Those are the facts that account for the situation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, who I think has in fact put the blame for rising prices on the backs of the farmers, which is contemptible.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will he confirm that, in fact, part of the cause of the rise in beef prices in this country is that this government has adopted a cheap dollar policy, which means that Canadians are now paying, on average, about 30 cents a pound more for their beef compared to American prices simply because this government determined it was in Canada's best interest to have an 80-cent dollar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about an 80-cent dollar.


An hon. Member:: Eighty-five cents.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He must have information that is unknown to the rest of us. Obviously, the price of beef at this time in our market is basically determined by its supply and demand. There is no intention of placing the blame on the backs of Canadian producers who went through a period of low prices, and as a result of that period of low prices we are faced with a decrease in supply. That is the main reason.
As the hon. member knows, as herds are built up, prices will decrease and we will go through, in a sense, a cycle in beef prices with which we are familiar.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I again direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council. Now that the government, through faulty fiscal and monetary steps has saddled us with this type of inflation, will the minister indicate if he thinks it is generally a good idea that grocery chains now propose to sell their goods through the use of credit cards, as is being suggested in Toronto?
Does the minister think that it is a good idea, or does he think it is unfortunate that, notwithstanding the high cost of food, people perhaps are being enticed to use credit cards which may cost them as much as 20 per cent in interest costs alone per year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, one wonders about the seriousness of the hon. member's approach to questions of this kind in this House of Commons, when he attempts to relate the beef cycle to faulty fiscal and monetary policy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He is drawing a very long bow, and only in his own hallucinatory imagination could that become a reality,

March 16, 1979
Oral Questions
because the beef cycle has nothing to do with monetary or fiscal policy.


Mr. Dick:: Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has to do with the forces of supply and demand in the cattle market. The hon. member also asked about credit cards in supermarkets and what I think of the matter. What does he think? I have not formed any opinion on the subject.


PASSING ON OF SALES TAX CUTS TO CONSUMERS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the super minister and in the absence of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: -I would like to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, we are not running the country yet, but we will be here when we are.


Mr. Paproski:: In our seats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton on a question.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They are not running the country, either. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Industry selling prices for the months of January and February show that the sales tax cut has not been passed on. It is now at 11 per cent. Could the minister explain why the tax cut has not been passed on, because with all his watchdogs he should know?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the full effect of the reduction in the federal sales tax has not yet fully reached the retail level. It will, and when it does it will moderate the type of price increase which is of concern to the hon. member.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the 11 per cent increase. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how he feels this 11 per cent increase will affect the goods which will go on the shelves of the supermarkets and department stores? Could he tell us what the effect will be on the index over the next few months?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has referred to an 11 per cent increase. I must say I do not understand to which increase she is referring. I am not aware

of an 11 per cent increase in the cost of living either for this month or for year to year.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF CLOTHING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the government, this morning, has been evasive in general about its responsibilities with regard to prices. I have a particular item which was brought to the government's attention three weeks ago. My question is to the Minister of National Revenue.
Considering that price increases in clothing for men, women and children are now at an annual rate of 13 per cent, and considering that more than three weeks ago a group of Canadian clothing manufacturers submitted a brief to the minister which specifically pointed out that Canadian textile companies, "are taking advantage of their tariff and quota protection by pricing up to landed import prices", could the minister tell the House, since he was informed of this matter- I have a copy of the submission which was more than three weeks ago-if he brought this reprehensible practice of the textile companies to the attention of his cabinet colleagues? If so, what action has been taken?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that a meeting was held with that group. A number of points were discussed with me at that meeting on the whole problem of the potential increase in clothing prices. I am very much concerned that there not be any exploitation of the circumstances surrounding the clothing quotas, or the lower value of the dollar, to impose higher prices on the public.
The point the hon. member raised is not one that we are unfamiliar with-the question has been raised before-but it is a matter of evidence, a matter of inquiry and a matter of investigation. I can assure him that we took the representations very seriously and we are continuing to look into the question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another "looking into" minister.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we have another minister who wants to look into the causes of increased prices. The other minister who is out of the House has been doing that for months and we have not had any action. Considering that almost every textile company in the country in the last quarter of 1978 had substantial increases in profits, specifically the Dominion Textile Limited which increased its sales by only 14 per cent in the last quarter of 1978 but increased its profits by 34 per cent, and considering that Canadian clothing manufacturers want something done to bring the price of women's and children's clothing down to a reasonable level, when is the minister going to take some action to bring about rollbacks in unjustified price increases in these areas which have been brought to his attention?
March 16, 1979


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member says that we are "looking into" something, I would point out that he makes many unsupported allegations in this House. If we were to take them all at face value without any investigation, it would be ridiculous.


John Edward Broadbent: Name one.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I could not begin to name them all. His misuse of the improvement in profits figures is another way that he misrepresents the facts. He does not give any background on what the profit picture was at Dominion Textiles a year earlier; whether there was an adequate return on investment or whether they had serious unemployment problems in places like Magog and Sherbrooke. He does not refer to any of that, but they are problems of very real interest to people working in those plants.
The question of whether foreign textiles are being purchased by Canadian manufacturers at a higher price than should be the case, and whether this is imposing on consumers higher prices than they should have to pay cannot be dealt with in the usual superficial manner of the hon. member. We have to examine the facts and ascertain whether a change of legislation or policy will be required. It is not simply a matter of profiteering by other countries; it is a matter of investigating to see whether the circumstances justify a change.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are simply interested in dealing with unfair increases in prices. For example, other companies in the business sector have brought to the minister's attention the fact that textile companies in Canada have increased their prices to correspond with increases in the prices of Japanese imports because of the declining value of the Canadian dollar. That makes sense for imported textiles, but it makes no sense for Canadian-produced textiles.
According to Canadian manufacturers of clothing, the textile companies are making rip-off profits. Will the minister take some action so that the Canadian consumer may receive some benefit?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member offers any substantiation for his point that there have been rip-off profits by Canadian manufacturers of clothing.


John Edward Broadbent: Textiles, not clothing.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: He spoke of a 34 per cent increase for Dominion Textile, without any reference to their profits a year earlier and whether they were adequate. I simply state that this is a complex question. In 1978, our departmental officials initiated an investigation. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong were notified of the proper, fair market value. As to the Japanese portion of the review, our officials have carried out further investigations but a decision has not yet been made.
The hon. member should realize that these are not easy problems to deal with. The whole pricing apparatus in respect of goods from these countries is extremely complex. For us to
Oral Questions
act arbitrarily, just because a brief has been brought in, without having the facts would be as irresponsible as some of the statements the hon. member repeatedly makes in this House about increased profits.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When it held its 8th annual convention, the Federation de l'Age d'Or du Quebec drafted a resolution calling on the minister and the Canadian government to provide old age security pension payments to all single senior citizens between the ages of 60 and 65. Could the minister indicate to us what her position is concerning this resolution and these senior citizens who I feel should be paid this pension?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the hon. member is asking such a question at this time, in this pre-election period, unless he wants me to say that funds are available, when in fact none are. He is aware that I took part in this convention which was held in late September, that several of the resolutions made by FADOQ have been accepted, that the federation supported Bill C-5, which increased considerably income supplement payments for 60 per cent of older Quebeckers, which represents $82 million more for senior citizens in Quebec. But lowering the age of entitlement for needy Canadians from 65 to 60 is unthinkable, at this time anyway.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. I would like to know why they are trying to ignore the issue since that seems to be the general consensus not only among people between 60 and 65 but among all Canadians as well. And I would like to know whether rejection of that demand is due to a lack of money or the fact that the minister did not believe the goods and services industry in Canada can meet the needs of those people?


Monique Bégin: I do not know exactly what the hon. member means by the goods and services industry. If he is referring to private pensions, it is clear those pensions of Canadians are unfortunately very disappointing in most cases. Nearly all of them have no form of indexing to reflect the value of the dollar, and they are not even universal. Of course, there are still many that discriminate against women. They are not portable when the employee leaves his job. From that point of view, there are many things the private sector could be doing to update those pensions. On the government side, as the

March 16, 1979
Oral Questions
economic resources of the country are always limited, we are concentrating our efforts on helping most disadvantaged senior Canadians. Such are our first priorities. So I have not rejected the FADOQ recommendation, as the hon. member is suggesting, I simply said that our efforts are going to go where they are most urgently needed. It is very urgent to improve even more than we have done the lot of older people getting the supplement because some of them are still below the poverty level. I will look after those over 65 first.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it the position of the Deputy Prime Minister that because the Canadian dollar is selling at a discount, this has no effect on domestic beef prices?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not my position at all. The commodity about which we exchanged questions and answers has a history and a life of its own that may be influenced by the exchange rate, but the main influence comes from the forces of supply and demand.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that beef today is selling at $70 per hundredweight in Omaha and $84 per hundredweight in Toronto, the difference is exactly the difference in the exchange rate. Surely the minister must understand that the depreciation of the dollar is one of the major reasons for the increase in the price of beef in Canada today. It is exactly the differential.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and I ask him in terms of his previous reincarnation as an economist, is it the position of the government that we can get inflation under control in this country as long as we have a stance on monetary and fiscal policy-I notice the increase in the money supply is 10 per cent, year over year, with real growth at 3 per cent-that leaves us with an exchange rate at 85 cents? I am not talking about pegging the dollar; I am talking about a change in the structure of monetary and fiscal policy to get the dollar up in order to control inflation. Is it the government's position that they need do nothing about that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me quite a number of questions-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Answer any one of them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -in his statement. I want to tell him that the recent strength of the Canadian dollar, which I am sure the hon. member applauds, will to some extent moderate the force on inflation that arises from imports. It is clear that it will have its effect on Canadian prices. I should advise the hon.

member that whatever differential exists between the price of Canadian beef and American beef, that price differential has been registered in an increased movement of American beef into the Canadian market.
With respect to his question on inflation, was it the position of the government that one could contend with inflation entirely through fiscal and monetary policy, it is certainly not my position or that of the government that, in itself, fiscal and monetary policy can counter the forces of inflation. I believe the experience of this country and other countries shows that the harsh application of fiscal and monetary policy in the battle against inflation can be quite counterproductive as a sole weapon; that there are other instruments required as well.


REQUEST FOR PREDICTION OF FUTURE RATE OF INFLATION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who said he was interested in facts relating to inflation. One fact is, of course, that two or three years ago the government predicted that the rate of inflation by last October would be down some 4 per cent. Unfortunately, it is not.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister indicate what the rate of inflation will be in the coming months? Is it still his position that the rate of inflation is going to settle down, that it is going to reduce, and what does he think will bring this about? Can he give us something firm to go on, in view of the unfortunate predictions and assurances that have been given in the past?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Over the next three months, for example.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that there are some positive signs. I do not for a moment believe that in the next several months, as the hon. member has requested, the price of beef, for example, will show a noticeable decrease.
We have noted in the past week that the price of fresh vegetables has decreased, according to newspaper advertisements. I know that the price of coffee in the commodity markets has decreased, and that will have some effect on the consumer index. I believe, also, that the strength of the Canadian dollar gives us some reason to believe that inflation may ease a bit. I believe a change in consumer buying and the reaction of consumers to the price and supply situation will have some effect as well. I believe there are some positive signs showing for the next few months, but I certainly cannot give the hon. members any precise indication as to what the rate will be three or four months from now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must compliment the Deputy Prime Minister in one respect at least. I think he is being honest: he is not predicting any reduction in the rate of inflation, although he sees some hopeful signs. I do not want to misinterpret him, but in view of the policy of the government which is, as far as one can see, the establishment of a Mickey Mouse surveillance operation, and in view of the position of
March 16, 1979

the Deputy Prime Minister today that while he sees some hopeful signs, he is not able to give the Canadian people any assurance, is it not fair to assume that we have to expect, under this government, the continuation of a rate of inflation around 8.5, 9, 10 or 11 per cent?
Can the Deputy Prime Minister give us any reason to believe that with the policies of this government, or the policies he has described this morning, we can look forward to the return of a sensible degree of stability?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I add to the very positive signs I mentioned to the hon. member the fact that the government did, through a ways and means motion tabled by the Minister of Finance, affect the prices of a wide range of imported fruits and vegetables. That will have some effect.
I believe the hon. member is more pessimistic than I would be when he talks about a range of inflation for 1979 of 9, 10, 11 and 12 per cent. That is much too pessimistic in my view. I think our performance will be better than that, because it is better now than the United States. The hon. member will be pleased to note that the year to year, 12-month performance of Canada with respect to the United States is somewhat better, and the performance of the Canadian index is considerably better than the United States in the non-food component. However, we are faced with strong pressures on the food component of the cost of living index for reasons which I have described, which in my view will be moderate for reasons I have also described.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many honourable members and many other Canadians are very concerned about the negative impact that the proposed move of Air Canada from Heathrow to Gatwick, in London, will have.
1 would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs: in addition to the strong and welcome statement made recently by Mr. Martin, the Canadian High Commissioner, will the government back Air Canada and its president, Mr. Taylor, should they decide to deny tendering privileges to United Kingdom suppliers of their intended purchases and any other actions they might be able to take to resolve this issue in favour of Air Canada retaining landing rights at Heathrow?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have said on previous occasions in the House and I have conveyed to the British authorities our wish to keep the issue of Heathrow versus Gatwick separate from any negotiations that might be going on or any other relationship we might have in air matters.
Oral Questions
However, I am quite prepared to agree with the conclusions drawn, I gather, by Mr. Taylor and by others who have spoken on this matter, including some members opposite, that if we find there is no willingness on the part of the British government to renegotiate this matter, then obviously it is going to have an effect on the over-all relationship in air matters between ourselves and the United Kingdom.
I want to make it perfectly clear that we are not at this moment threatening one against the other. In other workds, what Mr. Taylor was saying in his speech-and I have no ground for argument with what he said-was that there is a wide range of alternatives open to the government and to Air Canada in the event the British government refuses to co-operate. However, he did not link the two. Consequently, I do not propose to do so formally at this point. I think it is perfectly clear that if there is a failure on the part of the British government to accommodate Canadian interests in this matter, obviously it will have a spillover effect on other matters involving both countries.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The president of Air Canada said that the main leverage the Canadian government has in the Gatwick airport dispute lies in the right of British Airways to operate in Canada. Is this a matter presently under active consideration by the federal government of Canada? Are any contingency plans being considered by the Ministry of Transport in relation to this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member will appreciate, because he has been very co-operative on this issue, that I have chosen my words this morning quite carefully. We are not formally negotiating and saying that either we stay in Heathrow or such and such a thing will happen. I am most anxious, in the interests of good relations between Canada and the United Kingdom, to deal with the Heathrow issue on its own merits. Consequently, we have not in a sense imposed any threats or any hints of sanctions of that nature in a formal way.
I reiterate the point that if there is no response to this quite reasonable and, I think, fair representation made by our High Commissioner and now by the president of Air Canada, clearly we will have to look at alternatives. That should make it clear to the hon. member that an examination has been made of what are those alternatives. He can be assured that Canadian interests in this matter are being very, very carefully looked at.
I emphasize once again that I still have confidence the British government will recognize that Air Canada was one of the first airlines to use Heathrow, that there is a strong, centuries-long relationship between us and that consequently, as a senior member of the Commonwealth, we deserve better treatment than to be tossed out of Heathrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
80050-S4

