1979-03-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Recently, in Winnipeg, the regional executive assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), Mr. Jim Weir, accused the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) of being confused as to government policy with regard to rail relocation study funds. He said: "I dare say an awful lot of people are very confused after John Reid said what he said . Mr. Weir also said: "I don't think the minister fully understood the government's financing programs".
Due to the continuing conflicting statements coming from the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Minister of Transport forthwith make a statement clarifying the position of the federal government on the provision of funds to complete the rail relocation study in Winnipeg.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the contribution that the Open House Canada program, if properly administered, can make to improving crosscultural understanding in this country of ours, so deeply riven
today as a result of this government's misguided policies, and given the fact that great expectations have been built up among many students as a result of the early promise of funds to carry out a student exchange, only to be dashed when programs are cancelled at the eleventh hour, and considering the recently announced last-minute cancellation of several exchange programs, more likely than not for schools in ridings of opposition members, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare):
That this House deplores these last-minute cancellations, urges the Secretary of State to re-examine them case by case with a view to their restoration, as well as to require his officials in future, on pain of heavy penalty, to refrain from building up expectations until there is absolute certainty that the necessary funds are available and, finally, calls on him to table in this House the list of exchange programs which have just been cancelled, along with the constituencies affected.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that the daily newspaper La Presse reported this morning that our country is experiencing serious problems about its borrowings abroad; considering that the main purpose of the Bank of Canada is to control credit in the interests of the economic life of the country; considering that the policy of that institution is laid down by the Government of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to take all necessary steps so that the Bank of Canada will alter its policy concerning issuance of credit for the economic development of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such

March 15, 1979
motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The mail service in rural Nova Scotia and other rural parts of Canada will suffer further deterioration unless the contract terms for carriers are reviewed. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Postmaster General be directed to review the terms of rural mail carrier contracts, particularly the maximum payment now permitted and provisions for cost escalation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has decided in principle to award a contract for a complete computerized system for scheduling TV commercials, billings and accounting for the entire English network to Data Communications Corporation, Memphis, Tennessee, resulting in all of the corporation's crucial financial data being stored in a foreign country, and whereas a Canadian company submitted a competitive bid for this contract, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery):
That this House urge the Secretary of State to advise the president of the CBC of the grave concern with which the members of this House view this matter and to request reconsideration of this decision.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that current income tax regulations enable common law wives to claim personal exemptions which exceed by $400 those of legitimate wives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) make the necessary corrections to the Income Tax Act before April 1, 1979 so that legitimate wives may be entitled at least to the same exemptions as common law wives.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

NUMBER OF COMPLIMENTARY COPIES OF "HANSARD" DISTRIBUTED TO MPs-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43


Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The matter is one which was dealt with in a general way by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last week, and it deals with the distribution of Hansard to those Canadians who find the $65 annual subscription cost prohibitive, such as students and academics.
I have discussed this matter with members on both sides of the House, and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That members of this House be accorded an increased number of complimentary Hansard subscriptions to be made available to constituents who require Hansard and who would otherwise Find the cost prohibitive; and that the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services suggest the criteria to be used in selecting the recipients of such subscriptions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 15, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it touches on the industrial selling index being up 1.5-


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to say that the last motion presented, in regard to Hansard, was carried? I very loudly said "No.". If we are to distribute Hansard, let us distribute it properly and not through a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I have done on many occasions in the past, I indicated to the House that pursuant to Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent of the House. In calling for unanimous consent, perhaps there were members who indicated that that consent was not forthcoming, which I did not hear.
As I have always done in the past when corrected in this regard-because sometimes conditions make it difficult to hear-I would have to indicate that, unanimous consent not having been given, the motion would have been put improperly and, therefore, the question ought not to have been in the hands of the House at the time and ought to be considered as though it had not been put with the unanimous consent of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance: it deals with the alarming inflation we are still experiencing in the country. For example, the industrial selling index is revealed to have gone up 1.5 per cent last month and up 11 per cent in the year, including leather being up 3.2 per cent, textile prices up 1.9 per cent, and paper up 2.6 per cent.
Would the Minister of Finance level with the House? How does he explain such sensational price increases when he has been telling us that the underlying rate of inflation in the country now is controlled?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have said many times that the underlying rate of inflation in Canada in 1978 was between 6.5 per cent and 7 per cent. That is the story as determined by the statistics. Of course, we are always preoccupied with the level of inflation. As I have said many times, it is still the number one problem in Canada.
We are taking all possible steps in order to help control the problem, but of course some elements of inflation are not within the control of the government. About a year and a half ago we decided that we would get out of controls and let the marketplace operate. The marketplace is operating and we are not planning to reimpose controls.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance say they are taking all steps when they have allowed the dollar to fall to its present level, and when they are continuing to print money at the rate of 11.5 per cent per year?
My follow-up question to the Minister of Finance is: In view of the fact the manufacturing sales tax reduction should now be felt in the price of products in Canada, can he explain why there was a 1.5 per cent increase last month? Does the minister know if the manufacturing sales tax reduction was, in fact, passed on to the consumer; or has it simply been caught up in the general price mechanism of the country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that we are printing money to the tune of 11 per cent in Canada. It is not true. The M-l increase in the money supply year over year has been around 6 per cent.
In my budget of November 16 I wanted to ensure that the tax cuts were passed on, but of course we have to rely on the marketplace to see that they are passed on. We are monitoring these developments and have received no indication that the tax cuts have not been passed on. Of course, there are other factors included in the pricing of products: some of those increased, and consequently prices went up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Obviously, the Minister of Finance does not even read the releases from the Bank of Canada. Yesterday's release showed that the M-l was up 11.5 per cent, not 6 per cent to which the minister referred.
Would the minister indicate what he is doing to protect the Canadian consumer, in view of the fact that leather prices in the country have doubled over the past year and were up over 3 per cent last month alone, bearing in mind that the price difficulties are due largely to the cheap dollar triggering very, very heavy buying of our raw hides by foreign countries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One of the difficulties in respect of leather is that the shoe industry in Canada is now operating at a much higher utilization of capacity. Measures taken some years ago in order to protect Canadian manufacturing have increased the utilization of capacity in many sectors. This is one of the problems with which we have to cope. When your capacity is utilized above 90 per cent of its potential, then this is a problem you have to face at least once in a while. When your

March 15, 1979
Oral Questions
economy is growing, you face some shortage of supply and that tends to increase prices.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for St. John's East on a supplementary question, 1 want to inform the House that there has been a technical difficulty in the preparation of Hansard, but we hope to be in a position to distribute it in a very few minutes.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF AUTOMOBILES DESPITE REDUCTION IN SALES TAX-TARIFF REDUCTIONS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, since he suggested in reply to my colleague that they are monitoring to see that the federal sales tax reduction is being passed on to the consumer, whether he can explain to the House and the country why prices of automobiles to the consumer went up by 11.5 per cent and that increase started at about the same time that the reduction in sales tax became operative.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a few days after November 16, when we announced the 3 per cent sales tax cut, car manufacturers announced in turn that they would reduce their prices accordingly. With the coming of the new year, either late in 1978 or early in 1979, they came up with new prices which reflect the increase in their production costs. At the time of the budget announcement, car manufacturers had ads published in newspapers to the effect that they would reduce their sale prices by 3 per cent, and they did reduce them at the time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's reply hard to reconcile with the fact that in November the price of automobiles went up by 5.8 per cent, and that was the month the sales tax reduction became operative.
Can he tell the House how he intends to monitor the tariff reductions on imported produce, given the fact that these tariff reductions are so small; for example, in the case of orange juice it is one cent, and in the case of a head of lettuce it is less than one cent? How does the government intend to monitor these tariff reductions to see that they are being passed on to the consumer and do not, in fact, constitute a windfall for the middlemen?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in respect of a reduction in that type of tax, of course, you have to rely on the marketplace. If their cost is lower, normally they pass on the reduction in cost. We cannot monitor to make sure that every store in Canada will pass on these benefits to the consumer. If you want to have that system, you will be back to controlling every aspect of the economy-and that is not the philosophy of our party.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On Tuesday, he told the House that the latest consumer index "shows that the sales tax cut brought forward by the Minister of Finance is being passed on." He referred to clothing as an example. The manufacturing sales tax did not exist in respect of clothing, in the first place.
I should like to ask the minister how he can rationalize to the House, now, that the sales tax cut is being passed on when the industrial price index for manufacturing went up by 11 per cent; in other words, the highest increase since June 1975? How can he reconcile these two conflicting facts?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, our analysis of the last CPI-not the one that came out just today-showed that there was a very moderate increase in the non-food section of the CPI and that, in fact, there had been reductions in respect of clothing and furniture. In addition, our analysis of the CPI at that time indicated that the sales tax cut was being passed on and that this was reflected in the non-food segment of the CPI.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because he obviously does not know, that there is no manufacturing sales tax on clothing, and therefore that does not come into the statistics at all. If it is being passed on, why has the index gone up? What assurance can the minister give us that the sales tax reduction is being passed on; or is this just plain, simple rhetoric on his part?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, we are watching that very closely. When I gave that answer, it was based on our analysis of the CPI at that time. I think I mentioned to the hon. member and other hon. members of the House that we would be watching it closely as time went on. It may be that things will change. We are continually analysing the situation and we will report any changes when we have them.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Things are changing for the worse. On March 5, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked the Minister of Finance about the high profits in the steel industry, which had increased by some 45 per cent, and the high profits in the banking fraternity, which had increased by 34 per cent, or SI billion last year.
March 15, 1979

The minister assured the House that the new National Commission on Inflation would make sure that abuses would not occur in the marketplace. Would the minister tell the House whether the NCI has any plans to investigate these profit increases and, if it has, what action are they planning to take?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, the commission is not yet completely set up. They are now getting organized and have not had time to make that survey. But as soon as they are well settled in-I hope to be able to appoint the other members of the commission within the next few days-they will give priority to that type of problem.