March 16, 1979
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 appreciate the answer of the minister. However, the diplomatic exchange method seems to have failed. Is the Canadian government now considering ways and means to beef up the Canadian arsenal in support of Air Canada in this very important matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to acknowledge that efforts have failed. I told the House some time ago, in response to a question by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, that representations had been made at the highest level and that I had obtained an interim response from the foreign secretary, Mr. Owen, which did not slam the door, in effect. It indicated that further negotiations and discussions were going to take place. I hope I will have an opportunity to talk to Mr. Owen in New York when we proceed there for the Namibia talks over the weekend and that I can, indeed, keep this matter under negotiation. In that context, it certainly has not been a total rejection or even a partial rejection of the Canadian representations to this point in time.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I will direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the CPI increase of 13 per cent in the price of bread over the last few months.
A letter we have from the minister of consumer affairs states that the price of flour is up by 25 per cent. When the wheat subsidy was taken off bread, which amounted to about 3.2 cents per loaf, the price of a loaf of bread went up by seven cents. The subsidy on flour was 22 cents for 5Vi pounds. The price went up by 44 cents. Can the minister explain why the market at the retail level went up twice as high as the actual increase in the cost of the raw material, which was flour?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am almost speechless. This is the first time we have had an honest answer and a short answer from the Minister of Agriculture. He has lost his bull.
In view of the tremendous increase in the price of bread and flour in this country, will the minister try to persuade the cabinet to inquire why the retail price has gone up so much when the price of the raw material was much lower? At the same time, will he try to persuade the cabinet to reinstate the subsidy on bread, milk and flour, which commodities are so vital to Canadians?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would say, even before the day that tomorrow is going to be, maybe we can have the little people help us, because the hon. member certainly is not

helping us. We should have full information on this. The hon. member wants a simple answer to a very detailed question. We know, for example, that if we give our wheat away it will only lower the price of a 32-ounce loaf of bread by 11 cents. All the other costs involved are in relation to production, transportation, distribution and so forth.
We do not hear very much about waste, but I am told that in the large metropolitan Toronto area, well over 100,000 loaves of bread which are not consumed and which become stale are thrown away. They go into either incinerators or the garbage. That is part of the cost involved. If the hon. member wants a more detailed answer, there is enough information that I could go on even until tomorrow.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As a result of a specific government direction in 1969, certain political groups, including the Parti Quebecois and others, became the objects of security service investigation. The first report as a result of that investigation which identified these groups and described them in some detail was described by the Prime Minister as, and I quote, "a damn good piece of work".
Given that specific direction, given government knowledge as to which groups were involved and their nature, did no solicitor general, minister of justice, prime minister or any member of the cabinet committee on security and intelligence ever ask the security service what methods and procedures it was using to fulfil the mandate the government had given it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really answer the latter part of the question because I do not agree with the premise of the question.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Deputy Prime Minister does not agree with sworn testimony before a royal commission established by the government. Giving the benefit of any doubt as to lack of government knowledge-and one would give the benefit of that doubt only because of a series of incompetent solicitors general-what is government policy with respect to senior public servants and their continued employment when such public servants withhold deliberately vital information from the ministers to whom they are responsible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, more than once in the House the Prime Minister and I have had occasion to express the opinion that it is unwise at this stage to comment upon sworn testimony, even before the McDonald commission. The last time we debated this question we spent a day debating the testimony of a particular witness whose testimony had not even
March 16, 1979

been completed and who had not been cross-examined by any of the other solicitors. It seems to me that that is a very unwise procedure in the House of Commons, and certainly it would be unwise for me to comment upon what the hon. member describes as sworn testimony which to my knowledge may not yet be completed.
The hon. member's first question was based upon the premise that an investigation, as I understood it, had been ordered by the government into political parties of this country, or a political party. I want to assure the hon. member that that is not the case and never has been.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission I would like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board, since he controls the purse-strings.
In light of the fact that the government's $6 million investment on York Street, in Ottawa, is costing Canadian taxpayers approximately $60,000 a month in carrying charges, can the minister explain whether there has been any progress in the move toward leasing this building, a building which has been sitting empty for at least two years? If so, are the terms of the lease now contemplated in any manner different from the terms of the public tender which was let over a year ago?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, that is a question to which I do not have a detailed response. I suggest the hon. member should wait and direct it to the appropriate minister.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will ask a more general question about the basic principle here. Can the minister give assurances to this House that the full cost of the development at 10-12-18 York Street, in Ottawa, including not only development costs, the cost of rare wines and tapestries and other imported antiques, but also those of interest and other carrying charges will be fully recovered and that no public moneys will be used to subsidize in any way the planned commercial development of that property? That is a question of principle and basic policy.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, again that question should be addressed to the appropriate minister. I am not sure whether this falls under the program of Demonstration Projects which comes within the ambit of Urban Affairs. I know there are certain programs across this nation under which heritage buildings and buildings of that nature are preserved. Under such programs it is not always possible to secure full economic rent. For this and other purposes it is judged that certain buildings should be preserved. Whether that pertains in this case, I do not know, but I reiterate that the question should be addressed to the appropriate minister.
Oral Questions HEALTH AND WELFARE


REQUEST THAT BAN ON SACCHARIN BE RECONSIDERED
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. No other country in the world except Holland has considered rat tests to be sufficient to warrant a ban on saccharin. Smoking and coffee consumption are also suspected causes of bladder cancer, and both are practised more than saccharin use. Saccharin poses no known hazard to human health and, in fact, provides relief to the diabetic.
Will the minister explain why the decision of a handful of bureaucrats has successfully created an aura of suspicion and mistrust to convince the minister to take the harsh decision to ban saccharin, and is the minister willing to review the decision and make an announcement in the near future?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. The premise of the hon. member's question is erroneous and misleading to the public. A handful of Canadian bureaucrats did not make a decision out of the blue sky. The decision was made after a thorough study of scientific reports available to the western world. That was the basis of the Canadian decision close to two years ago. A commission of European communities recently confirmed that the way Canada handled the saccharin question to protect the Canadian public was the best way, given the state of knowledge at that time.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that Canada is still the only country which has banned saccharin. While the minister is reconsidering her decision, which I presume has already been made, would she take into consideration the fact that a large number of Canadians living in rural areas are inconvenienced by having to travel to distant drug stores to obtain products containing saccharin?
Does the minister not agree that the policy should be to label the contents of products, and not ban saccharin, thereby leaving the ultimate choice of product and price to the Canadian people? The so-called protective benevolence of the government has reached an aggressive level.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I will give to that convoluted question is that saccharin is known to cause cancer. Studies of other products which may eventually replace saccharin will continue. Incidentally, saccharin has not been banned; it has been restricted to pharmaceuticals. It is available in pharmacies and is controlled. That is what we have done in Canada. The purpose of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Food and Drugs Act is, surely, to protect Canadians from suspected hazards and risks, and that is what we have done.

March 16, 1979
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. As the minister will know, this House authorized the broadcasting, on a live basis, of the proceedings of the House to be transmitted by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I would like to ask the minister why it is that the CBC was unable, as of three-quarters of an hour ago, to bring this service to the city of Vancouver, and when he might expect that to begin.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the arrangements which have been made. Of course, arrangements have been made in conjunction with cable companies across the country, and it may be that there is some difficulty in the Vancouver area with finding a cable company interested in availing itself of the services which the CBC is offering. I will look into the matter and report back to the hon. member.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Small Business, and it has to do with loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
Statistics issued by the minister's department last week tell of drastic increases in the number of loans made in 1978. However, many small businesses in southern Ontario still find that bankers will not make loans under the act. Can the minister say when he will take steps to put teeth into the legislation so that more small businesses can take advantage of this program?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, unquestionably the banks have in the past shown a lack of enthusiasm for the Small Businesses Loans Act, but the statistics last year, considering that the changes were only implemented in March or April, indicate that well over twice the number of loans were made under the act in 1978 compared with the previous year.
A good many more Canadian businesses are applying and qualifying for loans under the act, and I feel sure that if the hon. member encourages bankers in his own area, as I do, to offer the benefits under the act, more businessmen will be able to take advantage of it. The fact is that it is a useful act and that more businessmen and bankers are taking advantage of it every day.


William C. Scott: Departmental statistics show an increase last year of over 750 loans in Quebec and over 500 in British Columbia. Yet in Ontario the increase was only 275 loans. Can the minister explain why action is not taken to make these loans equally available to Ontario businessmen who find their applications rejected by bankers who would rather make loans at higher interest rates than those provided by the act?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I do not doubt that when the hon. member offers some numbers, he is drawing them from some source, but I would like to check those figures. I question the figure stated by the hon. member when he says that only 275 loans were made in Ontario under that act; I cannot believe that that is accurate.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which stems from my motion under Standing Order 43 which I attempted to raise in the House a short while ago, and I do so with all due respect to the Chair. I should like to make, if 1 may, the following points. First, in dealing with the preamble to the motion which I was not permitted to read, I would say that it was short and could not be ruled out on the basis of being lengthy. It is probably one of the shortest preambles-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member goes any further I have to call to his attention a ruling which I made in the House about a month ago, on February 13, which was, as he knows, a ruling made after a prolonged discussion of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 and the entire procedure in respect of that. That discussion took place before Christmas and 1 reserved my judgment on it for a very long time.
As I indicated in the ruling-and I want to quote the specific language which appears at page 3164 of Hansard- there was a consensus on all sides of the House that enforcement of that order should be a little more rigid in order to rule out a number of applications of a certain nature which might be of interest to the House but do not appear to be urgent. On that day I said the following:
Drawing upon this consensus, I hope members have noticed that since the day of this discussion I have intervened on several occasions to reject applications from both sides of the House which contained inflammatory preambles which are of a purely partisan nature, which lack urgency, and which are frivolous; and even today I set aside one of those applications which came from the government side of the House.
On that day, the hon. member may recall, the application which I set aside was made by a member on the government side to introduce a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, and the preamble was critical of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and about some speech he had made. I did not permit him to go even so far as to put the motion because, drawing, as
March 16, 1979

I had indicated, on the consensus which appeared from all sides of the House, applications for motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 which relate to some speech made by a member of the House and seek to be critical of it in some way fall on several grounds. In the first place, they are of a purely partisan nature; and in the second place, in my opinion, they totally lack the urgency and the pressing necessity required under the rule. With the consensus of members of the House I intervened on that occasion and on several other occasions.
Later this morning, after the hon. member's application, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) sought to put a motion the preamble to which had to do with the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand). In that particular case it may very well have been that the hon. member's motion would relate to food prices, in which case I would have been obliged to put it to the House. In fact, I listened to the motion and found that it did not, that it related to the absence of the minister on this day. Therefore, I did not put the question to the House, but I had to hear it in order to make that determination.
In the case of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), he referred to a speech made in Vancouver yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to some reports that the Prime Minister, during the course of that speech, had lost his temper. I do not have to go any further to tell him that that is not the proper use of Standing Order 43 and I do not have to hear the motion.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to finish my question of privilege. I think you used the words, sir, that there has been a consensus that motions under Standing Order 43 can be ruled out in some cases if they are inflammatory. May I say with all respect, sir, that in no way was the preamble to my motion inflammatory. I quoted three words from the news services which were widely circulated throughout the country. They were not my words and they were in quotes, but I will not read them at this time. I realize that at one time there was a rule in Beauchesne which stated that members should not quote from newspapers, but I am also given to understand that the latest edition of Beauchesne's rules states that, if former rules were adhered to the fullest extent, it would become impossible to ask almost any question in the House. I do not believe that my preamble could be considered inflammatory.
With regard to the motion itself, as it was not read-I do not think it is possible to judge whether or not it was of urgent and pressing necessity. Had the Chair heard the motion, I could then well understand that the Chair could make a ruling as to whether or not it was indeed of urgent and pressing necessity. In the seven years that I have been in the House- and maybe it has happened on a day when I have not been here-I do not recall a member being cut off before he was at least allowed the privilege of beginning to read his motion to indicate whether or not there is something about it that is out of order.
I only wish to refer, sir, in substance, to what I intended to do, and that was simply to reaffirm, not just that the Prime Minister but that the leaders of all political parties in Canada
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
should be prepared to listen to the youth of this country, to their suggestions and their questions on national issues, without being called "creeps", without being held up to ridicule, and without threats to walk off the stage. That happened yesterday, and I think it is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I would say the same if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had indulged in similar tactics, which I know of course he would not.
May I conclude by saying these few words. We sit in the House for various reasons, not the least of them being to set an example to the Canadian people, and particularly to the younger Canadian people who will follow us and sit here. Therefore, when something is very much out of order in the opinion of one member, regardless whether he is right or wrong, at least he deserves the right to be heard and to express his opinion on the actions of a political leader. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that usually with most members of the House you have a willingness at least to hear the motion before a motion is made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no need to carry this any further. I have indicated to the hon. member-and I have invited him to check the record-that on several occasions I have done exactly what I did with him this morning. If the hon. member wishes, I can cite specifically the day on which I made that ruling. If the hon. member would like to check the record for February 13, he will see that I did so to a government member who sought, by way of a preamble, to introduce a motion which I believe would have been critical of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I did not regard that as a proper use of the rules; I did not regard his preamble as a proper use of the rules, and I took precisely the same action and the same decision on both occasions. The hon. member has no point of order or question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a further question of privilege-a further question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a further question of privilege, which is my right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, how can you prejudge me?


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.

March 16, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, you are prejudiced against the hon. member for Leeds and certain other members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I do not feel I have to sit down, sir.


ST. PATRICK'S DAY
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, as one who is a descendant of a long line of O'Proskis I do not think this day should go by without wishing all those who are Irish and those who wish they were, like the McGraths, the O'Hnatyshyns, the O'Mazankowskis, the O'Jeromes, the O'Diefenbakers and many others, a very happy St. Patrick's Day: Erin go Bragh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct an error.
In yesterday's Hansard page 4215,1 am reported as saying:
Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. There are two possible ways to limit the debate under our rules.
Standing Order 33, and a little further on I mentioned S.O. 75A, 75B and 75C and, Mr. Speaker, on the same page, my hon. colleague from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said in English, and I quote:

What I am saying is that when the government already has the power to allocate time under Standing Order 75, it is inappropriate to put that into a statute.

Mr. Speaker, my point is that we both referred inadvertently to Standing Order 75, which does not apply to the kind of motion for which three days of debate are reserved under Bill C-42. Only Standing Order 33 could apply, because Standing Order 75 with its provision for limits on speeches, only covers public bills, as it is clear from the standing orders.
Therefore, I did not want to mislead the House and I am sure the Conservative House leader had no such intention either when he opposed the three-day limit provided for in clause 11 of Bill C-42, suggesting that such a limit be deleted

and reference made to the standing orders. Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 75 does not apply because what is involved in the legislation is "a motion to adopt order" that can be debated for three days.
Because we are dealing with a motion rather than a public bill, there can be no limits to speeches under Standing Orders 75A, 75B or 75C. The only way open to the government, failing that three-day statutory provision would be a formal closure under Standing Order 33. The opposition are asking in advance the government for something quite unusual. They are saying: "Do not set a time limit that would allow us to debate the motion to adopt order in case of emergency. Use closure!"
I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that clearly the opposition do not have a serious point when opposing the three-day limit in the legislation. All they want is delaying unduly the legislation, and the only possible way-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad Your Honour interrupted the parliamentary secretary because obviously and clearly that is not a point of order. It is an attempt to smuggle in, during the course of a point of order, a question of debate on a matter now before the House.


Yvon Pinard: No, no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The parliamentary secretary raised objection with respect to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland- Durham (Mr. Lawrence) which would do away with the arbitrary closure imposed in the terms of that legislation.


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member did not understand.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The parliamentary secretary can participate in the debate, but the fact of the matter is that this is an infringement of traditional parliamentary rights, and he knows it. To smuggle this in, in terms of a point of order, is reprehensible.


Yvon Pinard: It was the correction of an error.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the correction of an error in Hansard should be confined entirely to that. In the circumstances I must say that today the parliamentary secretary went a great deal further than he needed to correct Hansard.
March 16, 1979



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
{English]

[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 514, 857 and 1,187.
Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table copies of an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, held on Wednesday, March 14, 1979, concerning salary revisions of employees of the House of Commons.


HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both official languages copies of the 1978 annual report	of	the	Canadian	Human Rights
Commission.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT
Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the question to the House, I might say that I have examined the bill. I have found in some clauses a possibility of an infringement upon the prerogatives of the Crown respecting public expenses. There may be other curative provisions in the bill, but I want simply to file a caveat with the House at this time that I have observed these procedural problems. We have addressed ourselves to them in a preliminary way. While the bill will be read a first time, it is done with the caution, at the time the bill comes forward for actual consideration by the House, that first these procedural matters will have to be examined. They will have to be addressed and a ruling will have to be made by the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send it back to the Senate.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia) moved: the first reading of Bill S-12 (from the Senate), to amend the National Energy Board Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What was the volume, in dollars, of each Loto Canada draw, by province, since December 5, 1976?
2.	What amount was spent on each Loto Canada draw, by province, for (a) advertising and public relations (b) administration costs?
3.	What were the net proceeds from each Loto Canada draw, by province?
4.	What portion of net profits was directed to sports and recreation from each Loto Canada draw, by province?
5.	What was the total breakdown of (a) gross (b) net proceeds, from each Loto Canada draw since December 5, 1976?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: 1.	The volume, in dollars, of each Loto Canada draw, by province, since December 5, 1976 is as follows:
Draw	Draw	Draw	Draw	DrawProvince	No. 1	No. 2	No. 3	No. 4	No. 5Alberta	2,764,610	2,068,870	2,099,750	1,578,800	2,488,810British Columbia	3,601,070	3,247,760	3,877,290	3,196,750	4,848,290Prince Edward Island	241,380	235,480	198,470	217,060	251,560Manitoba	871,760	655,710	746,940	540,990	986,060New Brunswick	1,641,040	1,162,890	1,179,910	1,190,240	1,727,320Nova Scotia	2,697,090	1,909,550	1,864,600	1,748,790	2,436,110Ontario	19,283,950	13,932,250	15,249,590	11,275,520	15,000,010Quebec	27,574,390	22,201,110	24,261,070	24,924,230	34,255,210Saskatchewan	863,350	557,170	643,210	517,220	752,470Newfoundland	901,350	536,580	583,980	536,550	670,280North West Territories	23,270	21,900	17,980	10,700	15,400Yukon	10,970	12,660	12,760	3,890	5,920Draw	Draw	Draw	DrawProvince	No. 6	No. 7	No. 8	No. 9Alberta	2,724,650	2,164,310	1,920,400	2,115,620British Columbia	5,028,160	4,642,380	4,406,670	4,298,860Prince Edward Island	275,810	187,950	162,340	172,580Manitoba	984,450	715,890	683,000	801,590New Brunswick	2,187,690	1,583,640	1,260,480	1,354,540Nova Scotia	2,679,340	2,383,700	1,707,590	1,800,190Ontario	16,118,840	14,330,420	11,617,520	12,448,850Quebec	33,202,380	27,504,190	21,750,740	23,144,660Saskatchewan	812,500	650,620	597,270	621,450Newfoundland	855,380	696,630	560,880	646,180North West Territories	14,070	12,900	17,040	29,760Yukon	6,240	4,510	8,560	7,2802.	Not available by province3.	Not available by province4.	Not available by province5.	The total breakdown from each Loto Canada draw since December 5, 1976, is as follows:
March 16, 1979
Order Paper Questions
	(a)	(b)
	Gross	Net Proceeds
Draw No. 1	60558860	17237000Draw No. 2	46622970	10454724Draw No. 3	50826720	14694700Draw No. 4	45834860	10533682Draw No. 5	63553220	25499260Draw No. 6	64999300	23406696Draw No. 7	54999500	21702329Draw No. 8	44868840	13724000Draw No. 9	47607700	13657000


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


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Departmental budgets and records are not maintained by electoral districts but rather by program or by region. However, officials undertook a special review of all departmental individual grant files by federal constituency for fiscal year 1977-78 and for the current fiscal year up to January 24, 1979. The breakdown of groups funded in the Constituency of Richmond is as follows: 1977-78 Nil.
1978-79 (Up to January 24, 1979)
Name and Address
of Organization fecole Tournesol 14 Jeanne Mance Windsor, Quebec J1S 1 A3	Program Open House Canada	Amount $ 1,773	Date Approved April 5/78Les Toumesols de Windsor Windsor, Quebec J1S 1A3	Open House Canada	13,383	April 28/78Richmond High School P.O. Box 1100 Richmond, Quebec JOB 2H0	Open House Canada	5,054	July 18/78Asbestos Midget Modern Moving Hockey Club 446 St. Roch St. Asbestos, Quebec	Open House Canada	5,510	Nov. 20/78
2. The amounts granted to any region depend on the number and nature of projects submitted from the region which are evaluated according to the objectives and criteria of the Departmental programs concerned, the need of the applicant and the available resources. It is not possible to indicate in advance which projects will be financed in any given area.


Mr. Herbert: Is the Department of Veterans Affairs conducting a client satisfaction survey and, if so (a) how many persons are being questioned and how are they selected (b) what is the objective of the survey?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes, the Department of Veterans Affairs is conducting a Client Satisfaction Survey.
(a)	A questionnaire is being mailed to some 6,400 recipients of War Veterans Allowance and Civilian War Allowance, who are a representative sample of the total recipient population of some 94,000. Clients to be sampled are selected at random from the lists of those who receive the allowance.
(b)	The objective of this survey is to obtain the views of clients on how well they are being served by the department. An analysis of the results will enable DVA to concentrate its efforts to improve services on those areas of greatest concern to veterans and their dependants.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 599 and 725 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 599 and 725 be deemed to have been made orders for return?
Some bon. Members: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	What is the government's definition of a Multicultural Centre?
2.	What are the guidelines for submissions for grants or contributions under the Multicultural Centres Programme?
3.	For (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77 (c) 1977-78 (d) April 1, 1978 to date, how many Multicultural Centres were funded under the Multicultural Centres Programme and, in each case (i) what funds did the centre receive and were they in the form of a grant or a contribution (ii) what was the name and location of the centre (iii) who was the Director and what criteria were used in his/her selection and what salary did he/she receive while acting as Director (iv) what services did the centre provide?
4.	Has there been any attempt to evaluate the performance of the Multicultural Centres and, if so, what were the conclusions?
Return tabled.
March 16, 1979


Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, did the Secretary of State grant any money under programmes or projects, to persons or organizations in New Brunswick and, if so (a) in what amount (b) was the opportunity to apply for such grants advertised in the New Brunswick media?
Return tabled.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter one of the usual objections at this time. I placed a simple question on the order paper on November 27, 1978, question No. 649. It is almost a one-liner. It reads as follows:
Which department is responsible for granting end user certificates on Canadian arms exports?
It is completely beyond my comprehension that the government does not know what department does this task. If the government does not know, perhaps it could answer the question by saying that they are incapable of answering the question; that the question should not have been put; or they could answer the question by telling me which department it is. Procrastinating for some four or five months on a question as simple as that one indicates a total lack of attention to the job by either the parliamentary secretary or the department.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the only logical explanation is that all questions are treated the same way and that so many questions require some research that it is often impossible to reply to questions which may be simpler than others, and we do so as soon as we receive the answers. I can assure the hon. member that his question will be treated very seriously, but that he can expect certain very normal delays on occasion because, as I have said, there are a lot of questions to answer.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the basis of the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary in response to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). His remarks have to be in the category of simply being termed laughable. The fact of the matter is that we only have 80 days left. That is the maximum amount of time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has, unless he wants to break all tradition and precedents in calling the election. He will probably wait as long as he can.
Even on that assumption, on the basis of the performance of the parliamentary secretary regarding questions he has now answered, today amounting to the magnificent total of five or
Petroleum Administration Act
six, with the hundreds and hundreds of questions of a simple nature that are still on the order paper today, they will never be answered. As the hon. member for Victoria has pointed out, many of these questions are straightforward, unassuming and simple enough for the parliamentary secretary to get his mind around. If he continues to proceed in this particular way the people of Canada will have a deep suspicion about the intention of this government to answer legitimate questions, the answers to which the people of Canada have a right to know.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, this unexpected attack is surprising because the hon. member is repeating exactly what he said yesterday. I will simply say that as of March 14, 1979, 538 questions out of a total of 1,318 had been answered for an excellent average of 40.9 per cent, which is quite normal at this stage of a session.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Petroleum Administration Act.
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology) moved:: That it is expedient to amend the Petroleum Administration Act to provide that, effective April 1, 1979, the maximum amount of the charge to be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of oil exported from Canada, in any month be in such amount, not exceeding $15.00, as may be prescribed in a tariff of charges for that month made by order of the Governor in Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill C-48, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, be read the first time and printed.

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies


Mr. Speaker:: Since this follows upon passage by the House of a ways and means motion, I presume that the presentation of the bill at this time is with the consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion for first reading can be taken at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 15, 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. 2 (Mr. Lawrence).
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I had not in any way anticipated taking part in this debate, but I find it necessary, having regard to the way the rights of parliament are being tramped on, to speak and to speak very definitely and clearly. I am very concerned about the way things are going here. Indeed, I will deal with this on Monday. I find it difficult to understand why within the last couple of weeks a motion I made was not referred to in Hansard but was deleted. It was a motion I moved, seconded by my friend, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which now is a complete deletion from Hansard. If we get to the point where motions made in this House can be deleted because they do not meet with the finer sensibility of those in authority, then this parliament ceases to exist.
I am going to deal with that very clearly and definitely because what is happening here today is further evidence of the way in which parliament is being emasculated by this government. I am referring, of course, to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) in which he asks for the deletion of clause 11(4), which provides that there can be a mandatory allocation of supplies as a result of anticipated shortages, and that there can be an objection raised thereto. Then subclause (4) says:
At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the third sitting day following the commencement of consideration of a motion of which notice was given under subsection (2), or at such earlier time as the House of Commons is ready for the question, the Speaker, shall put the question forthwith without further debate.

What is the reason for that? Yesterday when speaking in Vancouver the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke of creeps.
I did not intend to speak today, but when I looked up the meaning of the word "creep', I thought that it aptly described the kind of creeping thing that is creeping into parliament so that more and more this institution is being undermined by a government that has no regard for it.
I was interested in finding the meaning of "creep". I looked it up and found that it is "nervous shrinking or shiver of dread". Certainly the way this government is postponing the calling of an election would indicate that the creeps are over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the minister why he needs this clause and who produced it. What about the rules as they are now? I am going to refer to them. I have quite a bit of respect for this minister. He was at sea during the days of war, and he is still there in the House of Commons today.


An hon. Member:: This is still a war.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to go into particulars of that nature. Is this clause another attempt to trample on the rights of parliament by gagging the members? What is its purpose? The government already has the power to prevent unnecessary discussion. Why does the minister want this additional power? The government has the closure method and used it during the pipeline debate. In addition the government has the guillotine rule, 75C. Why does it need another power? I have been in this House a long time and in the last few months I have seen the greatest degradation of the rights of this institution that I have seen in all those years. What does the Prime Minister think of parliament? We now have identification badges so members can show themselves as belonging to parliament. After all, we remember what he said about us, that members of parliament were so insignificant that when they got 50 feet away from the House of Commons they were nonentities and non-existent.


An hon. Member:: Nobodies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: With the aid of these wonderful badges they will at least be able to show that they are members of parliament.
Now what is this government attempting to do? Should I believe the government when it says: Of course, we just want this power, we are not going to use it? I think of the promises that have been made. During the question period I sent out to get some of the reports of promises that we have had from this government. I think of the questions this morning about inflation and rising prices. 1 just do not know how it came about that we have inflation, because in a speech of the Prime Minister on May 20, 1968,1 find that he said:
The government is not broke, but the government-if it wants to have a sound dollar-must sustain a balanced budget.
March 16, 1979

Then he said:
We have a balanced budget and it's going to stay that way-
It is in ways like this that we in the House and the country have been deceived, and this is what causes me to be very suspicious of the explanation concerning this particular subclause.
I could go on and read another promise of the Prime Minister. I have one of his press releases here and this is what he promised:
The government intends to hold down federal government spending and to keep our expenditures in line with our tax revenues. In other words, our aim is to achieve a balanced budget.
The people of Canada were deceived in the last election because they believed the Prime Minister when he said something to this effect: "We will not bring in price and wage controls." The then leader of the Conservative party said that they were necessary. We went down to defeat because the hon. member Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) said what he believed to be the fact. This government lied to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Is this government any more truthful today when they say that, as far as this clause is concerned, they really do not intend to use it? This parliament is an emasculated parliament. Why is there this rush in these dying days to bring in this particular section? What is the purpose? What is the means? I look across the floor and see the whip of the Liberal party, an intelligent man, and he smiles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad that his colleagues agree with him because what he is doing is smiling while parliament is being trampled on.


Mr. Railton:: I laugh when I hear that from you. I do not smile, I laugh, John.


John George Diefenbaker: I will be glad to receive any interruptions. I do not see the hon. gentleman here for York East (Mr. Collenette) who was here just a while ago. I was hoping that he would be here, because he spends most of his time in this House saying no to everything we bring in by way of Standing Order 43. I intended to say some very kind words to him. I was raised in York East and I have a very high regard for the people of that constituency. I just hope that they will rectify the mistake which they made when the opportunity comes.
If we give the Government of Canada the power for which they are asking in this bill and the power contained in the referendum bill, we might as well close this institution now. The opposition will cease to exist.


Samuel Victor Railton: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. gentleman saying? I would like to get those precious words.
Energy Supplies


An hon. Member:: He is just mumbling.


John George Diefenbaker: With the record of the promises which were made in 1974 and 1968 by the Prime Minister, the Liberal party and the members of the government, I can only conclude that anyone who trusts them when they say they are not going to rule in the House of Commons of parliament can only be suspicious and more than suspicious.
Just in passing I would like to mention that I am concerned about something which happened in the last couple of weeks when a motion of mine-


Alastair William Gillespie: I think that that is just terrible. I have been watching you.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. minister makes his finest contribution with a wave of his marshal hand. That is the most intelligent thing that he does. As a matter of fact, if we were in committee and called an adjournment we would be out, because we would not be able to hang around for a couple of hours until we got the necessary majority.
I am concerned about what is happening. I will go into some detail next week on this matter, but a motion which I had made was deleted from Hansard. It was deleted from the blues because it did not meet with the pleasure of those in charge. Once we reach the point where things which are said in this House and a motion which is made can be removed, then we are in a serious position in so far as this parliamentary system is concerned.
When I see this particular section, I simply ask one question. I am not going to speak at length at all. This parliament is a farce today, held over and over and over. Why? Because, to use the Prime Minister's expression-what is the word he used?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Creep.


John George Diefenbaker: Creep. This government is afraid of an election. The Prime Minister travels and faces university audiences. I can understand that because there is some intelligence there, and they proved it by their reaction yesterday. Creep, that is what this government is doing. It is bringing forth major matters of legislation at a time when it is expected an election will take place, which has been postponed from time to time by the Prime Minister because he is afraid to bring in a section such as this. It simply places parliament in the position of being a pawn under the control of a majority government. I would have more to say about that were we not waiting to vote on this amendment by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has stood and pointed out the danger. If the minister wanted to establish for himself a reputation for preserving parliament, he would ask those surrounding him to vote for this amendment. For if it is defeated, it is all over. The government can do what it will and pass whatever regulations it chooses, because at the end of three days a vote will take place regardless of the merits or demerits. Already having this power, why does the government

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies
want to repeat it? It is this kind of thing which is causing people concern, and they are learning a great deal as a result of TV. They are finding it difficult to understand some of the frivolities. After all, we are always serious in the House of Commons or we would not last very long. A sense of humour one must have, but across this country today people are asking themselves: "What is the attitude of this government? They give us answers that are not true."
I have had questions on the order paper since November 12 and November 22, I believe, which have not been answered. They are perfectly simple questions. The only reason that they are not answered is that the government is afraid of what the answers will be and that they will as a consequence be embarrassed. Trust cannot be built in this House of Commons that way. Parliamentary underlings cannot be deciding what questions shall or shall not be asked.
I asked another question, I believe around February 15 or February 20, which will be of interest to hon. members from Quebec, about how Levesque got the Legion of Honour. It is just a question because I see a nice relationship between Levesque and his former pal, the Prime Minister. Why do we not get an answer? I asked the Speaker in a letter to do something, and he said that there was nothing he could do. Yet the other day in the House I found out in consequence of an admission that he had informed the CBC that only certain selective things can be placed before parliament.
Another example is the Treu case. Treu was treated like a reprobate. What about "Go-go-Goyer"? We paid out $10,000 for that matter without any justification whatever. 1 am simply pointing out-and it is as disturbing to me as it is to all Canadians-that we have come to the point where we cannot believe anything which this government says. It either refuses to answer when it will be embarrassed, or the answers which it gives are given with a total disregard for the facts.
I simply ask of the minister that he establish for himself a record of an appreciation of parliament not by wave of the hand but by simply saying, "We do not need the power, we are not going to push it through and we will simply permit this subsection (4) in the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to be accepted." If he does that he will do more for parliament than anything else he could possibly do. He could at least show that he has a respect and an appreciation for parliament and that he does not intend to ride rough-shod over an opposition that produces an amendment to a provision which he does not need. If he does not need it, why does he ask for it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Appolloni:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would allow a question.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no objection to questions, but we are trying to get questions answered by the government now. I hope she will be more successful in any that she asks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The right hon. member did not accept the question.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he did.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, I will.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, a few seconds ago I was watching the electronic Hansard and I thought I heard a few references made by the right hon. gentleman to some deletions from the blues of Hansard of a motion he had purportedly made some time last week. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would elucidate and tell us exactly which motion was eliminated from the blues of Hansard.
The right hon. gentleman has been around for a very long time and has been most welcome in this House, but what he is imputing and the impression he could give to the voters of Canada, as I know he will understand, is very, very serious. I wish he would elucidate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question is a reasonable one and a responsible one. It had to do with a motion that was made in this House, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
The proper procedure in connection with motions under Standing Order 43 as I understand it is this: it does not require a seconder when it is made but once it is accepted by the Speaker then the motion takes place. I said that the Speaker, without giving me any opportunity at all, announced that it had been moved by me and seconded by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). I rose and said it was not seconded by him, that it was seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville. When that did not appear on Hansard, on the blues, I wrote underneath what had happened, clearly and definitely. The motion, I said, was moved by me and seconded by my hon. friend.
That is the point that I strongly object to, because if we get to a point where motions that are made here can be deleted because they do not meet the finer sensibilities of those who today are in office, then we have ruined parliament. I have to answer the question.