FINANCE
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
As a result of the publication of a study commissioned by the Economic Council of Canada on the profits and losses of chartered banks, profits which would appear to have gone up to $500 million over the period from 1968 to 1973, and also of the last financial report of chartered banks for the financial year ending October 31, 1968, which indicates, among other things, profits of as much as 58 per cent, does the minister intend to set up an inquiry into that situation which is, to say the least, unacceptable?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member studies the reports of the banks he will realize that their profits increased in proportion with their turnover, and that in many cases benefits were made especially in their foreign operations and not in Canada. The main chartered banks in Canada have a third of their assets in banking operations abroad. That factor must be taken into account in analyzing their profits. Consideration must also be given to the fact that, because of greater internal liquidity in the Canadian economy, the banks have increased their turnover considerably, very often to the detriment of their competitors. Profits must therefore be compared with the level of banking activity and, personally, I see no great cause for alarm at this time.


REQUEST THAT BANKS REDUCE INTEREST RATES ON LOANS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Since excessive profits have been made, especially on the backs of small borrowers who have to pay consistently high
Oral Questions
interest rates on their loans and so guarantee our banks profits, will the minister pressure the banks into reducing the interest rates on loans since he said himself, on February 6, 1979, according to Hansard, page 915, that they would be well advised to use those excess profits to reduce interest rates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the market forces are beginning to show their effect. For example, I read this morning in the newspaper, as the hon. member probably has done too, that one of the major banks in Canada has lowered its interest rates for mortgages because of the reduced demand. Supply and demand and other pressures that bear on the marketplace are such that interest rates on mortgage loans have a tendency to go down at this time. Of course one must take into account the context in which we are living, when the Bank of Canada has to maintain interest rates which attract capital into Canada if we do not want to see a further lowering of the Canadian dollar value. However, in that context, I think competition has helped maintain interest rates as low as possible.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a very important and straightforward question for the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the House if he intends, now or during the next election campaign, to promise that the government has no intention of imposing a wage and price control program, as the right hon. Prime Minister promised during the last election campaign?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we recently appointed a commission on inflation and we said, at that point, that the government was adverse to re-establishing controls in Canada.
We trust that the controls which were in place from 1975 to mid-1978 taught Canadians a lesson, namely that if they did not behave reasonably and responsibly, inflation was going to take over our economy and everybody was going to lose out on it. I can certainly say to the hon. member that since we have come out of controls, that is since April 15 last, management and labour have been very reasonable. I think we can indeed say that present production costs have returned to normal, that is they are increasing at a slower rate than those of our major competitors, the United States.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister of Finance has not replied to my question.

March 15, 1979
Oral Questions
Will he, yes or no, make the same promise that was made during the last electoral campaign? I think this question is equally clear.
Can the minister inform us here and now why the present government, while so successful in controlling wages, has had relatively little success up to now in controlling prices? This is of major importance to our Canadian workers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the government is highly concerned about rising prices. Unfortunately, in an economy such as ours it is not possible to control prices without controlling the other sectors of the economy. I think everyone in this House agreed, when we lifted the controls, that we should let the marketplace operate normally, and if such is the situation, we can only do what we are doing now, monitor abuses and denounce them publicly. But we have no intention of introducing partial or full controls.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister stated yesterday in Windsor that "the Canadian automotive industry is facing rapid technological change, and the government will take steps to ensure industry viability through this period of change", would the minister advise the House what steps the government plans to take to bring this about?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, basically, the House is fully aware of the steps we took to ensure that the Ford engine plant came to Canada, with an expenditure by them of something over $500 million, which will see the manufacturing of a tremendous percentage of the Ford engines used within Canada.
General Motors are enlarging their transmission plant in Windsor and expending upwards of $400 million on that. Yesterday, I announced that we would make available to the parts industry grants for innovative, new methods of production and innovative, new designs for production in that industry, so that we could ensure growth of the parts industry similar to our encouragement of the Big Three automobile companies.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr, Speaker. As the government's program relies heavily on increased research and development, does the minister not consider that allowing the industry to write off 200 per cent of all increases in capital and current expenditures on research and development would be a significant improvement to the government's present incentives plan which was originally introduced by the Conservative government in 1961, cancelled by the Liberal government in
(Mr. Grafftey.]
1965 and reintroduced by the government last year without change?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government of 1961 exported something like $500 million worth of cars. Today we are exporting something over $10 billion worth. If we used their efforts as a guide, I am sure it would be a dismal failure today.
We are encouraging a tremendous amount of R and D to be undertaken in Canada. We have taken steps already, and I announced additional steps yesterday, to encourage the Big Three to spend more money on R and D. We will continue to pressure them to spend more money on R and D in the automobile industry in Canada.


REDUCTIONS IN FUNDING-EFFECT ON HEALTH CARE
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?
While looking into the possible misuse of medicare funds, will the minister also look into such items as the cutback in hospital beds, which will seriously affect health care in places like Thunder Bay, and the elimination of insurance for catastrophic illness by reason of a $9.80 per day fee for long-term illness, which could seriously erode lifetime savings?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that no cuts to health care were made by the federal government. I read a reference to that in speeches given in Ontario by provincial ministers. Ontario received over $2 billion for health care in 1978-79.
I shall ask my officials to obtain information on the reduction of beds, to which the hon. member referred, and the problem at Thunder Bay. Of course, the additional fee that chronic care patients are being asked to pay is part of the total program that worries us a great deal. We are studying it right now. I can only repeat that we want fair treatment for providers and for users of health care in Canada.


REQUEST THAT WHEAT SHIPMENTS BE SPEEDED UP
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When he was recently in China, was he not given to understand that one of the most serious problems connected with the purchase of wheat under the new agreement would be the promptness of delivery?
March 15, 1979

We have not been able to get any satisfaction from the Minister of Transport in connection with this matter. I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what he is doing about assuring that cargoes of wheat are delivered on time and the pile-up of demurrage shall be reduced to a minimum.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, when I was in China, the Chinese expressed deep interest in signing a long-term wheat agreement. I am pleased to be able to say to the House that since I came back to Canada, the Chinese have been over and signed the largest wheat agreement ever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They did suggest to me that this winter, wheat shipments to China have been very good and they had encountered no difficulty in receiving them. They said that a year ago they had run into difficulty.
I can say to the House that in their trip to Canada not so long ago, they spent some time looking at Vancouver harbour. We made them aware of our intentions with regard to improving the deliverability of wheat through Prince Rupert. I might say that I was in Vancouver recently, and counted very, very few ships in the harbour waiting for grain.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that since the minister's conversion he makes Saul's look like an amateur performance. He seems to have forgotten that the contract made with China was made by the government of which I had the honour to be the head and of which at one time he was a valiant supporter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask him simply this: How many ships did he count waiting in Vancouver harbour, and on what dates?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the right hon. gentleman that at the time he was leading the government of Canada, I strongly supported it; but when the Conservative party rudely dumped him, I began to lose interest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: How about Ralph Stewart?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Jack, smile.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I might also say, at that time the present leader of the party was very active in getting rid of him.


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With regard to the number of ships I counted in Vancouver, I think I was in Vancouver about a week ago and I counted seven ships. I do not know for certain whether they were waiting for grain, sulphur or potash.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Little Jack Horner.


An hon. Member:: Poor George.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On December 14, 1978, the hon. member for Vancouver East wrote to the minister on behalf of one Andrew Joe. He asked the minister to strike the federal patent granted to the Chinese Benevolent Association of Canada. Part of the letter reads:
The people who applied for the federal patent must have been aware of the B.C. society and I submit have in all likelihood filed a false affidavit when they declared no knowledge of a similar-named provincial society.
My question to the minister is: Was there any evidence of likelihood of criminal activities in that society, as the hon. member for Vancouver East alleged, or was it just a case of besmirching the reputation of good citizens and good organizations across Canada?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I recall the exchange of letters, but unfortunately I do not have them with me and cannot recall the details. However, I know that I replied to the hon. member who was referred to in the question. I would be quite willing to seek the information required and provide it to the hon. member.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The same letter goes on to say:
It would be appreciated if you would permit me, in the presence of your officials, to examine all documents filed pursuant to the federal patent.
Did the minister give the hon. member for Vancouver East permission to snoop through all the files; and in what way did he protect the reputation and privacy of all those people?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I sign hundreds of letters each week, and it is difficult for me to recall immediately the details of all those answers. However I would be pleased to pursue the question and provide an answer.

March 15, 1979
Oral Questions
It would be helpful if hon. members gave me notice of a question such as that, so I would be better prepared to answer him when I come into the House.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in his capacity as minister in charge of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
On April 11, 1978, the Deputy Prime Minister made an announcement in Glace Bay that the federal cabinet had approved in principle an expenditure of $265 million for improvement of the Cape Breton coal industry. The first, and major, component of this spending was to open a new mine outside Glace Bay called the Donkin mine.
Can the minister tell me if the final feasibility study that was supposed to be originally completed at the end of February is now ready, or if a preliminary synopsis of it is ready; and can the minister say if there is any truth in the allegations made that the minister is reputed to have said that such a study and its conclusions would not go before the cabinet until after the next federal election?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the exact date will be of the next election, but if we listen to rumours it seems the election is not that far away.
To return to the main point of the question, yes, it is true that we have an agreement in principle made by cabinet last year that we will launch that kind of feasibility study on opening a new mine at Donkin, having discovered and tested the reserves following drilling, which was undertaken with the province under a joint agreement. The study has been ongoing. In answer to my last inquiry, there was an indication that we should receive the consultants' report within a few weeks; however, I cannot say whether I will have it in two or three weeks' time.
I am sure the hon. gentleman understands the importance of the decision that we must make: it will involve hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Pending that decision, there is also a decision to be taken in the case of Prince Mine. Work is developing there, and a decision has to be made with regard to further investment in that mine also. Obviously, those major decisions will command serious investigation by myself and my colleagues in cabinet. As they involve an investment of a large sum of money, I will have to consult my seatmate, the President of the Treasury Board, on that.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister received on Monday, as I did, a telegram from Mr. William Marsh, president of the United Mine Workers of America, district 26, in it is said:
Full district executive board United Mine Workers of America, district 26, at a meeting today passed resolution to open new mine in Donkin-Morien area recently promised by Deputy Prime Minister Allan MacEachen. Request immediate action before federal election.
Will the minister give an answer in writing to president Marsh, who is naturally very concerned about the start-up date of the Donkin mine since some 4,000 men are looking for jobs in the Cape Breton coalfields?


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will obviously answer president Marsh's telegram that was received yesterday in my office. In so far as being able to indicate on what date we will see work starting on the putting in place and developing of a new mine, I am obviously not in a position to do so.
If we base that question on our former performance in Devco on this side of the House, with this government, I think the people in Cape Breton should rest assured that if there is a decision to be taken, it will be taken by this government and it should be a positive one.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the Arthur Laing bridge between Vancouver and Richmond, B.C. The minister will recall that general commuter traffic is prevented from using this bridge, by MOT policy.
In view of the fact that this $23 million structure is operating at only one-tenth of its design capacity in service to Vancouver international airport, while the adjacent Oak Street bridge chokes on peak traffic volume of almost 3,600 vehicles per hour, will the minister consider the present irrational situation and take steps that will allow commuter traffic to use this strategically located bridge for travel between Vancouver and Richmond?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell the hon. member that it is not Ministry of Transport policy which prevents the bridge from being used in ways different from its present use but, rather, it is my view that it is very much up to the decision of the city of Vancouver and other local councils to deal with this issue. If they address a request to us for a different use of the bridge, we will oblige immediately.
The past position of the city of Vancouver has been against allowing extra traffic across this bridge into that particular section of streets, but if the hon. member knows of any change in that regard, I would be pleased to hear about it.

March 15, 1979


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is related to the historic achievements and peace negotiations that have taken place in the Middle East in recent days. I ask the Secretary of State whether he has any comments to make to this House on these developments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Alexander:: That is an abuse of the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can he indicate the nature of the inquiry being held or whether any broader inquiry will be held into the recent deaths in avalanches related to helicopter skiing in British Columbia? It is some weeks since I first raised this question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything new to add to my previous answers.


SAFETY MEASURES IN HELICOPTER SKIING
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. I would like to know what action the minister is prepared to take on the suggestion made by the Canadian ski patrol system for a meeting of all groups involved in helicopter skiing-I believe that would include at least four federal departments-to discuss safety measures in this sport?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, provided all of the sport governing boards are also in tune, I will look at it very seriously.


USE OF METRIC SYSTEM
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for metric measurement, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the minister subscribe to the suggestions put forward by some people in his
__________________4183
Oral Questions
department, that the words "kilometrage" and "metrage" replace the common usage of "mileage", "footage" and "yardage?"


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in going metric, the yard and the foot are terms which would no longer be used. Mileage could still be used, in western Canada particularly, because the land is surveyed by the mile. People can use footage and yardage if they like in their own personal conversations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But 1 see no real advantage in their being retained as government terms.


Robert Hylton Brisco: May 1 ask the minister how he feels about adding to the metric terminology one other word- "outrageous"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Bruce Hailiday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). Can the hon. lady confirm that Loto Canada is presently investigating the feasibility of instituting Luxury Loto and, if so, why is she not prepared to wait until she has received the report which was requested by her hon. friend for York West for a study of the socioeconomic effects of lotteries in Canada?


Iona Campagnolo: Loto Canada have informed me that they are, indeed, considering a higher priced ticket.
As to the other part of the hon. member's question, Loto Canada has repeatedly, on a two-month basis, kept close track of who is purchasing the $10 ticket and the socioeconomic area in which they are located. We have every reason to believe that the bulk of those who are puchasing these $10 tickets are in the $15,000 a year and up bracket.


Bruce Halliday: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What steps has the minister taken to follow up the request of the hon. member for York West to investigate the socioeconomic effects of lotteries, and what can he tell the House about his earlier commitment to report to the House the extent to which advertising such lotteries may be misleading?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I referred the question put to me by the hon. member for York West to a number of experts in my department, who are conducting an analysis.

March 15, 1979
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: We are looking into it because we do not want to talk without knowing what we are talking about-unlike many members opposite.
We were asked to look into this matter, and that is what we are doing. It has been referred to a group of experts, and as soon as a report is available I shall make it known to the House.
With respect to misleading advertising, that matter has been placed in the hands of the director of investigations under the combines act. He enjoys independence of action under the law and will take whatever measures are appropriate.


ALTERNATE HOST CITY FOR PAN AMERICAN GAMES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). In view of increased speculation that Venezuela will withdraw as host country for the 1983 Pan American Games, can the hon. lady bring the House up to date on the situation, and does she still see the city of Hamilton as the automatically designated alternate host city to Caracas?


Iona Campagnolo: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to thank the hon. member, along with the hon. members for Hamilton East and Hamilton West who have consistently brought this matter to my attention over the last several weeks.
There has been no information on this subject from Caracas, Venezuela. President Herrera is supposed to be making a statement concerning the future of the Pan American Games in 1983 in that country, but we are not yet in possession of any hard facts. I can reassure hon. members who are interested, however, that according to my information, Hamilton is the designated alternate city and, further, the federal government is prepared to confirm the support which was given at the time of the original bid by Hamilton.


INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE TO SUPPLY GOLDEN EAGLE WITH GASOLINE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which deals with the now well-known refusal of the multinational corporation Exxon to renew its contract with the Golden Eagle refinery in Saint-Romuald, in Quebec. Can the minister tell us whether the representations already made by

Petro-Canada will be effective enough to enable the Crown corporation to ensure supplies to the Golden Eagle Corporation? If not, can he tell us what alternative he contemplates to maintain supplies to the Golden Eagle Corporation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: This is another example of the situation we have been discussing in the last few days-the diversion of Venezuelan oil intended for Canada.
The Golden Eagle refinery, very close to Quebec City, has been sourcing from Venezuela through two middlemen, the Ultramar Corporation and Exxon Corporation. I believe the refinery has received information that its supplies will continue under that contract until the end of the year, though this is not certain at the present time: we are trying to find out. However, the situation is a good example of the way in which Petro-Canada, making a direct deal with the national oil company of Venezuela, will be able to secure for the Golden Eagle refinery and other refineries, including Imperial Oil, a source of secure oil from Venezuela.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Environment). It concerns the Kitimat oil port which the minister said a year ago was a dead proposition. Since then, Canada and the United States have announced a joint decision-making process to consider ways of moving Alaskan oil from Canada to the United States, and one of the options is through the Kitimat oil port.
Can the minister tell us why this is still an option in terms of Canadian decision-making as it affects west coast oil ports?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Kitimat is not an option; it is as dead as dead can be.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: My question is for the Minister of State (Environment). I should like to ask whether he is aware of a program in his department-which has jurisdiction over forestry-which, through remote sensing, catalogues and maps forest reserves in this country and in other parts of the world.
Is he also aware that this program cannot function in Petawawa, for obvious reasons, and that the program will die unless he intervenes before the end of this month?
March 15, 1979