Yvon Pinard: Who are you accusing?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like the right hon. gentleman to state clearly, if he has a little courage, who he is accusing.


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. member grows older and more intelligent, he will realize the answer to that question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Disrespect.
March 16, 1979


Yvon Pinard: You want us to respect that?


Some hon. Members:: Chicken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite hon. members to give me a chance to speak. Taking into account the previous remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker); the question put by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) and the answer, I think the only conclusion I can come to is that Mr. Speaker will himself look at the transcript of what was said today and will be in a position to judge whether or not there was any reflection on the Chair. I am not at this moment ready to pass judgment.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now consider motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6. As suggested by Mr. Speaker, these three motions are to be debated together. It was suggested that a vote on motion No. 3 dispose of motions No. 4 and 6. If there is agreement I shall put these motions in front of the House, starting with motion No. 3.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham) (for Mr. Baldwin) moved: motion No. 3:
That Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 9 the following new subclauses:
"(7) If any order is not laid before parliament in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, it shall be void and of no effect as if it had not been made.
(8)	Notice of a motion to disallow an order may be given in the Senate, and shall be debated in the Senate on the next sitting day as the first order of the day and brought to a vote before the next two sitting days if not earlier disposed of.
(9)	If the House of Commons, in pursuance of a motion of which notice has been given within twenty-five sitting days after any order has been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing that order or any part thereof, any order or part thereof so disallowed shall thereupon cease to have effect.
(10)	If at the expiration of fifteen sitting days after notice of motion to disallow any order or part thereof has been given in the House of Commons,
Energy Supplies
being notice given within twenty-five sitting days after the order has been laid before that House
(a)	the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or
(b)	the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of the order or part thereof specified in the motion shall thereupon be deemed to have been disallowed.
(11)	If, before the expiration of fifteen sitting days after notice of a motion to disallow any order or part thereof has been given in the House of Commons
(a)	the Parliament prorogues or dissolves; and
(b)	at the time of the dissolution, or prorogation, as the case may be
(i)	the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or
(ii)	the motion has been called on, moved and seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of
the order shall, for the purpose of subsections (9) and (10) of this section, be deemed to have been laid before that House on the first sitting day of that House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation, as the case may be.
(12)	Where an order or any part thereof is disallowed, or is deemed to have been disallowed, under this section, the disallowance of the order or that part thereof shall have the same effect as a revocation of that order or part thereof."


Allan Frederick Lawrence: motion No. 4:
That Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be amended in Clause 13 by adding immediately after line 7 at page 10 the following new subclauses:
"(4) Any Order of the Governor in Council adding any alternative fuel and establishing mandatory allocation thereof shall be laid before parliament forthwith upon the making thereof, or if parliament is not then sitting, on any of the next fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
(5) Subsections 12(7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to an order made under subsection (1)."


Allan Frederick Lawrence: motion No. 6:
That Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 13 at page 15 the following new subclause:
''(3) Subsections 12(7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) apply with such
modifications as the circumstances require to an order made under subsection
(1)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the House in speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who is absent on House business. I appreciate the tolerance and patience of members in permitting me to move these motions in his name and in his place. We all know the very just reputation the hon. member for Peace River has established in and out of this House as a prime mover and promoter of more open government. He is one who has devoted a great deal of his public life to the attempt to ensure that accurate information is available not only to members of the House but also to the public at large. He strives to ensure that when this House passes bills or motions or resolutions, it knows what it is talking about. Quite frequently he has made the argument, and it has been a just argument, that on many occasions the information is simply not readily available.

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies
Another crusade he has had in his public lifetime is to make sure that orders in council and other policy directives and measures of the government are presented and made public so that they can be debated in this House. On many occasions there are parliamentary manoeuvres, sometimes based upon the rules and sometimes not, which simply do not permit this.
In this particular case the hon. member for Peace River is perfectly justified in proposing this series of amendments. His purpose is based on the fact that he believes, and I agree with him, that this particular bill gives very dangerous powers to the executive which ought to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is the purpose of the government, in some small measure in any event, in relation to the whole series of clauses within the bill which require that the order in council declaring the national emergency be tabled and released for there to be a debate in this House, even though it will be a severely limited and truncated debate, the maximum time of which can only be three days under the provisions of the bill itself.
I think we all agree with the hon. member for Peace River who has said in the past that parliament has been too sloppy and too lax in giving authority away without any recourse. Clause 11 of this particular bill deals with the declaration of an emergency by cabinet. Clause 12 deals with the development of the controls programs. Clause 13 deals with the method of amending the program of controls and clause 19 deals with the rationing program of controlled products.
The amendments before the House for discussion would not prevent the government from passing its orders or acting on controls, but it would compel the government to be far more particular and careful in developing these programs which it would deem to be essential and acceptable. Under these amendments the government would have to be prepared for a possible motion of disallowance.
The thrust of these amendments is to turn the onus around so that the program, the allocation order, the order in council, is not valid unless it is presented to the House within certain times as specified. If it is not presented to the House and if it is not passed by the House, then it is disallowed. This is a complete change from the provisions now before the House. Under such a motion, if these amendments carry, the government would have to be prepared to justify and explain to the House why they are making these orders.
It would also make good sense, if there was a motion for disallowance, to refer the order to the energy committee, which should be given the time, even if the government deems it be limited, to dig up the facts and to shift through the information, and also possibly to call witnesses in respect to a matter which could be fairly technical. All regulations made under clause 16 and clause 20 will appear before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments so that they will be scrutinized.
I would like to refer to one other matter briefly. Motion No. 4 deals with a particular amendment. There is a potential problem area relating to the definition of "alternative fuel".

Although clause 13(2) states that the act applies when an alternative fuel has been added to the compulsory allocation scheme, it also declares in the next phrase that the act applies-
-with such modifications as the circumstances require-
This factor, combined with the provision relating to alternative fuels coming after the tabling requirements of sub-clause 12(6), quite possibly allows an interpretation of the bill by the government whereby an amendment to the allocation program by the governor in council relating to natural gas or other alternative fuels may be exempt from presentation in parliament.
I suggest to the House that, taken as a whole, this is probably not the intent of the minister or of the government, or indeed the intent of Bill C-42, but it might be open to such a legal interpretation. Therefore, I suggest that a re-examination of this whole provision is desirable by the government. That is why I am moving motion No. 4 standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River. I do this especially in view of a similar provision in the old 1974 Energy Supplies Emergency Act, which in section 13(2) specifically stated that the provisions of the act applied mutatis mutandis to alternative fuels, designated controlled products. I suggest the wording of the old act is far more precise and less subject to argumentative interpretation.
To sum up, subclause 12(6) requires regulations made pursuant to the legislation to be tabled forthwith in parliament. There is no such requirement that regulations of a similar scope made pursuant to clauses 13, 14 or 15 be laid before the House, and these amendments in part will rectify what I and the hon. member for Peace River consider to be a very serious omission. I am sure they fall within the intent of the minister and of the government. I am sure they fall within the intent of the drafters of the bill. In my opinion, it is a serious omission which should be rectified, and these amendments attempt to do just that.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the statements made by the hon. member opposite in some detail. This is a complicated area. There are three amendments that are interrelated, and indeed they relate as well to the previous amendment, motion No. 2. In view of the hour, I would ask Your Honour's indulgence to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
March 16, 1979

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Government House Ottawa
March 16, 1979 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General of Canada will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 16th day of March, at 4.15 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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 motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 (Mr. Lawrence, for Mr. Baldwin).
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to address myself to the three amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). There has been lengthy discussion on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), and in that discussion the concern expressed by the opposition was that parliament would not have a sufficient opportunity to consider the declaration of an emergency for the purpose of this legislation, nor would it have an opportunity to approve such a declaration, which declaration would call upon the energy supplies allocation board to establish a mandatory allocation program.
I think it has been shown that the measures taken by the government in providing three days for debate are better than the alternative of using Standing Order 33 suggested by the
Energy Supplies
opposition House leader, which would require two days. There was some reference by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to the possibility of using Standing Order 75C. The advice I have received is that that particular measure would not be available to us and that Standing Order 33 would have to be used, which in an emergency one would anticipate would provide only two days of debate, not three.
Throughout this debate with respect to these amendments and the rights of parliament there has been a very obvious misunderstanding on the part of the opposition with respect to the nature of an emergency and the ways by which parliament and, indeed, the government of the day, must deal with such an emergency. There has been little recognition that in an emergency a government must deal and must be able to deal with a sure hand. It cannot contemplate weeks of uncertainty. That would be the effect of these three amendments. If adopted, they would introduce weeks of uncertainty at a time when an emergency had been declared and when a mandatory allocation program was being established.
Amendments to that mandatory allocation program would be approved by order of the governor in council. The review process which the hon. member for Peace River wants to put in place would introduce an extraordinary element of inflexibility in amendments to the mandatory allocation program described in clause 12(4) on page 9 of the bill. It would have the effect of introducing uncertainty at the very time when we would want to introduce certainty into an extremely complicated administrative process. It would be a complicated process because it would be dealing with energy which includes crude oil products and the energies associated with that which pervade the basis of our economy. It would deal with the production and consumption parts of the process.
Hon. members will realize that a mandatory allocation program which the energy supplies allocation board would have to produce would deal with such things as designating the regions in which the program would operate. I am referring now to clause 12(2) of the bill. A mandatory allocation program would designate the regions in which the program would operate, if it was not to operate in the whole of Canada. The program would specify the petroleum products, the supplies of which would be controlled under the program. It would set out the priorities of use of the controlled product.
Clause 13 deals with the allocation of alternative fuels. The mandatory allocation program would deal with a number of basic elements, regions, geographical areas, products, alternative fuels and priorities. There are three levels of priorities, and those priorities have been established through discussions with the provinces, but it is quite possible that there could be a large number of amendments to the mandatory allocation program as a result of representations by, for example, the provinces, consumer groups, producer groups or transportation groups.
If these amendments were to be adopted, their effect would be to hamstring significantly the ability of the energy supplies allocation board to deal with amending orders in a way which would introduce a degree of certainty and a sense of urgency

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies
and speed in dealing with the whole question of a highly complicated area in which literally thousands of individuals, businesses, institutions, corporations and separate legal personalities would be involved. I would have thought that hon. members would be anxious to reduce uncertainty and to confine as much as possible the time frame in which decisions could be upset, delayed, postponed or interpreted. It is for these reasons that the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Peace River fail to move me.
There is one point I might just add, and it has to do with the first part of motion No. 3. Motion No. 3 would add a seventh subclause dealing with an order approving or amending a mandatory allocation program. The proposed subclause reads as follows:
If any order is not laid before parliament in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section, it shall be void and of no effect as if it had not been made.
The force of that proposed subclause is that it would require action by the government within several days to table before parliament the particular amending motion or amending order. If the government did not do so, the order would have no legal effect. I cannot complain about that particular provision, and I would not object to it if that were the nature of the whole amendment, but it goes much further than that and introduces, as I have said, a whole series of measures and provisions which could delay the certainty of a decision by many weeks. Clearly, in an emergency-and it would be a national emergency, as defined in the legislation, related to energy and security of supply-it would not be in the public interest to accept an amendment which could have the effect of hamstringing the administration of an emergency program. For that reason I will vote against the amendment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendments in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and I want to thank the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) for presenting these motions on behalf of the hon. member for Peace River.
The minister has pointed out that the effect of these amendments would be to create uncertainty and, to use his words, an element of extraordinary inflexibility and to hamstring the board. I think the minister failed to back up his statement. He made the statement and left it at that.
As has been pointed out by other hon. members who have participated in this debate, if there is a real emergency and not a phony one, parliament in its wisdom would surely act decisively. There would be no reason for it to do otherwise. What these amendments do is insert a check and a balance in the system which really are very fundamental to our system of parliamentary democracy. I think we would do well to take heed of the significance of these amendments.
As my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has pointed out, the hon. member for Peace River has had a long and distinguished career in this House. He has provided a long and distinguished service to Canadians and he

has been a watchdog of parliament. He has been constantly vigilant of the importance of our system of parliamentary democracy-and we know that there have been erosions. It is only natural that majority governments, in their wish to pursue certain pieces of legislation with vigour and enthusiasm, tend to ignore and to trample upon the rights and traditions of parliament.
In this particular case, albeit we are dealing here with an emergency, I think it is incumbent upon us all to recognize the fact that we should not be too eager to ignore the traditions of parliament and the requirement to be constantly vigilant in dealing with matters of autocratic governments or governments which wish to superimpose their wishes upon the Canadian people. This really is a protective device.
The debate that has been going on here centres around the measure wich incorporates legislative closure. I think that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham deserves to be highly commended for his concern in this matter. The amendment we have been dealing with here has provided some stimulating debate and given incentive to stimulating thoughts in terms of the preservation of our system of parliamentary democracy. At any time use is made of the guillotine rule to stifle debate, our liberties and freedoms are weakened and trampled upon.
The important thing for us to remember when we are dealing with an emergency such as this is that although there is a role for the government, there is also a fundamental role for parliament, and parliament must be supreme in the final analysis. What has concerned many members in this debate is that the government's record vis-a-vis its policy of rule by edict is pretty dramatic. When we look at the record of orders in council which have been passed in the last three years-we all know that orders in council are a necessary and important part of our system of government-and when we look at the number that have been published, we find that an inadequate safeguard has been provided for parliament and for the Canadian people.
For example, in 1976 there were 3,326 government orders in council passed, of which only 653 were published or made known to the Canadian public. In 1977 there were 3,746 government orders in council passed, of which only 860 were made public; and in 1978, almost 4,000, or 3,973 government orders in council, were passed and only some 812 were published. What we are saying here is that we have been subject in this country to being governed by government orders in council.
This is a very important debate and I am sorry the government sees it as one needing to be rushed through. We know that this is legislation to deal with an emergency, but the implications of this bill are very important from the standpoint of the energy resource industry and are very important from the standpoint of its impact upon the traditions of parliamentary procedure. The spirit of this debate has centred around those two points.
March 16, 1979

Government members have attempted, during the course of this debate, to pay more attention to justifying the existence of Petro-Canada than to dealing with the central part of this legislation. Hon. members opposite must be really nervous because at every opportunity they try, in an inadequate fashion, to make a case for Petro-Canada, to make Petro-Canada the central issue, and in so doing are likening themselves to the NDP. If this had come from the corner of the House to my left, I would not be surprised, but to see government members so preoccupied with their favourite state enterprise, namely Petro-Canada, really overwhelms me.
I see present the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) who hails from the city of Sarnia. I am surprised that he and his community, which has survived and contributed to Canada through its industry and petrochemical plants without the existence of Petro-Can, has to be such an ardent supporter of this.
As I said, in taking that position they prove they are no different from the NDP. It also confirms that they believe in government ownership as the first resort rather than as the last resort. They have also demonstrated throughout this process that when they speak of ownership, what they really mean is government ownership. They believe that Canadian ownership can be best achieved through government ownership. That is the central issue here and the cut and thrust of the debate which has emanated from that side of the House.
I think, as has been pointed out, that there is no crisis here. It is a fabricated crisis, sparked by a cutback of 100,000 barrels of oil from Iran, an amount which is equal to the production of one heavy oil upgrading plant or one additional tar sands plant in this country, an amount which could be met by the availability of the shut-in surplus which is presently available in the province of Alberta if we had an adequate delivery system. But such is not the case, thanks to the inadequacy of, and lack of leadership from, this government and successive ministers of energy.
This bill was ostensibly brought in to meet an emergency situation, but what we have here is the opportunity for government members to do some flag waving in favour of their most favourite state enterprise, Petro-Can. In the course of this, they set out to mislead Canadians into believing that all is well and secure so long as Petro-Canada is here.
As I said earlier, the authoritarian powers contained in this bill are of concern to us all. What I think is of concern as well is that it puts the federal government in a position to lasso provincial energy resources, if this can be done, in a real or imaginary crisis, because the powers are so broad.
Third, the presentation of this bill at this time is, in my view, a blatantly political move. The tactics which are now being used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by other leading spokesmen of the Liberal party are spreading fear and division in this country as a result of this so-called energy crisis. Clearly it is not in accordance with the facts to suggest that it is not a political gesture or move. It was even suggested in an article that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) agreed with this statement:
Energy Supplies
It is a bill which the Liberals intend to flourish during the election as a substitute for the energy policy they failed to develop in the seven years since the Arab boycott.
The article continues as follows:
Justice Minister Marc Lalonde admitted as much-for the Montreal media which he perhaps thought would not penetrate to the rest of Canada-when he described it as a good election plank.
We have a government which is using energy to promote its own political advantage. That is shameful and disgusting.