Len Marchand: There was a good deal of chattering around about me when the member was asking his question and I did not hear the first part. I will look at the record later and consider the hon. member's question.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. According to the recent caseload, almost 90 per cent of all visitors from Poland are requested to see that their Canadian hosts place with the deputy minister up to $5,000 as a security deposit.
Could the minister tell the House whether this section of the Immigration Act-which ought to be used sparingly but which is being applied almost universally-is used in the same proportion with respect to visitors from other countries as it is with respect to visitors from eastern Europe?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make sure that its application is universal, across the board.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. As he knows, there has recently been opened near Saskatoon a western region psychiatric centre, at a cost of $10 million. At night, with the lights on, it is sometimes confused with the Saskatoon airport. I should like to ask the minister why this institution, which has only eight inmates, has engaged 77 guards and only one psychiatrist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When will the situation be rectified? What is wrong with this institution?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: There is nothing wrong with this institution, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the hon. member is once again drawing attention to the program of psychiatric services which we have established within the Correctional Service of Canada. He no doubt noticed that last week I issued a press release in which it was pointed out that the psychiatric centre in Matsqui, British Columbia, is receiving international acclaim.
I would be very pleased to provide the hon. member with additional information about the Saskatoon institution. When
Privilege-Mr. Alexander
dealing with a new institution, there are problems in terms of finding staff of the excellence which is required by the Correctional Service of Canada. If the hon. gentleman is interested in providing assistance, we would appreciate receiving it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the minister carries on, people in Saskatoon will think that the Parliament Buildings, rather than a psychiatric centre, have been moved there.
Has the minister given serious consideration to recommendation No. 58 of the subcommittee of a committee of this House with respect to transferring psychiatric services for prisons and penitentiaries to the Deparment of National Health and Welfare, as recommended by that committee and supported by all parties?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, that recommendation is being very seriously considered. I point out, however, that we are also providing adequate facilities for provincial inmates in Saskatoon. There is an allotted number of beds within that institution for provincial inmates. We are receiving excellent co-operation from the province of Saskatchewan, and I hope the hon. gentleman will give us the same co-operation that we are receiving from the University of Saskatchewan so that the institution will continue to provide excellent service in coming generations.


PRIVILEGE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in connection with remarks made by the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), who left the impression that no one but the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) was concerned about the Pan-Am Games.
The minister has a selective memory because when the hon. members to whom I have referred went to Hamilton the first time in order to make a press announcement with respect to the Pan-Am Games, they would not have dared to go unless they had the support of the hon. member for Hamilton West, who was at the press conference at that time and who gave support. Without my support they would not even have gone to Hamilton. The minister should stop misleading the Canadian people.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny in any respect the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) regarding the matter of obtaining the games for Hamilton originally. However, I have not heard one word from the hon. member for Hamilton West about the matter raised by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott).

March 15, 1979
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE WEEKLY STATEMENT


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may return to the game of the House of Commons, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) if, in terms of the business for the next couple of weeks, he would designate March 26 as the last allotted day on the list of allotted days. Perhaps he could also tell us the business for the balance of today and tomorrow. If he would also project himself into next week for the purposes of House business, that would be helpful.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, my plan is to continue with the debate on the energy supplies bill today and hope to have it completed, including third reading. If not, we would continue with that bill tomorrow. If there is any additional time tomorrow, I will call the excise tax bill. I had in mind to call the referendum bill, but I will delay that until Monday. That will be followed by the Excise Tax Act.
I cannot be certain about designating March 26 as an allotted day. I may want to allot an earlier date, but I will certainly give the hon. member sufficient advance notice.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members have expressed some interest in the bill on the order paper affecting Loto Canada; the number escapes me. Is that among the government's priorities? Does the government have any intention of calling that piece of legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been urging me to put it on my list at an early date, but I do not propose to call it before the bills I have mentioned.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in a sense my question is supplementary to the one asked yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) having to do with the chartered banks of this country. In view of the fact that Wednesday, March 28, if we are still here, will be the twentieth sitting day in this month, and in view of the relevance of that to the present provisions of the Bank Act, can the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) say whether it is the intention before March 28 to bring down a bill to extend the life of the chartered banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member is losing his confidence about the continued existence of the Parliament of Canada because he has been convinced up until this moment that an election would not be held until his birthday. I wonder what has shaken that confidence. However, I want to tell him that it is my intention to give notice today or tomorrow about a bill extending the Bank Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as often happens, the Deputy Prime Minister has completely misinterpreted what was said. It was because I still think the election will not be held until my birthday, June 18, that I was concerned that the banks of this country not die. However, I am glad to have notice that their life will be extended.



Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I appreciate that a minister is not obligated to answer a question, but I think he is obligated not to mislead the House in terms of his answer. In this particular instance, the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Mar-chand) inadvertently misled the House. I asked him about the Kitimat oil pipeline proposal. His answer was-and I am paraphrasing-that the proposal was clearly dead. The question was why the proposal was still being considered by the Canadian government with the United States. It seems to me that there was misleading since it is clearly alive, based upon the announcement by the Canadian government that it is in the process of making a decision regarding the option of a Kitimat oil pipeline.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might throw some light on this. As the hon. member who asked the question knows, in law a consortium or a company has the right to apply to the National Energy Board and to make a submission to the National Energy Board regarding the building of a pipeline from Kitimat to whatever other point might be proposed. The hon. member also knows that through a number of policy statements the government has made it quite clear that it does not favour an oil pipeline through that route.


Mr. Benjamin:: That doesn't mean you won't do it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-468, to amend the House of Commons Act (vacancies).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, this bill would fix a time limit which is shorter than at present for a seat to be vacant. I came into this House after a vacancy created by decease. There had been a lengthy vacancy. I present this bill in order to prevent long vacancies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
March 15, 1979

Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) wishes to table a document. Perhaps we could revert to tabling of documents for that purpose.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60 I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion, and I ask Your Honour to designate the required order of the day for consideration thereof.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 304, 810 and 1,110.


Mr. Howie: Since April I, 1977, how many lumber mills in New Brunswick received DREE assistance and, in each case, what was the (a) nature and amount of assistance (b) estimated number of jobs created?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Since April 1, 1977, 12 lumber mills have received DREE assistance in New Brunswick.
(a) Incentive Offers under the Regional Development Incentives Program S 265,435 435,800 81,099 30,165 767,946 208,840 462,100
(b) Estimated Number of Direct Jobs to be Created 61 89 9 5 76 0 0
Note: This reply does not include assistance provided to lumber milts through joint programs financed under the Canada-New Brunswick General Development Agreement.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Oberle: 1.	What was the cost of the report entitled Canadian Automotive Industry Performance and Proposals for Progress commissioned by Order in Council?
2.	What is the breakdown of the expenses which made up the total cost of the Report?
3.	What were the salaries of the persons involved including that of the Commissioner?
4.	Who besides Commissioner Simon Reisman was engaged in the compilation of the Report?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	As of December 31/78 $91,624.91
2. Printing (estimated) Telephone and Communications Professional and Special Service Consulting Services Rental Miscellaneous		$7,500.00 1,062,97 5,825.60 72,700.81 4,395.05 140.48
3. S. Reisman	$500. per diem	
B. G. Barrow	$300. per diem	
B. E. MacDonald	$250. per diem	
K. Hay	$250. per diem	
4. B. G. Barrow	contract	
B. E. MacDonald	contract	
K. Hay	contract	
D. Arthur	on loan from Dept, of Industry, Trade & Commerce	
P. Lau	on loan from Dept, of Industry, Trade & Commerce	
L. Loewen	on loan from Dept, of Labour	
A. Sulzenko	on loan from Dept, of Finance


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Did the government spend $1.5 million or any amount at all in acquiring a detailed engineering design of a floating dock for the Port of Vancouver as announced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on January 4, 1978 and, if so (a) what was the total amount spent to date (b) what is the remaining amount to be spent if the project is not yet completed?
2.	Is the dock to be owned by the government and, if not, by whom will it be owned?
3.	Were the amounts spent by the government to acquire the detailed engineering design direct expenditures or grants and, if not, were they by way of a loan and, if so, to whom was the loan made and under what terms and conditions?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1. The Crown has entered into a contract with Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd., for a detailed engineering design for a

March 15, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie
floating dry dock for the Port of Vancouver. The amount spent to date is $209,640 and the remaining amount to be spent is $1,187,972.
2.	The design is to be owned by the Crown but will be used firstly by the Burrard Yarrows Corporation for the construction of this new dry dock.
3.	The amounts spent and to be spent are direct expenditures by the Crown.


Yvon Pinard: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



POINT OF ORDER


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to make inquiries of the parliamentary secretary with regard to the very lengthy delay in answering two questions which are on the order paper in my name. One dates back to October 13, question No. 179, which reads as follows:
Are members of parliament entitled to use DOT telex "Comcen" facilities for the purpose of sending political messages to their constituency-
That question goes back to October 13, 1978 and the government has refused to answer it. I have asked the RCMP to investigate and they have informed me that there is no illegality or infrigement of the Criminal Code in the use of telex facilities. So 1 think we in the Elouse of Commons, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, are entitled to know whether all MPs will be entitled to use DOT telex to send out political messages. If there is no illegality or infringement of the Criminal Code with regard to the use of the DOT telex, we should get an answer from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) should provide us with an answer as to whether all parliamentarians will be able to send out political messages over government telex facilities.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I placed a question on the order paper on October 27, question No. 414, which reads as follows:
Was Mr. Tony Merchant, barrister and solicitor of Regina, retained by the Department of Justice in the fiscal year (a) 1975-76 (b) 1976-77 (c) 1977-78-
I know this could be an embarrassment to the Minister of Transport and the government with regard to the handing out of special agreements and contracts to the Minister of Transport's brother-in-law, but we are entitled, and I am entitled, to an answer and there is no reason why it should take six months to gather this type of information together. This is another example of government secrecy, covering up and refusing to give information to the official opposition, which means also refusing to give information to the Canadian public. I would like some kind of answer today from the parliamentary secretary as to why he is refusing to answer these two questions which date back to last October.


Yvon Pinard: 1 did not
want to let that excitement subside without replying, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to point out to the House, since some hon. members apparently delight in reading order paper questions now and again, the provisions of Standing Order 39(1)- [English]
It reads as follows:
39(1) Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs; and from other members, relating to any bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House, in which such members may be concerned; but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be debated.

Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is this: Instead of simply reading the order paper, which we on this side of the House can do and do very well indeed since on the average we reply to 90 per cent of the questions on the order paper every session, certain members often take advantage of a point of order to make petty politics in this House, and I find this unfair.
The hon. member who has just risen read


this is the best example that 1 could give-but he did not read it exactly as it is written. Nothing in this question says that the lawyer involved is the brother-in-law of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). By mentioning in this House that the person referred to in his question is related with a minister of the government, the hon. member is making petty politics. He has used a point of order to read incorrectly a question on the order paper and to comment on it, which is prohibited by Standing Order 39(1), Mr. Speaker.: I have too often been very patient. I have been content to tell about the fantastic work by the government in replying to questions on the order paper by enumerating the great many questions which have been answered very fully and at great cost to the taxpayers and about which the government has found the time to make the necessary research and provide answers.
Mr. Speaker, 1 can no longer tolerate to hear only about government delays, which are quite exceptional since it is a fantastic average to have been able to reply to 90 per cent of all questions, Mr. Speaker, especially when we consider that in the last few years, thousands of questions have been asked. I find it unacceptable to use a point of order and to abuse deliberately Standing Order 39(1) in this way.
If every day after the oral question period, each hon. member read three, four, five or six questions on the order paper, there would be no end to it. But what is even worse is to comment on such a question, which is strictly forbidden by the standing orders. This is petty politics. It is a fact that we reply

March 15, 1979

to 90 per cent of all questions asked. Very often the insinuations contained in these questions are shown to be completely unfounded, and members on this side of the House do not have the opportunity and the privilege to read the replies which deny completely the insinuations made by opposition members.
Mr. Speaker, it is an injustice resulting from an abuse of our rules when some hon. members complain that questions on the order paper have not been answered. They know perfectly well that during the session, in spite of the large number of questions we manage to answer, on the average to 40 per cent of the questions. It is exactly the average number of questions that have been answered until now in the present session, and it compares favourably with the average in previous sessions.
Hon. members also know that during the summer recess we can do more work, and we succeed in answering an additional 45 to 50 per cent, which allows us to answer 90 per cent of the questions on the order paper. Then, I consider that Standing Order 39(1) has been seriously abused, and the intervention of the hon. member is a perfect example of this, and 1 want first to ensure hon. members that we shall continue to work seriously in order to answer in the most comprehensive way possible the largest number of questions in the shortest possible time but, on the other hand, I expect them to co-operate so that they do not unduly criticize the work done on this side of the House, and particularly that they be fair and not abusively comment on facts that often are not included in the questions, by giving explanations that are purely political, and have nothing to do with the facts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise until the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) made his remarks with respect to the tardiness of the government and of the parliamentary secretary who has the responsibility for answering these questions. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young) who has been filling in has indicated that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has been quite ill, so I do not want to be too hard on him. On the other hand, I take strong exception to the parliamentary secretary's suggesting what individual members of parliament may or may not do in terms of bringing to the attention of the government very serious delays in answering questions which on the face of them can be answered simply, immediately and in a straightforward way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The point I want to raise is that 81 days from today will be the last day on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can call an election. He has a maximum of 81 days, unless he wants to break all traditions and precedents. I want to point out to the parliamentary secretary that his performance during the course of the last week when only three questions a day were answered, when there are hundreds of questions on the order paper, legitimate, straightforward,
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie non-argumentative questions requiring factual information from the government, only lends credence to the arguments of those who are suspicious that this government is trying to hold back information because it is not in the interest of the government to bring this information forward.
Rather than indulging in rhetoric, the parliamentary secretary should spend more time convincing the various departments of the necessity of bringing forward these answers within a reasonable period of time. That is his function; that is his role. He would do a greater service to the parliamentary institution, and this particular practice could be utilized by members of parliament in the performance of their duties.
Sometimes members of parliament are discouraged from using this procedure because they know any time they put a question down that the prospect is not that 90 per cent of the time they will receive an answer; the prospect is that 90 per cent of the time they will not receive an answer at all, or the answer will be delayed to such an extent the statistics become irrelevant for them to use.
The parliamentary secretary was not here yesterday, so I brought questions Nos. 207 and 208 to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Young). Those are examples of answers which could be given virtually the day after the occurrence of these particular events. The questions are straightforward. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is now leaving the House. The minister knows that he has this information within his own department available on a daily catalogue basis. He could tell us whether government aircraft were used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or members of cabinet in connection with the byelections. The minister could tell us how many times JetStars were used by cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister during the two-month period before the by-elections, but he refuses to do so.
In conclusion, if the parliamentary secretary wants to remain credible in the performance of his duties, in the next few days he should demonstrate it by bringing forward many more answers than he has to this point in time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed from Tuesday, March 13, 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).
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned this debate at ten o'clock on March 13, my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had the floor. Unfortunately, he was unable to be in the House today. But since we come from the same region, I think I will develop the argument he himself had in mind.

Since the attempt back in 1974 to bring in the Petroleum Administration Act, we have never been so badly served by the Government of Canada regarding a national energy policy. I come from a region which is concerned primarily with the production and distribution of petroleum resources in Canada and with the developing petro-chemical industry of this country. Also, the area from which I come contains the biggest coal reserve region of the country.
As I said in 1970, never have we seen such a bunch of quail flailing before a discharge from the smallest shotgun at this administration in bringing in this act. This act is nothing but a War Measures Act with regard to energy and resources, not only petroleum, natural gas and coal. All the members from the province of Quebec supinely sit in the House while we are considering the powers of the Government of Canada regarding electrical energy. They sit there flatulently because presumably some other part of the country is the concern.


Alastair William Gillespie: Has the hon. member read the bill?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I certainly have read the bill. I read it the first morning it was published.


Alastair William Gillespie: It does not sound like it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was as a result of telephone calls I placed that people were alerted as to the contents of this bill. Frankly, the bill is merely a reflection of the international oil marketing agreements to which the country has been privy for many years and to which the country was privy when it signed the agreement with the International Energy Agency in 1974.
The day before yesterday I saw the minister stand in the House and bravely defend the position of the government. At least, he attempted to defend the position of the government

with respect to dealing through a third party and alleged profits. At that time the minister did not answer the argument implicit in the question put by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Of course, the minister has not answered and cannot answer whether the government, in dealing with atomic energy, has been far too ready to deal through third parties, to pay secret profits and commissions, and then attempt to hide them from the rest of the Canadian public-

-as we say, there is a law for one's friends and another for one's foes. What can you do! You understand what I said. The same thing happens when from time to time you have to speak in English, we know what you mean, this is why it is so easy to express oneself in Canada. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you believe for one moment that Canadians approve this bill, I wonder why there has been no claim, especially from the Quebec government about electricity. We have seen the report submitted by the Ontario government and it was quite surprising in a way and then again not so because Ontario along with all the other provinces is affected under that bill. British Columbia has coal, oil and natural gas, Alberta has the largest resources of oil, natural gas and coal, Saskatchewan has coal, oil and natural gas, Ontario and Quebec have hydroelectric power and the Maritimes have electricity and other resources, not only past or present resources but also future resources, because the government does not consider that the bill would be applicable only to present conditions. Oh, no, it would also be applicable in the future.

I have known the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) for over 30 years. I know him as a very personable fellow, and I hope he thinks of me as a very personable fellow. But leaving those personal feelings aside, I should like to point out that he is attempting to promote the wrong thing in this House. He wants to set himself up as the super czar of energy. Talk about trying to plug a leaky boat full of holes. In addition, this government had no damned business being involved in most of these things.
My colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence), has advanced an amendment dealing with clause 11. When we look at clause 11 we see that subclause (1) really gives us difficulty. It states that "when the governor in council is of the opinion"-and that is good or bad, founded or ill-founded-"that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages", the governor in council can use the provisions of this measure. I can recall when we had apprehended insurrections. What on earth is going to determine an anticipated shortage of petroleum? The other day when Imperial announced that Exxon was diverting 25,000 barrels a day of Canadian supply pursuant to
March 15, 1979