An hon. Member:: From what are you quoting?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The quotation came from the Globe and Mail article entitled: "Tyrant in Ottawa". It began as follows:
The Energy Supplies Emergency Act is a bill produced by the federal government under false pretences.


Mr. Cullen:: Who is the author?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The article appeared in the Saturday, March 10 edition of the Globe and Mail.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: What is the author's name?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sorry but the article does not show the author.


An hon. Member:: The Globe and Mail is afraid to put a name to it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Hon. members opposite quite frequently refer to the Globe and Mail when it is to their advantage.


An hon. Member:: It is a Tory paper.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure it is a Tory paper. I always thought it was a Liberal paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I think there is a clear provision in the rules of the House that when a member quotes from a newspaper he has to accept responsibility for what he is quoting. I think the traditions of the House are very clear on that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am glad to acknowledge the point made by the hon. member. The document from which I am quoting appeared in the Saturday, March 10 edition of the Globe and Mail. It is entitled: "Tyrant in Ottawa." I am not sure what else the hon. member wants. Whether I am taking responsibility for it or whether the Globe and Mail is taking responsibility for it, when a member quotes from a newspaper article in the House he must identify simply the source. The source in this instance is the Globe and Mail. If Your Honour has a different ruling, certainly I will accede to it.

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, could we hear the view of the Chair to see if it is correct that when a member quotes from a newspaper article, he has to accept responsibility for what he quotes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: I do not have Beauchesne's in front of me, but clearly that is a tradition of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not sure whether Your Honour will rule on this matter, and I am not sure what the hon. member is implying when he suggested that I should take responsibility for this article. It is an article which has been published widely. I think it is worthwhile repeating. I am doing that for the obvious benefit of the hon. member who perhaps may find the statement will broaden his intelligence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not in a position to answer the point raised by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). I have attempted to identify some citations, but my first impression is that the point made by the hon. member is more related to an unidentified document than an identified one. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has identified the document. Unless I find another interpretation, the impression I have given at this time is adequate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to table the entire article and newspaper; it could be appended to Hansard. It does not make much difference to me, but I think what Your Honour really said in handing down your decision is that the intervention by the hon. member for Gloucester was very silly. He should know better; he has been in the House since 1968. I am surprised at his very frivolous point of order.
Another point I should like to make flowed from the mouth of the honourable member for Gloucester last night. The bill has given members opposite an opportunity to attack the premier of the province of Alberta. That is really unjustified. The one-price system for petroleum products has been referred to by the honourable Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). It is a system for which the government takes credit, but I should like to point out that the one-price system in effect takes away from revenues which normally would accrue to the province of Alberta. Whether we like it or not, something in the order of $14 billion to $15 billion has been relinquished by the citizens of Alberta as a result of the one-price system. That generous approach was referred to by the honourable member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) when he spoke yesterday.
It is important to recognize that this measure has been condemned by the producing and consuming provinces. The province of Ontario referred to it as a form of War Measures Act. In his attempts to divide and conquer, the Prime Minister suggested that Alberta and Ontario cannot agree on anything. But one matter which the two provinces have agreed upon is the position they take respecting this particular bill. Once again the Prime Minister is resorting to the same old tactics: divide, conquer and confrontation. The Prime Minister has

made a career out of his policy of confrontation, dividing and attempting to conquer. As a result Canada has been victimized by those actions. In effect, the bill gives the government an opportunity to use that device once again. It sums up the total substance of the government's energy policy over the last 11 years. This bill will further the confrontational tactics within the country. At the present time there is confrontation with the private industry and the provinces. If it was not Exxon, some other company would have been involved.
The problem is that the premiers of the provinces simply do not trust the government or the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They did not trust the minister's predecessors either. Really that is what is wrong. Certainly spirited leadership has been lacking from the minister and the government. Through some spirited leadership I think it is possible that we could bring together the producing and consuming provinces. We would lay the groundwork for a sensible and rational method of resolving our energy problems. There seems to be a pathological envy for the resources which lie under the ground in Saskatchewan and Alberta in the minds of the government, particularly in the mind of the Prime Minister. The government is prepared to forgo Canada's ability to have a secure and adequate supply of energy because of the envy it holds for the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The government is concerned about the growth of the heritage trust fund. I should like to tell the House something about the fund. It is being used for the benefit of Canadians and for the building of Canada. There is evidence of this in terms of the loans which have been made to other provinces and the agreement of the government of Alberta to go ahead with the development of a port facility in Prince Rupert. Also there is evidence of this in terms of the fund's leadership in the area of medical research.
I could go on and on, but I simply implore the Prime Minister not to deny Canadians an adequate and secure energy supply simply because of his envy and dislike for one province. What is wrong is that there has been a lack of leadership, policy direction and action. The reason there is an inadequacy today is the government's ineptness and incompetence. Petro-Canada will not turn the situation around.
If we look at a document entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada", under the "Chronological Listing of Policy Initiatives, 1973-1976" we find for January 1974 the following:
The federal government announced a policy of an all-Canadian coast-to-coast pipeline network to develop self-reliance in oil and details of the Interprovincial Pipeline extension to Montreal.
That was the announcement back in January 1974, but we are no further ahead in the development of that Canadian coast-to-coast pipeline today that we were then, over five years ago. That quotation is from page 152 of that document, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the interprovincial pipeline connection to Montreal has been completed, but there has been a constant campaign by IPEC, starting in June 1966, with more pleas in
March 16, 1979

1969 and representations by provincial governments in the 1970s in this regard; but the government's response has been nil.
I mentioned earlier that one heavy oil upgrading plant would meet the deficiency we are now dealing with which really triggered the introduction of this piece of legislation. We are talking about a vast quantity of energy resources regarding heavy oil supplies. It has been estimated that there is something in the order of 30 billion to 40 billion barrels of heavy oil in place in the province of Alberta, with perhaps an equal amount in the province of Saskatchewan, and that does not take into account the tar sands.
Since the OPEC crisis in 1973 we have had one tar sands plant put in place, we have had the pipeline extension and we have had Petro-Canada. I congratulate the minister for his interest in heavy oils. He did come out to Lloydminster to see this at first hand, but until that visit I am sure he never really realized the potential of heavy oil.
This is really where we stand: we do not have the kind of imaginative and challenging leadership we need. That was really evident, and it is still evident because there really has been no progress made to upgrade heavy oils in order that they can be fed into our light crude refining facilities.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae).


An hon. Member:: Oh no.


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make two or three very short comments. 1 want to deal with some of the questions the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) posed in the last few minutes but will do so later at the third reading stage. I would like to comment now on two or three things mentioned by the last two or three speakers, particularly by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). That hon. member asked the minister a long series of questions, most of which were dealt with in the committee. They were the kinds of questions that should be dealt with at that stage.
However, it is very interesting to note that when this bill was at the committee, as far as I can discover, having attended most of the meetings and read the transcripts of the proceedings, there was not a single Atlantic provinces Tory member present to put forward the concerns of the Atlantic provinces. Basically speaking, we were dealing with the interests of the west, Alberta and British Columbia, represented by members on the Tory side at the committee, and Ontario. There may have been someone who crept in at some particular point-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: We were there speaking for Canada.
Energy Supplies


Paul Edmund McRae: I am concerned with the kinds of comments made by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think this is a very genuine point, Mr. Speaker. First of all, by tradition of this House we do not permit members of this House to reflect upon the motives or lack thereof of members, or whether or not they were at the committee. I should point out to the hon. member, who really was not that constant in his own attendance at the committee, that there was at least one member from Halifax, and one member from Newfoundland, both Conservative members, who were in constant attendance at these committee meetings. I think the hon. member should withdraw the implication of what he has just said.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Paul Edmund McRae: I will not withdraw until I see the names in print. I was at most of the meetings, certainly last week and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will just allow me to make a comment. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has made a valid point with which I agree. Hon. members are prevented by the rules from reflecting on the motives or conduct of their colleagues in proceedings of the House. I am not in a position to decide about something that happened in committee. I am sure the hon. member did not intend to do that for which he has been reproached by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. Perhaps he will explain his comment or modify it.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same point of order?


Walter David Baker: No, this is another point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have invited the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) to perhaps modify his remark, and that maybe would solve the difficulty.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, this may have occurred during a fuss that was taking place in the House, but in defence of the hon. member I wanted to point out that I thought he had said that he withdrew the remark.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, he said he would not.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the ruling of the Chair and withdraw the remarks if I am not allowed to discuss or make comment in the House about whether members, collectively and generally rather than as individuals, were at committee meetings. If that is the case then I withdraw the remark. I would not withdraw the remark on the basis of its

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies
being inaccurate, but rather on the basis that I was not in order in making that kind of a statement.
I should like to comment on one aspect of the remarks of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East having to do with the difference between heavy and light crudes. He made a fair comment, a reasonable objection and expressed fair concern. I do not know whether it has been mentioned by the minister, but the dealings with Venezuela are in respect of light crude. I understand that as a government we are looking, along with the Mexicans and Venezuelans, at problems in respect of heavy crude, but certainly in terms of the Exxon loss and making up that loss we are talking in terms of light crude that we can handle in our refineries.
Perhaps I should leave the rest of my comments until third reading. At that point I would like to take exception to the announced policy of the Tory party to move an additional large quantity, perhaps 300,000 barrels, of crude to the east via a reinforced pipeline between Manitoba and Sarnia.
Let me conclude by saying that, as I understand reserve figures, at our present rate of 315,000 barrels a day we can sustain that movement until 1983, and that after 1983 there will be a decline. That being the case, this announced policy would have very little effect, particularly if we do not get a number of Syncrude plants in operation.
I can understand the policy in respect of Syncrude plants. I would like to deal with this in much more detail, but already we are, in effect, through tax breaks and so on, turning back about 50 per cent of the capital required for those projects without equity to the companies. This, plus the assistance of the Alberta government, may run back close to 75 per cent of the capital without equity.
I do not think that the Canadian public would like to see that kind of flow increased without equity. This is one of the reasons we need Petro-Can. However, I would like to deal with this in more detail at a later date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I undertand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is opposing or, at least, expressing reservations about the east being served more adequately by the enlargement of the pipeline to Montreal and the east?


Paul Edmund McRae: What I am saying is that in the long run, and I think that we are talking about the long run, I am concerned about the value of increasing that pipeline if it will only move 315,000 barrels per day until 1983, whereupon it will begin to decline. There does not seem to be much reason for increasing the flow through that pipeline.
I think that one of the things which we are going to have to do in the long run, since I am asked the question, is to start substituting gas, coal and other things for oil, which would

mean perhaps that the Q and M pipeline and the Montreal-Quebec gas pipeline may be a much better answer than enlargement of the oil pipelines. Such substitution will eventually be necessary. The figures which were put out by the department in a document called "Our Energy Future" indicate very strongly that we are going to have to get from 46 per cent dependence on oil down to about a 30 per cent dependence within the next 22 years. That is a fairly short period and a fairly significant cut in the amount of oil.
For this reason I think that we have to question how much we should expand. I think that there is some expansion expected, in the area of about 50,000 barrels. If we expand, however, then we have to take the consequences of the system declining in the early part of the next decade.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a supplementary question?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he is expressing the views of the government and whether, when one analyses all the words he has used, he is not really expressing grave reservations about the wisdom of increasing the pipeline capacity for oil going east.


Paul Edmund McRae: I think that in the long run this is one of the real problems we will face. Unless there are larger reserves found out west, unless we can develop more tar sand plants- and I do not think that it can be done by tax concessions; I think it has to be done by a company like Petro-Can-then I am just wondering if this is a feasible answer, certainly if there is no oil there. That is all I am saying. I am not expressing government policy. I am just asking the question that, if there is not enough oil in the west, what is the point of expanding the size of the line?


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on record the position of the New Democratic Party with regard to motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). As you know, Mr. Speaker, we support in principle the need for any federal government, no matter what its political stripe, to have the power to act effectively in terms of a national emergency pertaining to energy supply. We supported a similar bill back in 1974, and we support this bill before us today.
We have some reservations about parts of the bill. We have indicated that we support the Conservative motion No. 2 to remove the closure aspect allowing for only three days of debate once the government had decided that a crisis does exist. We feel that the government has at its disposal the normal provisions to impose closure and that the opposition would not act irresponsibly if a genuine crisis did in fact exist.
However, we cannot support the amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River because, in effect, what they do is, through the back door, subvert any active measures the government may take in dealing with an energy emergency. The bill provides, of course, that the government institute a mandatory allocation program, that this would be debated under the normal provisions and that it
March 16, 1979

would then be tabled. The Conservative amendment would allow for a motion to disallow the allocation program to be made within 25 days and disposed of within 15 days.
However, the real catch-and this is why we say that it subverts in a roundabout way-is that if the motion is not disposed of one way or another within the 15-day period, the mandatory allocation program announced by the government would automatically die. It seems to me that no government, in wanting to act responsibly, could allow this kind of cut-off to take place, this automatic undermining of a policy.
Surely if we have the debate when the government announces that an emergency is in existence, and if the House of Commons approves that there is an emergency, then we should accept the fact and not do as these three amendments suggest, that is, subvert the decision made by the majority in the House of Commons. Surely that is a normal and accepted practice. If we have a full debate and air the issues, we then accept the consequences of the vote of the day and the subsequent decision.
It seems to me that to go along with the idea of these amendments, which say that if we cannot resolve the matter either in the affirmative or the negative after 15 days any action the government may take to allocate supplies must immediately terminate, we are right back at square one and in the position of going through the whole process again. This will only cause chaos and confusion in terms of energy supplies throughout the country. It would prevent the government from acting quickly and effectively to ensure that Canadians receive their energy supplies by means of rationing or whatever form of allocation would take place.
As I say, in a way these amendments are a ploy and almost a subterfuge to undermine responsible action by government. We may disagree, as the opposition does on many occasions, with the policies of the government, but in the end we must allow that government, duly elected, to make decisions and take action. Otherwise parliament will degenerate into an ineffective operation and Canadian consumers will suffer the consequences.
I would have preferred the Conservative party to develop a more rational approach to energy in Canada and the problem of supply.
I cannot for the life of me see why they are wedded to this absurd proposal to dismantle Petro-Canada, the only option that gives us a chance to combat the arbitrary decision-making of the multinational oil companies in Canada as witnessed so recently by the Imperial-Exxon affair. If we do not have a publicly owned corporation to take effective measures, we will be forever at the mercy of these foreign oil companies which already own 90 per cent of our oil production.
We have to take steps to establish an alternative. Surely, in light of our past energy situation, that has to be a Crown corporation such as Petro-Canada. I wish the government were more serious about how it uses Petro-Canada. The minister likes to wrap himself in the flag and tell us how he is going to
Energy Supplies
use Petro-Canada to get at the big bad boys, Exxon and Imperial. He can go a lot further in terms of having Petro-Canada take over the 100,000 barrels a day allocation that Imperial gives to eastern Canada so that we do not face the charges of a middleman called Exxon, or face the interruption of supply in the future.
So far, I understand from the minister that he has authorized Petro-Canada to negotiate for 100,000 barrels in addition to the 200,000 barrels already committed to Exxon and Imperial by Venezuela. I do not think that is good enough, nor do I think it good enough that the minister has not vociferously insisted that Imperial make up the 9,000 barrels per day shortfall that still exists in supplies to our eastern Canadian refineries.
The only way to counterbalance the power of companies like Imperial and Exxon is to have an effective and fully operational Crown corporation such as Petro-Canada. We in this party see a much enlarged role for Petro-Canada in our energy future.
To reiterate, Mr. Speaker, we in this party will have to vote against the three amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for the reasons I have outlined. I hope that we may move on to the other amendments that are before the House this afternoon without too much delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 3 in the name of Mr. Baldwin.
All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This motion also disposes of motions No. 4 and No. 6.
Motions No. 4 and No. 6 (Mr. Baldwin) negatived on division.