an agreement that was in existence, the minister came in here shaking with anticipated chills.
This bill is nothing but a lot of window dressing, and very dangerous window dressing indeed. This clause goes on "anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets". If the minister wants to talk about disturbances in petroleum markets let me tell him about one. He was a member of this House and will recall the income tax proposals put forward by Mr. Benson in a so-called white paper. Those proposals did more to disturb and disrupt the production of petroleum in Canada than any other act has since, and the minister knows that. The research programs of the petroleum industry were set back at that time by years.
These super chiefs, the super intellects from central Canada who are light years away from the oil industry, have no conception whatsoever of the degree of confidence that is required in order for investment to be made in the petroleum industry. The tax proposals of 1968-69 in respect of resource development in this country set back research and development programs of the petroleum industry in Canada by light years. Before the bill was actually in position it had been changed greatly. Some of the experts who had been advising the then minister of finance regarding resource development taxation had been thoroughly discredited, and only after a great deal of time did we get the industry back on the road.
Premier Lougheed expressed the situation very well the other day. He said that having set down the rules of the game to which the provinces had agreed, now that the provinces were able to make a few scoring points and some progress the Government of Canada wants to change the rules. I suggest this bill is part of that change of the rules.
During the conference in February the minister advanced the same propositions that are contained in this bill. The government wants these changes for anticipated and compelling reasons. This government wants to take control, and it wants to do that when a certain situation exists in its opinion. That must not be allowed.
This bill is a total repudiation of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on television in his very notorious statement of August 1. He said that it is high time the Government of Canada got its nose out of private business affairs. He said it was time the government pulled out. We know that he said some time before that the marketplace had missed out on its obligations and, therefore, the government had to jump in. Having seen how the Canadian public reacted to that idea, the Prime Minister said last August that it was highly incumbent on the Government of Canada to get out. That was a full 180 degree about-turn.
What the government is proposing in this bill is absolutely dictatorial. It amounts to full control of energy resources in this country. If the measure was aimed only at petroleum and natural gas, then I would be sure of its targets. The targets are not only petroleum and natural gas but include also petroleum feed stocks and coal.
Energy Supplies
I know the reason behind this facade of the government. I know what lies behind the arrangements this administration wants to put into effect. This is a thinly veiled move by this government to curry favour before an election. What I do not know is which segment of the population it is directed toward. Is it directed toward the Atlantic provinces or Ontario? If it is directed toward Ontario, then I suggest the brief filed on behalf of the Ontario government last week should be a sufficient answer. I think that is a devastating argument that should counter a bill of this nature.
The same may be said of an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail last Saturday. Where does this minister think he gets his support for this particular bill, except from those backbenchers who are desperately striving to get a handle on something that might give them support during the election campaign? As a result of this particular bill and the statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology, the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta has called for his resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister may laugh and he may want to dismiss Nick Taylor as a clown, but let him do that within his own party. My own Liberal opponent resigned as a candidate because, as he said quite openly to the Prime Minister in his letter of resignation, he could in no way support the Liberal party's policy in respect of energy, but had to support the position taken by Premier Lougheed. If a province with some 1,900,000 people and over 85 per cent of the petroleum and natural gas production and potential in this country, with possibly 50 per cent of the petrochemical industry in this country, and with, at a rough guess, 65 per cent to 75 per cent of the coal resources of this country, thoroughly rejects the position of this government, hon. members opposite must pause, if they think-

-they will take over the resources of other areas of the country. If it is Alberta, Saskatchewan, or British Columbia today, it may well be Quebec tomorrow. We Albertans know very well what reply we could expect if we were to ask for a special deal on paper, asbestos and on any other thing: "You will have to pay the market rate". We are paying the market rate on textiles and other products bought from central Canada and Quebec in particular. I know that the main purpose of this bill is to influence hon. members from Quebec. What do they care if tomorrow, under the provisions of this bill, the governor in council decides that there are market disturbances not only for oil, but also in the use of electricity, if the board created under this bill is not authorized, without appeal, to allocate resources completely disproportionate to the needs and without consulting Quebec. They must examine ... But agreements will be signed, they say. I know what that means. Anyone who reads the bill will see what powers it gives.

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
A Caesar is appointed without providing any means of control because, not only do we have vague principles, but it is also recognized that shortages or market disturbances will affect the security and welfare of Canadians as well as the economic stability of Canada. What rot! Will the hon. member be able to determine the standards on which this will be based? And in clause 11-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to say a few words on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). First of all, I should like to refer to the earlier remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) about Hydro-Quebec or the hydroelectric resources of the provinces. The hon. member pointed out to the House that, should this bill become law, the Allocation Board could at one fell swoop take over all the hydroelectric resources of the provinces. I do not wish to say that the hon. member cannot read, Mr. Speaker, but I shall read, if you will allow me, for the information of the hon. members, clause 15 of the bill which deals specifically with this problem. I quote:
The Board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into arrangements with provincial authorities for the regulation and pricing by such provincial authorities-
Clause 15, Mr. Speaker, does not say "by the Board" but "by such provincial authorities." In the case of electric power resources, this means Hydro-Quebec in Quebec and Ontario Hydro in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making the same error of interpretation as the witnesses from the government of Ontario who appeared before the committee. There is absolutely no doubt about the meaning of the terms used in clause 15. The hon. member keeps saying no. If I may read again:
-enter into arrangements with provincial authorities for the regulation and pricing by such provincial authorities-
Which authorities? Provincial authorities-so Hydro-Quebec. Listen, Mr. Speaker-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read on.


Pierre Bussières: Reading on:
-by such provincial authorities of the supplies of electric power produced or used within a province for the purpose of reducing the demands upon the available supplies-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Right there.


Pierre Bussières: Yes, but reducing supplies does not imply a change in authorities, it implies that the reduction will be made by the provincial authorities when they recognize that reduction is necessary to balance energy resources within their province.
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member correctly, he is suggesting that role or decision would be made by the central government or the board established under this bill, and that is completely wrong. Clause 15 is very clear and specific. The hon. member seems scandalized that the government of Quebec did not echo the ill-timed and unfounded criticisms of the government of Ontario but that is because the government of Quebec took the time to read the bill and the authorities of the government of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, understood what the hon. member is not even taking the trouble to understand. It is quite clear, it is very simple, everything is there and it is quite easy to understand. The hon. member understands nothing and blames the Quebec government for having understood. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Quebec energy minister took the time to read the bill and to understand it and if he believes that it is good, necessary and well conceived because he can still act within his field of responsibility, I believe that we should congratulate him and criticize the hon. member for suggesting that he has understood everything when, in fact, he understands nothing at all. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the truth must be told.
Mr. Speaker, I have been dealing long enough with a false problem caused by someone who understood nothing. I would now like to come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. This amendment aims at deleting subclause (4) from clause 11 of the bill. Subclause (4) provides that there will be a three-day debate when the order made by the governor in council is tabled in the House for discussion by members of parliament. By deleting this provision, we would come back to our normal procedure, which means that once the order is tabled the House would have as much time as it wants to debate it under our standing orders. How long could this debate go on? Perhaps 15 days and even more, according to the time that the House will want to take to discuss it. Mr. Speaker, we all know that such a procedure can last a long time, as may be quite normal in certain cases.
Morever, if we study this bill and look only at its title, it is quite obvious that we are not discussing just any bill; we are discussing an act "to provide a means to conserve supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency". This legislation cannot be enacted at any time according to the whims of the governor in council or board officials. This
March 15. 1979

legislation will be enacted and implemented only in a case of national emergency.
Mr. Speaker, we are in a national emergency, the order is before the House, it has been discussed for two or three weeks. In the meantime the emergency worsens, conditions can deteriorate and we are still talking. The public often remark that politicians talk and talk but there is never any action. The legislation provides for practical actions. The board will be in a position and will have powers to take those actions at two levels: first the allocation of oil for refining, and second the allocation if needed, through rationing, of refined products.
Mr. Speaker, when faced with an emergency, when the crisis looms, it is too late to ponder whether this is urgent or not. Hon. members will have three days to put their arguments forward as to how they assess this period, this emergency, whether they perceive it as acute or not nonexistent. And after three days of debates, the question will be put automatically.
This means both sides of the House and every party will have ample time to find the most qualified people-and we know there will be a number of them-to state their positions and their party's positions on the emergency we will be facing. And when evidence will have been adduced by hon. members, the House will be called upon to dispose of the motion, to state whether or not it believes there is indeed an emergency and whether the government can or must proceed with the board's work, the implementation of the measures for the allocation of petroleum products. Mr. Speaker, this in my view provides a reasonable time frame. 1 am convinced that during those three days both sides will have an opportunity to make their views known as to whether there is an emergency. In my opinion suppressing this clause would make us run the risk of getting bogged down in a procedural debate. So, in the middle of a crisis, we could have politicians bickering and arguing at the very moment when there would be a risk and not only a risk but an actual state of emergency, when Canadians would suffer from a shortage of petroleum products. Mr. Speaker, 1 believe it is our duty as a government to provide for such an eventuality and to do so we have subclause 4 of clause 11 of the bill which sets a time limit to the debates on a given subject after the government has tabled the order.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out to hon. members that when we have changes to propose at a future stage, another order is issued by the Governor in Council. You will find further down in the other clauses of this bill that it provides for this obligation of tabling those orders before the House of Commons. So Mr. Speaker, I think it is judicious and wise to have thought of such a measure, given the very nature of this bill and the situation in which Canadians would find themselves once a state of emergency or crisis in Canada would have been declared. The mechanism will then be triggered following the decisions made by the Governor in Coun-
Energy Supplies
cil. Mr. Speaker, I think I have pointed out those main aspects of this bill on which I particularly wanted to draw your attention.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the vital provisions of Bill C-42 and in particular to consider the amendments and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). The pith and substance of the energy supplies emergency bill is that, in the event of a national emergency by reason of petroleum shortages, the mandatory allocation and rationing provisions can be invoked and made operative.
We must consider the provisions of the bill in relation to this eventuality and ask what constitutes a national emergency of the kind described. We are not without experience in this regard. Most hon. members will recall the difficult time experienced in 1973-74, particularly on the east coast of Canada and the United States. The picture I remember so well is that of a closed service station postered with "no gas" signs. But is that indeed the view of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie)? Does he really believe that we will experience consumer gas shortages and a shortfall in oil supplies to oil refineries?
Throughout February of this year the minister on several occasions gave assurances to this House that, in terms of oil supplies, we were in great shape. The minister spoke of trade-offs of western Canadian oil for a greater share of east coast imported oil. He told this House that we had a tremendous deal with the Venezuelan government: not only did the arrangement guarantee the source of supply, but the oil supplied would be purchased at a pre-emergency price.
He told us about Mexico and the negotiations for their new-found oil supplies. We can dismiss this source of oil supply forthwith because it will not even be on stream for several years. I shall not even ask the minister how he proposed to compete with the United States in purchasing these supplies with our 80-cent dollar as against their 100-cent dollar. Hon. members can be assured of one thing: when the minister speaks of new sources of foreign oil, we will pay for it and we will pay dearly. There is every reason to believe that east coast gas-now well over $1 per gallon-will rise to $2 per gallon if it is refined from foreign imported oil.
Let us consider what constitutes an emergency under the bill. In mid-February the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in this House and elsewhere that the situation is serious but not critical. We should consider why the minister thought the situation was not critical at that point. The minister gave us the reason and it was a very simple one- production in Alberta of Canadian oil was increased to a rate sufficient to feed the swaps for foreign oil delivered to the east coast. This was the device that defused the oil bomb. There was no explosion; eastern service stations did not close down, nor did easterners freeze in our coldest month.
4194

plug into cheaper hydro power. Also coal mine development and thermal projects might have been accelerated, but the governments argued and a stalemate resulted.
Ex-premier Regan watched expectantly and forlornly for offshore oil discoveries but nothing worthwhile was found. As so often happens, the pie did not fall from the sky and offshore oil did not materialize. It is interesting to note that Petro-Can has jumped into offshore exploration and is apparently rekindling the dream of offshore oil finds. Let us hope it does not become a financial nightmare for Canadians. Now there is a new government in Nova Scotia. It is a more co-operative one, one that has some insight into the energy situation.
We may have reached a new period in the energy history of the maritimes because we now have an energy agreement between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in which the federal government is participating. As well we have the Maritime Energy Corporation which involves these three provinces and the federal government. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, who the chief critic is of this provincial-federal co-operation, this new Maritime Energy Corporation? It is none other than the minister's old political friend, the ex-premier of Nova Scotia. He says the energy agreement forces Nova Scotia to assume the mistakes of New Brunswick and the federal government in nuclear energy. He says: "Don't extend the pipeline eastward; it will interfere with coal development." I say the minister better straighten him out.
Coal is now more competitive with the cost of oil approaching a price of $20 a barrel. If coal is viable as a source of energy it means a labour intensive industry which is not subject to foreign control. If the minister wants a national energy company he should promote the Cape Breton Development Corporation as "Coal-Can" and pour some of the billions of dollars being used to buy shares in viable private oil companies into coal development.
I have mentioned coal and I should underline the fact that the solution to the world oil crisis and the national oil emergency contemplated by this bill is the establishment of alternative sources of energy. What is meant by that? First, as I have mentioned, there is coal. In the maritimes we have one of the most fantastic potentials, namely Fundy tidal power. Hydro development in Newfoundland and Labrador is also a possibility, but we will have to have the transmission lines in place to carry whatever power is generated through a hydro system. Gas is another possibility the minister has mentioned many times in the House but there is an indication that gas brought to the east coast would cost twice as much as the gas utilized in places such as Toronto.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me deliver this message to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As always, the real answer is: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In energy terms, ounces of money spent on alternative energy sources will yield pounds of savings in dollars which would otherwise be spent on foreign oil.
Energy Supplies
[ Translation]


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Crosby) drew earlier an analogy between the Pope's legions and the powers of Petro-Canada or the services it might offer. I remember it was Stalin who asked: "How many legions does the Pope have?" It was an attempt to ignore the importance of the Pope in the world. I think his analogy was ill-chosen because everybody knows that even if the Pope has no army he has considerable influence over the whole of humanity. It is demonstrated by the fact that all countries in the world have representatives in Rome to benefit from his services and extensive knowledge.
If Petro-Canada still has no pipeline, liquefied gas tanker or oil resources, obviously it is a tool that the government wants to have at its disposal to ensure a better distribution of our resources and wealth. Had it been left to the party represented by the hon. member, Petro-Canada would never have seen the light. I also noticed that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred continually to provincial powers over resources.
Rather than launching a debate between the powers of the central government and those of the provinces, I would prefer to consider the interest of the individual, wherever he is living, and his right to equal opportunities and to his fair share of our wealth and resources. If we consider the interest of the individual, we have to conclude that no one would dispute the need for equalization, social measures like family allowances, old age security and others, and the need to share our wealth on some basis.
If we consider this principle from the individual point of view, I do not see why we should not reach the same conclusion when it comes to sharing our vast country's resources. Everybody knows that the individual as such does not necessarily trip over constitutional commas. If he were to freeze in the dark, he would not care if it was under federal or provincial jurisdiction, but would rather ask the governments to act. And I must commend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and his parliamentary secretary. I think they did a wonderful job in promoting this aspect. However, I am shocked that measures which for all practical purposes seem rather timid to me should give rise to such long debates and so many objections. So what is it all about? The idea is to make sure that the Canadian who lives in the east can afford as much heating and as many other services as the one who lives in the west. I think both would benefit. Nobody is questioning the general policy the government has come up with in order to ensure our self-sufficiency. It is of the utmost importance, and step by step we will put into place everything we need to succeed. We have here two opposing concepts. Some say we should leave it to private enterprise to reach that goal. Fine. I for one do not belittle the usefulness of private

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
enterprise. But I find it is quite ill-advised to ignore the complementing role the government must play in serving the interest of Canadians instead of struggling solely for corporate profits, however legitimate they may be, but which may not necessarily meet the aspirations of Canadians. It was on the basis of that principle that the government got involved in the tar sands and created Syncrude to encourage the development of immeasurable resources which, because of the high cost, had not been developed. Similarly, the government is becoming involved in the north through Panarctic and Petro-Canada. Especially for those coming from eastern Canada it might be well to recognize the great potential of those endeavours in order to remedy an unfair and extremely difficult situation of dependence for that area.
Let us dwell one moment on the fact that 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been discovered in the Arctic on Melville Island at Ray Point and on King Christian Island which can be transported south where there is a pipeline; or let us think of the very interesting proposal of Petro-Canada that Crown corporation-should it only be for that-that these resources should be taken south by methane tankers. I should like to deal with methane tankers, and I have made remarks before in the House concerning them. It would be possible to balance supply and demand. It would be possible not only to bring in resources which are indispensable to eastern Canada which, like Quebec, is 80 per cent dependent on foreign oil, and to the maritimes, which are even more dependent, and thus compensate for the absence of natural resources in the east, but also to develop a new technology, cause industrial developments, create jobs on shipbuilding yards and thus eliminate not only the lack of resources but also the unemployment which is extensive.
We must not disregard these possibilities, and were it not for Petro-Canada, such a project would never come true. There comes a time when we must decide whether we want to argue over constitutional issues or serve the public better. And why make such a fuss about a legislation such as this whose only purpose is to reserve larger amounts of supplies in emergency crises for those areas which need them most? Some may say that it is to please Quebec or the Maritimes, but I say that it is to please all those Canadians who have at heart the sharing of resources. Selfishness exists on a collective basis just as it exists on an individual basis, and some Canadians who possess resources feel that they should be the only ones to benefit from them. On the contrary, because there is already a sharing of wealth among the provinces, we say that the state has the duty to ensure our self-sufficiency as well as a better distribution of our resources among the provinces and individuals.
That is not saying we ought to question the very existence of private enterprise. We are aware of the fact that throughout the world, these corporations have resources, assets and contacts which are useful to us as far as our supplies are concerned, but we cannot rely only on their initiative because we

have proof that this can run counter to our interests. That is why we must have Petro-Canada and the Energy Supplies Allocation Board in case of emergency. I will not deny that I am flabbergasted that these principles are questioned again, and I cannot see why the House cannot expedite passage of such a sound piece of legislation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to surprise you by letting you know at the outset that, unlike many of the speakers on the government side, I am going to try to restrict myself to the amendment before us. I know Your Honour will be pleased about that attitude because in the course of this discussion on the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), subjects of a wide ranging nature have been dealt with. Granted, they are of some importance. I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) with respect to his concept of self-sufficiency and about how Petro-Canada should operate within our country, but what we are really dealing with is an aspect of a particular bill with respect to allocation of petroleum resources in Canada in a time of apprehended or actual crisis.
I want to bring the attention of the House back to precisely what the terms of this bill mean to our parliamentary system and what they mean as far as we as representatives of the people of Canada are concerned in carrying out, as we should-and the vast majority of us do-the responsibility we have to articulate on behalf of our constituents their concerns with respect to government policies.
If parliament is to be relevant, it must be given the opportunity to deal with important issues. I wonder whether the government is serious about this bill. I refer to clause 11(4). I want to remind Your Honour, if Your Honour needs reminding, of what this clause does. Clause 11(1) reads:
When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order, so declare and by that order authorize the establishment of a program for the mandatory allocation of petroleum products within Canada in accordance with this Act.
That actually means "in the opinion of the government". If at any time there is some deficiency in terms of petroleum supply, the government can make a decision and pass an order in council. The moment it passes an order in council the provisions of this allocation bill come into force. Let there be no question about that. This is not an innocent bill dealing with some small aspect of our society. It is a bill dealing with a very important part of our society, that is, energy and petroleum products. There are very far-reaching powers in this bill.
The word "opinion" stands out in my mind, and we as parliamentarians should be very leery about approving legisla-
March 15. 1979