Energy Supplies


Reginald Cyril Symes: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-42, An Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, be amended in Clause 17 by
(a)	striking out line 23 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor: "market areas;"
(b)	striking out line 28 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor: "for the controlled product; and"
(c)	adding immediately after line 28 at page 13 the following new
paragraph:
"(d) designating Petro Canada as the sole importer of petroleum and petroleum products into Canada."


Alastair William Gillespie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you just clarify for me the procedure right now. As I understand it, we are dealing with the last amendment before the House of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is the understanding of the Chair.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 5 standing in my name seeks to amend clause 17 of Bill C-42. Perhaps for the benefit of the House I should read it to put it in context and then explain the reason behind the amendment. The relevant part of clause 17 reads as follows:
17. (1) Where the Governor in Council considers it expedient to do so, he may order the Board to regulate the importation of any controlled product into Canada indefinitely of for such period as may be specified in the order.
(2) For the purpose of carrying out an order under subsection (1), the Board may make regulations
(a)	respecting the quantities and qualities of any controlled product imported or to be imported during such periods as may be prescribed by the Board;
(b)	respecting the storage of imported supplies of any controlled product in market areas; and
(c)	respecting such other matters or things in relation to the importation of the controlled product as may be necessary to support a mandatory allocation program for the controlled product.
My amendment would add paragraph (d) as follows:
(d)	designating Petro-Canada as the sole importer of petroleum and petroleum products into Canada.
You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that my amendment still allows discretion to the board to designate Petro-Canada as the sole importer of offshore oil. It is a discretionary provision in clause 17. The reasoning behind it is quite clear.
We could conceivably be faced with another interruption in supply of offshore oil to eastern Canada. The situation in Iran could worsen and production may not reach the level it was originally. As a result, Exxon or any of the other multinationals that supply other parts of the world aside from Canada may once again divert oil contracted for and bound for Canada. We will not be out of this predicament until we move toward a concept of self-sufficiency. It seems to me, if we are to be faced with this problem of multinational companies diverting oil destined for Canada that a way around the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
situation in an emergency is to designate Petro-Canada as the sole importer.
There are a number of advantages in doing this. First, we know that governments such as the Venezuelan government which currently supply 40 per cent of our imported oil are quite anxious to deal on a government to government basis. In that context Venezuela is quite anxious to deal with our state owned petroleum company Petro-Canada. In the event of an emergency it would seem to me to be much easier to contract for new supplies from some of these OPEC countries, if we were dealing through a sole importing agency such as Petro-Canada. Such a company could state to a government; "This is the emergency situation we have; we know what the allocation plans of the government are, and here is what we would like to contract for in terms of additional supplies." The government would not need to go to an intermediary, such as a parent company of multinational subsidiaries located in Canada, to ask for more oil from the parent company, and it would not need to ask the parent company to get more oil from the host country producing it. By having one agency, rather than a multiplicity of subsidiaries of multinational companies doing the contracting and arranging, it would facilitate things in times of an emergency instead of working under the traditional patterns of subsidiaries of multinationals which, as we have seen already, do not have a commitment to Canadian needs and priorities.
The second advantage of designating Petro-Canada as the sole importer would result in Canada having an effective window on the industry. It would know what is happening in terms of price and supply. One of the reasons we in the New Democratic Party, during a minority parliament, pressed so hard for the government to set up Petro-Canada was this very fact that we must always rely on the oil industry for statistics in terms of what oil is available and at what cost.
With a Crown owned agency responsible to the Government of Canada operating as the importer, we would be able to get an accurate assessment of what oil was actually available from host countries, and we would not have to rely on the middleman which the minister said in the House the other day skims off some of the money for arranging to bring this oil to us. Our own publicly owned corporation would be able to negotiate and would be able to tell us directly the cost of oil that we would need in an emergency situation.
Obviously we will have to get some oil on the spot market, but it is very important that we get oil at the cheapest price possible. When you are out wheeling and dealing in the international market and having to buy oil on the spot market, we know that the bidding and prices go up very quickly. If we have to rely on multinational oil companies to do that kind of bidding and arranging, especially in an emergency situation, past history has indicated-and indeed the minister's own comments in the House the other day have indicated-that the likelihood is that we will be charged more for oil imported during an emergency.
The middleman, the multinational oil company, and often its paper transacting corporations, or even the shipping lines
March 16, 1979

that it owns in terms of oil tankers, will be jacking up the price all the way along because of the vertical integration and the way these corporations operate. If Canada had one sole importing agency responsible to the Government of Canada, namely, Petro-Canada, we could get an accurate idea of supply and of what the real cost is. In that way we would protect the Canadian consumer.
It seems to me the lessons of the past few weeks and the lessons of the oil crisis of 1973 indicate that as long as we rely on the multinational oil companies, we, as Canadian consumers, will be jeopardized. We have been ripped off in terms of price and supply problems in the past. Anyone who remembers the famous lineups of cars at gasoline pumps in the United States during 1973 will recognize that much of that situation was contrived. The oil companies had the capacities in their oil refineries but deliberately kept production down to create an artificial shortage which created not only panic in the United States but helped to drive up the price as well. In light of that kind of history of manipulation, surely it becomes imperative that we give a bigger role to our own publicly owned national petroleum company.
To paraphrase the minister that he would like to eliminate the middleman, Exxon, in Imperial's deals with Venezuela in contracting oil for Canada, I would like to eliminate the other middleman eventually, namely, Imperial Oil itself, and use Petro-Canada as the importing agency to buy, and then in turn sell, oil to the refineries in Canada. It is not an impractical suggestion. It could be worked almost in the sense of a marketing board as we have in other product areas in Canada. It could almost be a paper transaction kind of situation. I would hope eventually we could move into the actual physical aspect of the operation that Petro-Canada could contract for tankers to move the oil. There is excessive tanker capacity in the world today, so that should not be any problem.
It seems to me that my amendment makes sense in that it gives the government an option in terms of the legislation. I stress this is not a compulsory amendment, but an option. It gives the government some authority if it wants to move in the direction of giving a greater role to Petro-Canada. I know the Liberals only move toward enhancing Crown corporations and the government's role in these areas when they are pushed right to the wall. I would hope that the government would take the initiative and try to prepare for crises, rather than having to react so rapidly when a crisis develops.
In the sense of propping up and giving the government some courage that there will not be any challenges to the role of Petro-Canada, I have moved this amendment to incorporate in the legislation the clear option that it can make Petro-Canada, in an emergency, the sole importer of offshore oil.
I think the arguments I have put forward in the context of our energy history, and the most recent developments, indicate we must have this very viable opinion, a full utilization of Petro-Canada. Otherwise we could not solve this recurring crisis facing Canadians in terms of manipulation of the oil
Energy Supplies
market by multinational oil companies. Those companies do not have loyalty to any one country or to the populace of any country, only to themselves and their maximization of profit.
I commend my amendment to the House. I know in committee the minister was not favourably disposed toward it. That was before Mr. Armstrong of Imperial Oil announced that he would ignore the demands of the minister with regard to having Imperial act directly with Venezuela rather than through Exxon. The minister has been given a slap in the face by Imperial on two counts. First, he said that Imperial must deal directly with Venezuela. He has been turned down. Second, the minister said that any diversion of oil by Imperial was unacceptable. He has been turned down on that ground as well because Imperial is still diverting about 9,000 barrels a day.
In light of this most recent history I think the minister will see the wisdom of my amendment, change his opinion, and accept it. I therefore commend it to the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, because this is the minister's bill I thought he might want to reply to the mover of the amendment. In the event that he does not, I would like to take a few short minutes of the time of the House.
What the NDP amendment does is suggest, as usual, one of two crutches that a socialist party anywhere has. First, if they do not like what is going on, they want it nationalized. This was even the attitude a few weeks ago of some NDP members of the House when we were discussing Air Canada and CNR. They almost forgot themselves and cried out that if we nationalized both of those, it would be the answer to everything. That is their answer on the post office problem-nationalize the Post Office and that will cure everything.
The other cure that they come up with is some sort of statement on organization. If anything is going wrong and if you cannot nationalize it, or if it is against the popular will, their simplistic view is to set up a state run organization of some type or other to cure all the little ailments. It is very depressing to see a minister of the Crown in what used to be a Liberal party, parrot and mimic that type of approach all down the line. Certainly Canada has a crude oil or energy problem. It is as a result of a lack of a decent policy. In desperation the government reaches over and starts to parrot and mimic socialists by saying that the answer to all our prayers has to be Petro-Can.
I wish to point something out to the House. This amendment calls for Petro-Canada to be the sole, only, and exclusive importer of offshore oil in times of an emergency. The idea is that Petro-Can would apparently be in a better position than anyone in government or industry to ensure that we get our continuing share of crude oil from offshore. Presumably because the minister has now agreed to insert Petro-Can into the allocations basis, Petro-Can will have an immense part to play in regard to the allocation of that crude oil domestically to refineries. I merely point out one conflict of interest of Petro-Can in that event. If Petro-Can is merely a state oil

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies
trading company, that might be possible. Of course it is far more than that. It is in the distribution business, the refining business, and the retail business as well. There would be immense conflict of interest in attempting to have a state trading concern import and allocate oil to the industry, including itself. We would have to look upon that with some suspicion.
Getting back to the emergency situation, there is no need for Petro-Can or any other single state agency to be inserted into the offshore situation in times of an international emergency. There is already an international agency which does that, the International Energy Agency. It was set up by treaty with 19 signatories, including this country, which will operate and run it.
Under the international treaty that Canada belongs to, the IEA has set down an allocation formula. It will oversee, supervise, and correct any inequities and imbalances with regard to that type of international solution. Therefore, there is no need for Petro-Can to be inserted into the international offshore crude oil market in the event of an international emergency. The control agency is already there. It is not a Canadian one, it is international.
I have to believe that the purpose of our socialist colleagues in the House goes far beyond the international emergency situation. I feel they want Petro-Canada to be given the power, the foot in the door, so that it can gain experience in the international field, a situation in which it has little experience at the moment. It could eventually be the sole and exclusive importer of offshore oil in all circumstances, both in times of emergency and non-emergency. That would be a disaster, for many reasons.
First, in an emergency situation at the very time that experience, storage facilities and international knowledge are needed, when there is an impending shortfall of crude oil on the international scene, that is not an advisable time to insert an inexperienced management group. It would not have the international knowledge of where the crude oil may be on the spot markets. It would be the very worst time to set up Petro-Can or any inexperienced, amateurish, state run agency in the international field.
I certainly do not want to defend in any manner, shape or form the present or past history of the multinational oil companies of the world in the world market. On many occasions they certainly have not acted in Canada's best interest. They may not even be acting in Canada's best interest right now. They are obviously acting in their own best interests. That is what they are there for. There is no question about that, but 1 suggest that at times of shortage or impending shortage the one and only asset we can use in the national interest as far as multinationals are concerned is their knowledge and experience and their access to these international pools, especially if they have binding contractual agreements with Canadian companies. The very time when there is an impending shortage in the international field is certainly not the best time to change horses.

It is a shame, and one of the tragedies of this government and this country that we have to rely on multinationals at any time for any amount of crude oil. However, that is another story for perhaps another debate on another series of amendments. Perhaps that could be debated at third reading, but this is certainly not the time for that. I think this is not the moment to allow Petro-Canada a foot in the door. A time of emergency is not a good time for Petro-Canada to be leading up to being the sole and exclusive importer of all offshore oil for all time. I would be interested in hearing the minister's views on whether that is the way we should be proceeding with Petro Canada. I do not believe we should.
Let us consider what would have happened, for instance, if Petro-Canada had been the sole importer of Iranian oil at the time of the Iranian revolution or, to coin an Irish phrase, the "troubles" in Iran of last December and January. Canada receives supplies, as I understand it, from Iran through a number of companies, BP, Petrofina and Gulf. In addition, my understanding is that other multinationals such as Mobil, Exxon, Shell, and perhaps Texaco, also receive Iranian supplies, but those companies certainly did not ship Iranian oil to this country. It was shipped mainly through BP, Petrofina, and Gulf. There may have been a few small independents as well, but if instead of all those multinationals we had had only Petro-Canada, I wonder what different sources Petro-Canada would have had to make up for any deficiencies which would have hit us. They would have hit us very hard if we had been solely dependent on Petro-Canada at that time.
Petro-Canada is to be the only wholesaler or buyer of Mexican crude oil, which we all hope some day will come on stream so that we can utilize it here in Canada, at least in the short interval before we are solely dependent on our own.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We are not sure about that either.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It has been suggested to me by people in the industry that having Petro-Can officials inserting themselves into the Mexican situation at the request of the minister set back some very serious negotiations which were already under way between such Canadian companies as Gulf Canada and Mexico. For years Exxon bought Mexican crude. Gulf Canada, for instance-and there are other examples as well- was at the point of finalizing very serious negotiations with Mexico. Access by this country to Mexican crude has been delayed by a number of months-


Alastair William Gillespie: Nonsense.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -solely and simply because Petro-Canada people have no experience and no negotiating expertise in this field whatsoever. Again it is an example of the heavy hand of government. People in the industry and even some in the minister's department were not consulted. They did not have advance knowledge of what the minister was going to do.
At the moment Exxon receives 600,000 barrels per day of Venezuelan light crude. I understand that the contracts be-

tween the Venezuelan producers and Exxon are fairly binding. The minister is now attempting to get people to break contracts which they have with Exxon. He is attempting to have some of that oil diverted to Petro-Canada so that Petro-Canada can supply people on the Canadian scene. That is a bit of a contradictory policy. The minister is obviously pushing Petro-Canada for all it is worth as a middleman instead of multinationals. I am not sure that this is the time for that type of intervention, but are we to believe that Petro-Canada is doing what it is doing out of charity?
The other day the minister made a dramatic scene in the House about middlemen's profits. That was nonsense. If Petro-Can is to be the middleman, it will charge fees and commissions. In some cases those fees and commissions will be greater than the present ones. There are some Canadian companies which deal directly with the producers in Venezuela. For instance, Shell buys its Venezuelan crude directly from Petro-Ven of Venezuela. As I understand the minister's policy now, he is telling Imperial Oil to deal directly, but on the other hand he is telling Petro-Canada to make sure it is the only one to buy Venezuelan crude and to sell it to Imperial Oil. I say that is contradictory. Apparently it all depends on what day of the week it is, because this minister can certainly speak out of both sides of his mouth on this matter. Such intervention might have been acceptable a year ago when there was a glut on the international market, but there should be no intervention now of Petro-Canada in the international trade picture.
This is positively the worst time to be upsetting complex negotiations. I suggest that for three reasons. First, in no way can the minister or Petro-Canada guarantee that they will get the quality of light crude which Canadian refineries need. The minister can evade all the questions in the House about this he wants, but there is no way he can guarantee that, and neither can Petro-Canada. Neither can the Venezuelans because they are not too sure yet whether they can break their contractual agreement with Exxon.
We know that there is no other light crude available. As a matter of fact Venezuela is running out of light crude. It will run out of that immensely valuable crude by 1981 or 1982. Neither the minister nor Petro-Canada can guarantee the quality of oil we will get, if we get any.
Second, the minister cannot guarantee quantity. There may not be a sufficient quantity of Venezuelan oil unless there is some reduction under the Exxon contract.
To hold Petro-Canada up as the answer to a maiden's prayer with respect to this problem we are in is ridiculous. I excuse the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) because he does not know any better, but the minister should know better, and it is the minister who is leading the Canadian public down the garden path by making the statements he makes.
The third and final point is the question of price. There is no way that Petro-Can is going to get the oil at a cheaper price or even at the same price that Exxon and Imperial are paying for it now. The reason for that is very simple. That is the reason
Energy Supplies
why the Venezuelans themselves have been leading the minister on, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has walked into their trap. Let me just tell you why.
I have talked with Venezuelans in Venezuela and with Venezuelans in Canada; I have talked with Canadians in Venezuela and with Canadians here who have had many years of experience down there. At one time, before the nationalization process down there, a huge number of Canadians technicians and officials were there, very good Canadian citizens who were of great benefit to Venezuela. We have an immense pool of knowledgeable people in this country and I can tell you exactly what the situation there is.
The Venezuelans are as fed up as many of the other producing countries are of the squeezing near-cartel of these multinationals that has existed for 50 years in the international market place. At present they feel they are squeezed by Exxon which takes at least 600,000 barrels a day from them. When you have a single large buyer like that, obviously you do not have all the levers at hand in order to up the price. What the Venezuelans would like to see-and I contradict the minister-is a number of smaller, amateurish buyers coming in to buy that 600,000 barrels a day output from Venezuela rather than just Exxon. They do not care whether they are state oil companies or private oil companies. Their only purpose is to break up that near cartel. Why? So that they can play one of these small buyers off against another.
If they can sucker Canada and Canada's Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources into putting enough pressure onto Imperial and onto Exxon to get part of that daily output from Venezuela-and it will only be a part-they will have felt they might well break the near monopoly of Exxon.


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


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I finish in 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I will merely repeat once more that by inserting Petro-Canada into this deal the minister cannot guarantee the quality of oil we need for our refineries because they need a particular type of light crude; second, he cannot guarantee the quantity of oil that we may be needing because Exxon may not have the contract broken; and finally, by inserting Petro-Canada into the Venezuelan deal, the Canadian consumer or taxpayer, one or the other, will pay a great deal more for his gasoline and fuel oil at the pumps and from the trucks than he has ever paid before, thanks to the actions of this minister and this government.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the observations of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), in terms of the
4258

March 16, 1979
Energy Supplies
situation in Venezuela are absolutely true and, if anything, incomplete in terms of a description of the kind of market place to which this minister is sending Petro-Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Leave it all to Exxon.


Harvie Andre: Every importing nation, all of the European Common Market nations which import, and that includes all of them, countries like Japan and other western industrialized nations, will have felt the pinch of Iran. Every one of them will be down in Venezuela and Mexico and other places trying to negotiate a deal for their countries. Under such circumstances, we saw in today's paper that Venezuela intends to raise the price on a barrel of oil by 25 per cent. They are in a beautiful situation. This minister and this government are sending down a novice group to negotiate, with instructions to get 100,000 barrels a day, we do not know at what price. They can pay any price they want. Also, there is no question of quality. Quality is not something that the minister is bothered about, nor is price. The group is just told to go down there and buy 100,000 barrels of oil a day. Anybody can do that with a blank cheque.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Goyer did it.


Harvie Andre: Yes, we had that experience in 1974 when the government paid $45 for a barrel of oil, the highest price we ever paid for oil. It was the last time this government went out to buy oil and it was the highest price ever paid for heating oil. It worked out to $45 a barrel, and it was not good heating oil because the sulphur content was so high that it had to be blended.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister said he sent it back.


Harvie Andre: So now we are going to send the same group down to Venezuela with a blank cheque and tell them to buy us 100,000 barrels a day. It is the sincere hope of that minister that when the bill comes in for that little exercise, the election will have been over and in the meantime he will have stood up and said: "I stood up to Exxon". My, what a tough fellow he
is.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) of the NDP is to be expected. It is their doctrine and their dogma that the government should do everything, that Big Brother knows better than you or I, that Big Brother should run everything, not just the oil industry but the Post Office, and so on, that Big Brother is the one who knows all, and that Big Brother in the form of state ownership should run the entire country. I understand that, but I do not agree with
it.
I think that socialism is a political philosophy and an economic system which have not worked anywhere in the world. I cannot understand how it is that people continue to advocate an economic system that has a proven record of failure everywhere it has been tried. Nonetheless, I respect that party's right to carry on advocating such silly economics. But what really got me was the rationalization of this dogma when the hon. member said that by putting Petro-Can in the international oil markets and by having Petro-Can buy all of

Canada's oil, we will have a trusted Crown corporation to give us a window on the world market.
Obviously the hon. member believes, for dogmatic reasons, that Crown corporations are good and can be trusted. Does he feel the same about Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and their little deal with Argentina? I wonder perhaps if he would explain to me sometime how he can be so absolutely certain that a Crown corporation with the name of Petro-Canada can be trusted to be honest, efficient, and effective, when we have had the experience with a Crown corporation whose name is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which sold a reactor to Argentina. First we lent Argentina the money to buy the reactor and the contract will cost us millions of dollars, and then we had to pay under the table bribes to get the contract. Here is a classic case of what is wrong with Crown corporations.
When that deal was first signed, the predecessor of this minister, Donald Macdonald-who, incidentally, is now a director of Shell, one of the big, ugly multinationals, and he was fighting multinationals in the 1974 election but now he is their director-stood up and said that AECL is a classic example of the wonderful things that Crown corporations can do for us. He said that because he was pushing through the Petro-Canada bill at that time. He said that we should look at how wonderfully Atomic Energy of Canada had done in selling this reactor; that it was at the forefront of world technology; that it was doing great things which would be tremendous for Canada; and that we should see Crown corporations as wonderful and marvellous vehicles.
When the Auditor General looked at the books we found out the truth about the deal. It was after the election when we found out the truth. One could not find a minister who would admit ever having heard of the name "Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd." One could not find a minister who would come forward and take responsibility for its actions. This should have been done by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). That was all forgotten, and a new Crown corporation came along. It is called Petro-Canada and it will save us. The onus is upon the government to prove that nonsense before attempting to persuade the Canadian public to accept it. The public is faced with the record of Crown corporations, particularly Crown corporations under the responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Those corporations are the ones with the most dismal record.
As I indicated, I respect the right of the NDP to be wrong. They advocate a socialist economy and state ownership, for dogmatic reasons. Also for dogmatic reasons they proposed this amendment. It behooves us to think carefully about the consequences of doing this. If Petro-Canada were the sole purchaser of all Canada's offshore supplies of energy, all our eggs would be in one basket. An enormously important sector of the economy would be in the hands of the chief oil buyer of
March 16, 1979

Petro-Canada. If he made a mistake, the entire country would suffer devastatingly.
I ask the House to consider for a moment the threat of the multinationals. When one takes away all the hyperbole surrounding multinationals, one realizes that they are a threat to our sovereignty. They can do and say things which offend us as a sovereign nation. We feel offended that companies headquartered elsewhere could have such a profound effect on the country and we can merely react. We in this party found that offensive, and the country finds it offensive as well.


Yvon Pinard: Prove it.


Harvie Andre: I am getting to that. If we proceed with this motion and Petro-Canada is our sole purchaser abroad, one must think about the restrictions on our sovereignty and on our freedom to act in foreign affairs. Last week the president of OPEC made a suggestion that they should require that all purchasers of OPEC oil and gas must adhere to and support the Palistinian position in the Middle East. Can one imagine what would happen if our state-owned oil company purchased all our offshore oil from the Middle East, from Arab countries?


An hon. Member:: Why would they do that?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member should rethink that comment.


Harvie Andre: Again the minister is showing that his intelligence level is below average. If we are to have an oil purchaser, presumably he will buy from all of the selling nations. Is the minister in all honesty suggesting that we should deal with one country only, and be totally at risk in terms of the policies of that country? Of course not. It will be spread around.


Alastair William Gillespie: You suggested that we should buy all our oil from the Middle East.


Harvie Andre: No. We would buy it from the Middle East, Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela and so on.


Alastair William Gillespie: Now you are changing your comments.


Harvie Andre: If the minister would listen and perhaps read the newspapers, he would have seen the quote from the president of OPEC suggesting the OPEC nations require that the nations purchasing OPEC oil support the Palestinian cause. Is the minister prepared to stand in Etobicoke and say, "We will sacrifice sovereignty in terms of an independent foreign policy. We are quite prepared to say we are sorry to Israel but we cannot support you any more because our national petroleum company will be cut off from its supply of OPEC oil, and that will be too devastating to the country"? Is the minister prepared to say that in all honesty?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) rises on a point of order.
Energy Supplies


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Harvie Andre: I will answer the hon. member's question in a moment. The member refers to the threat of the multinationals in terms of our sovereignty. I recognize and agree with the threat, except this very important fact cannot be defended: we know what motivates the multinationals. Profits motivate the multinationals, as they motivate Canadian companies or anyone in business. We know the rules under which they will operate. Therefore our regulations, laws and procedures can accommodate this known behaviour. Would some member in the House like to predict how Ayatollah Khomeini will behave? Can some hon. member say with absolute certainty how future governments of Venezuela will behave? Can some member predict how Saudi Arabia will behave?


Some hon. Members:: And Exxon?


Harvie Andre: Exxon and the multinationals, which hon. members opposite speak about, will seek to maximize their profits. Did they not hear that? Did they not understand that? I am not surprised.
My second point is that all these companies have assets in the country over which the government can exercise authority. The government has a lever which it does not have in terms of offshore countries.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Harvie Andre: Because the minister has not exercised the lever.


An hon. Member:: How?


Harvie Andre: If he wanted to he could. It is wrong for the minister to suggest that Petro-Canada will bail us out through Venezuela and Mexico. When we get down to the bottom line, it is offensive to think of the Department of External Affairs in its new building on Sussex Drive with hundreds of high-priced very capable people. I am led to believe this, but I do not have much to do with them. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has trade commissioners all over the world. There is an ambassador in Venezuela. The Canadian Commercial Corporation was created for the purpose of state-to-state business deals of the kind being talked about. Why does the Department of External Affairs not do its job and negotiate with the Venezuelan government? Why do our trade commissioners not sign a trade agreement with Venezuela if that is what we want? Why do we not use the Canadian Commercial Corporation?
Every time we find out the government has not been doing its job, why is a new department, agency, Crown corporation or layer of bureaucracy created? It is given a fancy name; and the government says that it will cure the problem. These lads must be tripping over each other. What is the trade commissioner in Venezuela doing? If he is not negotiating in Caracas in terms of oil then we should get him out of there and put someone in who knows how to do the job. What is our ambassador doing in Venezuela? Why do we need another

March 16, 1979
Order of Business
layer of bureaucracy? Canadian taxpayers are paying handsome salaries to these people. Why do they not do their jobs? Why do we need another layer of bureaucracy?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[Translation\
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 9, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. The hon. member for Vaudreuil on a point of order.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I notice Your Honour called item No. 9 as the first order of business under private member's business according to today's order paper. I am rising at this time because it is the first opportunity to question why the order paper was printed in this fashion. There is item No. 32 which is to be called for third reading and which, in my opinion, should be at the top of the list of private members' business.
In a few words I am going to explain why I believe there has been a wrong order of business printed in the order paper today.
Standing Order 18(1) states quite clearly that:
All items standing on the orders of the day, except government orders, shill be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.
That is quite clear. In other words, the order of business is predetermined and is not something that can be changed except by consent of this House.
I want to read Standing Order 20(2) as that is possibly where the difficulty arises. It states:
After any bill or other order in the name of a private member has been considered in the House or in any committee of the whole and any proceeding thereon has been adjourned or interrupted, the said bill or order shall be placed on the order paper for the next sitting at the foot of the list under the respective heading for such bills or orders.
Apparently, from what I have been able to look at today, it has been the practice in the past in this connection to drop a bill such as No. 32 to the bottom of the list of public bills. I find that this has not been contested and, though it may be
establishing some sort of precedent, I question that this is the intent of the standing order.
I want to turn to the first part of Standing Order No. 20(1) which states clearly:
The day to day precedence on the Order Paper of Private Members' Business, except as otherwise provided, shall be as follows:-
Again, there is no option or choice. The Standing Order then lists paragraphs (a) to (f), (a) being third reading and passage of bills; (b) being the consideration at the report stage of any bill reported from a standing or special committee. I would at this moment only mention paragraph (f) which says "other orders", and I assume that must refer to items such as notices of motions, notices of motions for the production of papers, and notices of motions (papers).
The point I want to make is that the bill in question, item No. 32 on the list, was brought into this House from committee at report stage and was listed in Tuesday's order paper as the first item of business. It was listed as the first item of business because there were no public bills at third reading that had precedence, and there were no bills that were at the report stage, so it appeared on the order paper in first position and was debated.
That bill is now at third reading stage and I suggest that it should be at the bottom of the list of bills which are at third reading stage in the list of private members' business. Of course it is the only bill which is at that particular point, third reading, so it should be the first item of business called today.
I will make one more point. On Tuesday of this week the bill was at report stage on the order paper. Today the bill is at third reading stage, and that is another reason it should not be considered in the same category, perhaps, even as on Tuesday of last week. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you call as the first item of business today item No. 32, a bill which is standing in my name.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I followed with interest and some curiosity the line of argument being advanced by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who has had the temerity to bring forward a bill that he believes is designed to eliminate certain divisiveness in this country but which, instead, of course, is producing divisiveness, and pretending that he can bend the rules of this House in the way he is trying at the present time to have his particular divisive bill put at the top of the list when, as he alleges, it has passed report stage. If I remember correctly, the last person on-


Harold Thomas Herbert: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let him finish.


Harold Thomas Herbert: This is on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) is seeking the floor on a question of privilege.

March 16, 1979


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 am speaking on a point of order and-


Harold Thomas Herbert: This is a question of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Let him finish his point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Vaudreuil on a question of privilege.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, my reason for rising on a question of privilege is that I very carefully discussed a point of order. I have been discussing an order of this House, and the member has now introduced into his argument on the point of order some points concerning the bill which I did not introduce and do not want to introduce at this time. I am discussing only a point of order and 1 respectfully suggest that you do not allow any discussion of the bill itself, the implications of the bill or any points in connection with it, but that we deal solely with the point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. After listening to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) I think he is quite right. He has raised a point of order which concerns a matter of great importance to him since this is his bill. Perhaps with the indulgence of the House I would suggest that the Chair take this point of order under consideration and render a decision at a later date. I will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for the purpose of discussing the point of order, without any reference to the subject matter of the bill.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order itself, it does seem to me that the argument advanced is to the effect that the bill, which was at report stage at the conclusion of Tuesday, as it appears at page 4119 of Hansard, ceased to be at report stage just because the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) who had the floor at the time, called it five o'clock. I feel the argument he is using is phony because the bill could still be at report stage. There is no evidence as I see it that it has ceased to be at report stage. The hon. member argues that it is now at third reading stage and should go to the head of the list of private member's bills which are at third reading, this being the only one. That is a completely specious argument, and these matters ought to be taken into account when you are making your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 wonder why the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) wishes to prevent me from speaking. He says: "No more". It seems to me that I have the right to rise in the House on such a serious point of order.


Some hon. Members:: You are wasting time.
Order of Business


Yvon Pinard: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I would have liked the preceding speaker to put more meat on the point he was trying to make. He claims, without explaining why, that the reasons given by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) are ridiculous and unfounded. Anyone who reads Standing Order 20(1) and (2) with serious intent and an intelligent mind will see that a distinction must be made between a bill at the third reading stage and a bill still in second reading or at any other stage mentioned in sub-paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Standing Order 20. If we, as legislators, had not wished to give bills at the third reading stage priority, we would have remained silent on the subject, Mr. Speaker, and all we would have required is that once a bill had been dealt with at one stage and time had lapsed, it goes to the bottom of the list without exception.
But if we have deemed it necessary to provide all the distinctions set out in Standing Order 20, it must be because we wished to give priority to some bills on the basis of the stage to which each had progressed. So it seems to me, offhand, that the point raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil is a valid one. I know you are about to reserve this matter. I do not wish to force the House to adopt my view, since it is not in my power today to give priority to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vaudreuil over the one sponsored by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). If you are about to reserve this important matter, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to read carefully Standing Order 20(1) and (2); I am convinced you will find there the reason why we deemed it necessary to give bills at the third reading stage priority over those, for instance, still on second reading. And if we follow the logic expounded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, I think it will be found to be more convincing than the groundless argument expressed by the follow-up speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) are taking up the time allotted to the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) in this private members' hour. Every time the hon. member has a private members' bill before the House, the government side seems to want to filibuster it. I am surprised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There have been contributions to the point of order by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). All three contributions will be taken into consideration and a decision will be rendered at a later date.
Order No. 9, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta (Mr. Siddon). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.

March 16, 1979
Railways


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 13, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 16, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Order No. 17, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.

[ Translation]


ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES CONSERVATION ADVISORY AUTHORITY ACT
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved: that Bill C-221, to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve abandoned railway lines in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-221 provides for the establishment of an authority to conserve abandoned railway lines in Canada. Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the possibilities offered by abandoned railway lines and unused rights-of-way in the field of rapid urban transport and recreation. Too often in the past, buildings were erected on portions of lines sold by the railway companies, which virtually prevented the establishment of urban transportation, bicycle paths, foot paths, or snowmobile trails. In the long run this bill will protect the interests of the people in urban transportation and recreation by conserving the use of lines and rights-of-way of abandoned railway lines.

Increasing numbers of people in Canada have come to realize what a fantastic, unused resource are these lines running out from cities which provide a linkage between our urban areas and the countryside, these lines of open space which have a potential as linear parks not only for bicycle paths and hiking trails, but for other imaginative recreational uses. These strips in most cases link urban centres with the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
countryside and have the potential to form the basis for a network of trails and bicycle paths which would provide a recreational opportunity for people that, up to now, has not been available to either citizens of the city or the countryside.
The CNR offers these lines to the provinces and has indicated that henceforth it will offer any such abandoned railway lines to the provinces if they are prepared to pay the market price for them. The CPR has taken the position that it will simply sell the lines back to the contiguous line owners.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sell them back! They were given the lines in the first place.


Ian Watson: Right. When these lines were originally built, the railway companies benefited from government assistance.
It seems to me that this resource has the great potential of improving the quality of life which we enjoy in our cities and towns. Under no condition should we be allowing the railway companies to turn back this land to the neighbouring owners at prices which usually do not provide a productive return to the railway companies. Even if a small portion of a line is sold, it ruins the potential of that line being used. Such a network would enhance the ability of people within its area, and even of people living between cities which are a considerable distance apart, to communicate with each other by means other than highways and existing railway lines.
The bill which I have proposed would set up a committee that would be empowered to advise the government in so far as these railway lines are concerned. It would advise the government on, for example, the best way of taking an inventory of the existing abandoned railway rights of way in Canada, which would include a determination of just who owns what as far as these lines are concerned, because there is a great deal of confusion about who in fact does own some of the rights of way.
I believe that at the moment the CPR is in litigation which could be extremely expensive from its point of view, resulting from such a situation where it has found that one of its main lines belongs to somebody other than the body to whom they thought it belonged. Another thing which this advisory committee could do is assess and determine the potential use of such a right of way for rapid transit. We passed a bill on April 30, 1974, which allowed the re-use of railway shunting yards for other purposes within city cores. That bill, the Railway Relocation Bill, also provided for the upgrading of existing railway lines for urban transit purposes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And the government promised a lot of money for it too, remember?


Ian Watson: Yes. Unfortunately this government has ignored this bill recently, but the lines are still there and the potential is still there. In my view, we will have to make use of those lines sooner or later. If we follow what I propose in Bill C-221 we would be more adequately prepared for that potential use of the lines for rapid transit purposes. The committee which I am suggesting would advise the government on wheth-
March 16, 1979

er it would be wise to use such a line for a bicycle path, a nature trail, a hiking trail, snowmobiles in the wintertime- these things would have to be ironed out with local authorities. In my view they are matters which also would have to be decided primarily by the provinces or the local municipal authorities in the area through which the line might run.
If we at the federal level do not take the steps at least to slow down the process of throwing these abandoned lines on the open market after a very short period where, if they are not literally given away, they are sold off in a manner which further spoils forever their potential, then we are not taking our responsibilities seriously. The cost of preserving the lines would not be too great. I feel that if this bill is not going to pass there are two or three things we should do. Mr. Speaker, I think I am about to be interrupted.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, His Excellency the Governor General of Canada had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-29, an Act to amend the National Housing Act and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make other related amendments-Chapter No. 16.
Railways



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Watson that Bill C-221 respecting the establishement of an authority to conserve abandoned railway lines in Canada be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I was in the
process of giving some reasons why, in the event-


Some hon. Members:: Can we call it five o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When we were summoned to the Senate we were in private members' hour. The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) had the floor. Private members' hour is scheduled to continue until five o'clock, so the hon. member for Laprairie should continue.


Ian Watson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we were interrupted I was in the process of indicating that if this bill which I have proposed today and which deals with abandoned railway lines is not going to be passed by the House, there is nevertheless a necessity for the government to act now and I want to take this opportunity to urge certain action upon the government.
CNR is the only one of the two national railways that takes a reasonable attitude toward railway lines. They at least offer these abandoned railway lines to the provinces; the CPR does not even bother to do that, but I should point out the CNR's position. This is a position they indicated was their policy two or three years ago. It reads:
Once abandonment of a line has been approved by the Canadian Transport Commission, salvageable materials are removed, such as bridges, tracks and ties, and steps taken to dispose of the land and remaining improvements. Attempts are made to dispose of the property en bloc to government bodies or agencies, such as provincial or local municipal governments and provincial hydro commissions. In the absence of interest on their part and on the part of public utilities, such as Bell Telephone, steps are then taken to dispose of the land to adjoining owners. In every case we endeavour to get market value for the lands involved.
Experience has shown that even the one year notice the authority would receive from the railway before the railway would be able to divest itself of any section of an abandoned railway, which my proposed bill suggests, is not adequate. Upon reflection, we will need a period of up to about five year before a railway should be allowed to dispose of such an abandoned right of way. This is not an excessive period when one considers the length of time we take to iron out conflicts between different levels of government. If one is caught in a situation where the land is offered to a province and one provincial department cannot make up its mind and the matter is referred back to some federal department, and so it goes to a

March 16, 1979
Railways
second federal department, two or three years can be used up very quickly.
If we cannot pass a bill like this quickly what should be done in the interval is for the government to initiate a new procedure for dealing with abandonment of railway lines or rights of way with the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Without being totally specific with my recommendation as to what they should do, the principle would be that they make sure no section is alienated or sold, or in any way disposed of without allowing for an exhaustive examination of alternative public uses. I have already gone over these alternative uses. Whether it is rapid transit or various forms of imaginative recreational uses, and more and more of them are being suggested all the time, we should give the public-whether it is through the provincial government, through the federal government, through the municipal governments or through local societies or clubs-plenty of time to decide what they can do with this land usefully and inexpensively.
1 would hope that if we cannot come to any conclusion on this bill today, at the very least the member of parliament who will be responding on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will be able to indicate in a positive way that the government will give consideration to making such a suggestion to the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like also to contribute a few remarks concerning Bill C-221, an Act to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve abandoned railway lines in Canada. This bill suggests a number of objectives which are indeed commendable and worthwhile, but I am not sure that the means it proposes to reach them are the most effective.
In a number of cases, I am sure that the rights-of-way of railway lines which will be abandoned have great potential as rapid transit or recreational areas. I am sure also that other railway lines would not be appropriate at all. In my opinion, many different groups should look into alternative uses for the rights-of-way of railway lines which will be abandoned. Mr. Speaker, I feel any organization would have difficulty dealing with all the groups which would like to buy these tracts of land made available through the suspension of railway service.
Think about who should have priority on the choice, who should get that land? Should it go to recreational agencies in rural municipalities, to service clubs? For example, one could think that an optimist club might want to acquire land, one could think about any organization except municipalities which would want to acquire land. I think it would be very difficult for the Authority, as is being suggested in this bill, to make a decision on applications that would be made. Its seems, Mr. Speaker, the advisory authority set up under this bill

would be dealing with this problem but with no indication as to how it should weigh the various interests. Nothing provides for the participation of the provinces or municipalities in the decision-making process. Nor is there any list of criteria to assess the proposed uses. The bill does not even recognize that it might be necessary to treat railway lines differently whether they are located in town or in the country.
I wonder whether, instead of dealing in this bill with abandoned railway lines, it would not be more desirable or more useful to think about further improving the commuter train system even if for some reason railway companies should abandon certain routes. I think that in a bill like this we should rather be urging the railways to maintain the services they are now providing in terms of commuter trains. And I might also point out that many projects have been considered on the south shore of Montreal as well as in the area of Deux-Montagnes and the area of Valleyfield with respect to providing fast commuter trains. Among those projects, one went from the city of St. Hyacinthe, the riding I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons, and one which called upon the government to pay some $62 million, of course, under agreements with the government of the province of Quebec.
I quote a resolution from the city council of Mont-Saint-Hilaire asking the government of Quebec whether it intends to join the commuter trains with the public transit system of the Montreal area, second, asking for an immediate meeting between the provincial and federal departments concerned by that problem to discuss and solve as rapidly as possible the jurisdictional problem facing them; and third, asking the railway company to maintain commuter trains and to suspend or to defer the 50 per cent increase in its rates until such a meeting has taken place between the various levels of government.
Mr. Speaker, I shall deal a moment with the problems faced by towns and municipalities on the south shore in the suburbs of Montreal. Of course, there are dormitory towns such as Mont Saint-Bruno, Beloeil, Mont Saint-Hilaire, Otterburn Park and I go as far as the town of Saint-Hyacinthe, with a population of close to 200,000, half of which must go to Montreal each morning and come back each evening, and where it has become almost unthinkable to go by normal ways, namely the road network, given the bridge system we have to cross over to Montreal island. I think it would be really time to establish a rapid transit system.
I listened recently to a report on the operations of the GO Transit train in the Toronto suburbs. In passing, the Quebec government and its transport minister should note that it would be a good idea for them to go and see what is going on in Toronto and the suburbs. It would be a good idea for them to send a team of experts to study the services available to those who want to travel to the Queen City. According to this report, the federal government does not subsidize the deficits of Toronto commuter trains. They are financed by the Ontario
March 16, 1979

government, and the system is so advanced that deficits have been virtually eliminated.
1 believe that if the Quebec government went to the trouble of studying the system available to Toronto suburbanites, and since the federal government is always prepared to grant $60 or $62 million for such services, it would have every advantage in trying to instal such a system on existing lines instead of abandoning them and perhaps transferring them, as suggested in Bill C-221, to the responsibility of the province, the municipalities or non-profit organizations.
Mr. Speaker, as stated in this bill, the advisory board is not empowered to apply any of the decisions that it makes. It is also not empowered to take possession of land or to hand it over. I can only advise the government about railway matters, and it seems to me that ordinary citizens have other means to express their opinion besides this bill which I find ineffective. The provinces have the powers required to take over, by expropriation if need be, any line that they want to use as a transportation corridor. Under the authority of the municipal affairs department of each province, the municipalities can also expropriate if required.
According to our experience of line abandonment in the prairie provinces, we believe that in most cases, the best alternative would be to offer the land to the owner of the adjacent property. The procedure used is therefore generally to make the first offer to such people. Elowever, to protect the public interest, provincial and municipal authorities hold priority if they have concrete projects for using railway rights-of-way. With regard to rights-of-way on Indian reserves, their priority interest is also considered. Maybe we will also have to decide to abandon railways lines but we must undertake studies before, as I said earlier, with a view to determining whether the province or railway companies with the support of the federal government could use those railways for rapid commuter trains.
In order to facilitate the transfer of land to the last landlords, the federal government has concluded an agreement with the railway companies for the transfer of most road beds which will be abandoned in the prairie provinces. So provincial committees have been set up to select the lines which local and provincial governments want and whose transfer they are prepared to facilitate. The federal government intends to transfer immediately the lands to the municipalities concerned or to the landowners of their choice. But on that point, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the transfer to the Crown of all lands belonging to the federal government or to provincial governments. I believe that those lands should go back to the municipalities which are most able to use them and which best know the needs of their citizens and also the best ways to use those lands and those very old buildings. The proceeds of the sale of those lands will help compensate municipalities for any fiscal income they stand to lose.
Railways
Of course, municipalities have certainly lost tax revenues, and if we ever decided to use these buildings or railroads for other purposes, municipalities might then levy taxes on those buildings. The objects of that bill, Mr. Speaker, are perfectly in keeping with this approach to the issue. If a province considers that the site of a railroad might be used as a transportation corridor or for electric lines, it may submit a proposal to the special ad hoc provincial committee and be willing to pay a reasonable price for the land.
Likewise, groups interested to use abandoned road beds for recreative purposes can submit their proposal to the municipalities concerned. When two or more proposals are submitted for using the same road bed the municipality should have the last word. The residents directly concerned by the project will have a say in the decision through municipal representatives, rather than some remote organization in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, we might also use organizations already in place like the union of municipalities and the union of district councils. Those organizations might certainly study the use of those railroads or lands abandoned as a result of technological developments.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again I wish to congratulate the hon. member for having presented this bill. Of course, we share his concerns as regards the problems he has raised. However, we approach them in a different way, and the government considers that the provisions of this bill will not really meet its objectives. It recommends what it considers the most efficient and sensible approach, the one I just mentioned. Mr. Speaker, this is about all I had to say concerning this bill, my remarks were very short, but I wanted to emphasize the importance of the implementation of a railway system that would be really efficient and really beneficial to the residents of the Saint-Hyacinthe riding, and all south shore.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Bill C-221 as I consider it an extremely interesting measure. I must thank its sponsor, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) as it deals to a certain extent with public transport. I fail to see why, in as modern a society as ours, which for years has been struggling with rapid transit problems, especially in densely and moderately populated cities, such means as are suggested in this bill cannot be used to improve the transit system. To my mind, that is extremely important. A few years ago, though I do not know much about transportation, 1 spent some time looking into the problem in urban areas. And in medicine, one often makes a rather quick diagnosis when a patient comes to the office.
I soon found out that transportation in our cities, whether it be Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or even Ottawa-Hull, is really sick. So, I shall prescribe one means of rapid public transit, a sort of monorail. A monorail of about a mile and a half should have been built, on a trial basis, in this area since this is the national capital; the Department of Transport
4266

March 16, 1979
Railways
and the government are here; so money should have been available to those who wanted to carry out that project.


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-I am incorrectly advised. I apologize.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Hull has the floor.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, this is a false alarm. As I said, the Canadian government, through its agencies, should have made money available to the promoters of rapid transit between downtown Hull and Ottawa. I remember at the time a number of experts, even international ones, came to the area to brief me on the development of such a system. The proposal was to use former CNR and CPR tracks, since they were already available, would entail no expropriation, but rather would allow experimenting on a new transit system. I am referring to the Safege system, the overhead monorail operating somewhat like an inverted Hovercraft. It is protected from the elements, very fast, very light and can move thousands of people every day for the cost of a single nickel or dime. But I cannot understand as I said that in an area like Canada's National Capital, the heart and soul of the whole Canadian nation, a few cents cannot be spent on experiments in public transit. Certainly, in Ottawa and Hull, the downtown areas in both cases are ideally suited for that type of transport. Indeed, mention was made of that possibility, back in 1968 I believe, but apparently no one in the Department of Transport did anything about it. I do not remember who was there at the time, all I know is that the suggestion was dropped. So I would like once more to commend the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) for putting forward this bill to provide for the establishment of a commission to preserve abandoned railway lines in Canada. I feel they could be used in Canadian towns to
do what I just referred to, rapid transit for medium to high density urban centres.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have only a few minutes left to speak to such an important bill, namely Bill C-221 introduced by my distinguished and hon. colleague for Laprairie who, in the process of drafting this bill, must certainly have carried out very extensive research and studies in order to come up with such a well substantiated and well explained bill. This is what leads me to draw your attention to the explanatory note.
Mr. Speaker, it is said that there is an increasing awareness in Canada of the potential for rapid transit or recreational use of abandoned railway lines or unused railway rights-of-way. As a matter of fact, in Montreal a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, we attended a meeting of the mayors of the municipalities of the Montreal area and the president of that organization, Mayor Jean Corbeil of the city of Anjou, was referring to the serious problems of public transportation and in particular railway transportation on the north and south shore into and out of Montreal, and also between Mirabel and Montreal. At that time, I recall the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) said that we had over $60 million set aside for the Montreal island municipalities to be used for upgrading the public transportation system. So the issue is not then the removal of rails but rather the improvement of the service, of the cars and transportation in general so that the fares will be lower. We had agreed, that is to say the government in the person of the Minister of Justice, to contribute up to an amount of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 19, 1979