tion giving a large amount of discretion to any cabinet, executive or government because we as parliamentarians have a responsibility in this chamber to act as a counterbalance to unlimited power being given to the executive of our country. I say that regardless of what political party makes up the cabinet. It is the basis and tradition of our system that parliament and individual members of parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinize government proposals and legislation. Governments should not go unchallenged and do just what they want to do, especially when they bring forward legislation like this in which there are absolutely no guidelines on what constitutes an emergency.
From time to time there have been circumstances in our country which have been deemed by spokesmen of one party or another to be emergency situations. The Chair is called upon with some frequency to rule upon whether from time to time a particular set of circumstances could be deemed to be an emergency for the purpose of setting aside the business of the House. In the course of your activities Your Honour knows how difficult it is to determine exactly what constitutes an emergency, because you are left alone to make that decision. However, in that determination Your Honour at least has the benefit of points of view and arguments from each side of the House as to whether certain circumstances constitute emergencies.
In this bill the government brings forward the proposition that if, in its opinion alone, there is an emergency with respect to petroleum supply and marketing of petroleum, it simply makes a decision and deems an order to be in effect from the moment it brings down an order in council. The government does that with the other reality in mind that its decision will be sustained-because of the nature of our parliamentary system-by its confreres in the governing party.
That is the reality, so where does that leave us? The minister suggests, for example, that somehow this bill allows parliament to consider an order. What do we find in clause 11(4), the subject of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham? Clause 11(4) provides the following:
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.
Mr. Speaker, on a matter of national importance, a matter of national emergency, members on the government side sit mute with regard to a provision which would in effect allow only three days' debate in this parliament by representatives of the people of Canada. What is happening to our concept of parliamentary democracy? I know the minister has a long history in the House of Commons. Up until now I have always considered him to be a supporter of the House of Commons and of parliament.


Pierre Bussières: He is.
Energy Supplies


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I thought the minister did not share the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who is contemptuous of parliament and whose every act since he has been in power has been to limit the powers of parliament and to increase his own executive power and that of the office of the Prime Minister in the presidential tradition. I thought that as a member of parliament of some standing, one who came here as a backbencher and worked his way up to an appointment to the cabinet, the minister would have some appreciation of the tradition of upholding the rights of parliament and the right of people to be heard through their representatives in the course of debates dealing with national emergencies.
As I say the bill provides for three days' debate. After the coming election when there will be 282 members in this House, and when a matter of extreme importance from the point of view of a particular member's constituents is raised, do hon. members understand the limited opportunity a member who is not a front bench member will have to articulate in the House of Commons the concerns of his constituents? He will have no chance at all. If you divide three days of five hours each, or whatever it is-on a Wednesday it is only two hours-by 282, we will not even have an opportunity to rise in our place, if everybody wishes to be recognized, because it would take three days simply to go through that process.
Also what the minister does not address himself to is that we are, in effect, being placed in the position of having the normal parliamentary procedures stripped away from us. What rights do we have in terms of parliament being able to assess whether or not there is a national emergency and whether or not proposals set forth by the government are needed or are legitimate, or indeed whether they are adequate? Where is the right in this bill for the motion to go before a standing committee of the House where independent witnesses can be brought forward, or indeed where the minister or a spokesman for the government can be brought forward to be questioned in detail with respect to the need and requirement for such legislation?
I am not arguing against the general principle of this bill in its broadest sense-that in certain circumstances of national emergency with respect to the energy supply the government of the day should be able to take direct steps in terms of the allocation of petroleum and petroleum products across this country. What I am saying is that I have become more and more concerned since I came to parliament about the tendency of this government to build into its legislation, regardless of the subject matter, a kind of automatic guillotine provision, as this legislation has. Hon. members opposite tell me that this is an emergency kind of legislation, unique legislation, and therefore we should go along with a limitation of the debate to three days since this legislation will only be used at a time of emergency. If there is any time when a bill should not prejudge the length of time parliament should be allowed to debate a matter, it is precisely in times of emergency.

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
I think all of us sitting in the House will recall that either tomorrow or on the next sitting day we will be debating a bill regarding national referenda. The one reason I mention this is that it will be another bill which has the effect of allowing for referenda affecting the very constitution of our country in which again this government has demonstrated its suspicion of parliament and of the parliamentary process by severely limiting the amount of time that parliamentarians, members representing the people of Canada, will have to debate the fundamental and important issues of our country.
What is this government trying to do? Is it trying to make parliament irrelevant? Is it trying to prejudge every circumstance and saying that from now on "Big Brother is going to look after you"? Is that the mentality of this particular group of people who now govern our country?
I know the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) will have an opportunity to speak because he is always brought in. He is a parliamentarian, I will say that. He is here in the House of Commons and he has heard us. I would be interested in hearing what he has to say about this restriction because I know that in his heart of hearts he will not be able to stand in his place with any amount of seriousness and support the provision in clause 11 restricting the right of parliamentarians to deal with this legislation or with this order under the legislation. Under this legislation, before we know the nature of the problem, all of a sudden we will be told we can only debate it for three days. Is this a wise decision?
I want to point out, in case there is any doubt in the minds of anyone hearing or reading this debate, or in fact looking in on us this afternoon, that there is a provision within our rules allowing the government to impose closure on any debate in the House. In case anyone in the House or anyone reading or listening to the debate is uncertain of this provision in our rules, I want to point out that we have Standing Order 75 under which any minister of the Crown may stand in his place and move a motion to the effect that there will be a limitation placed on debate of any business in the House. After a couple of preliminary steps have been taken, that motion to limit and curtail debate in the House in accordance with the amount of time specified by the minister is then considered for two hours and a vote is taken.
In other words, to all intents and purposes the government of the day has the ability, if it thinks it is politically expedient to do so, to limit and curtail debate under our rules. So why does the government now find it necessary to bring in this provision under subclause (4) of the bill, which is the subject of the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, which prejudges every issue that will come before us? The government now have the power to curtail debate, so why are they so anxious to prejudge all issues? Is this the mentality of the government? I will not suggest that this is their program, but why, I ask you, is the government prejudging every issue we are going to have in terms of national emergencies in this country relating to energy; and why do they give parliament only three days in which to debate this matter? What is the explanation and

where is the minister who should explain to us that provision in the bill? I can only suggest that it is the mentality of the government now-


Mr. Paproski:: And of the minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am very disappointed that the minister takes this attitude on a matter of such importance. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister really wanted to come to terms with this legislation he would have a different provision in this clause. He would have guidelines to define a national emergency in the most specific terms possible.
Second, I want to bring to the attention of the House another element of the bill which causes me a great deal of concern. One of the complaints that one hears in terms of legislation is against the growing tendency of this government to bring in legislation that has a very arbitrary element. What concerns me about this bill, and about this clause which is the subject of the amendment, is that it gives the government wide arbitrary powers in terms of the allocation of petroleum and petroleum products in our country for an unlimited period of time. Because while clause 34 of the bill provides that the order under clause 11 gives the power of allocation to the board set up by the federal government, if it wants to extend that power at the end of the 11 months period, all it has to do to keep it on an indefinite and ongoing basis is to reissue an order in council at the end of the three months period, put it before parliament for three days, and they are back in business again.
That is a very legitimate objection to this particular procedure in the bill, and it is why I support wholeheartedly the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
The restriction we put in this bill now has no relevance to what might happen in the future. Perhaps a debate will come forward on a national energy emergency which will require only one day of debate, no debate or unanimous consent. On the other hand, perhaps there will be circumstances in terms of a national energy emergency which will require, in the interests of the government of the day, the fullest possible discussion. Why is this arbitrary three-day period being put in the bill now? Does the government not understand in terms of this kind of legislation that we, as parliamentarians and representatives of different parts of Canada, might be able to assist the government to deal better with a national energy emergency? Does the government not see that alternative? What type of help will the government receive under this procedure, as arbitrary as it is? What type of assistance will the government receive from parliament? That tells the lie of this particular piece of legislation. It demonstrates as much as anything the fact that the government reflects its fear of parliament in this piece of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member
March 15, 1979

for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, when we look at the world scene and at the implications of Bill C-42, we must reflect upon the past in Canada. As we look at our past, starting in 1947 Canada had no oil and gas industry. In February of 1947 Imperial Oil, of which we have heard so much in the last few days, brought in the discovery while at Leduc, Alberta, and set in motion one of the greatest industrial supplies of oil which the country has ever had.
It has served very well our needs for development and for crude oil and energy in this period of time. In fact, the industry moved so successfully during the course of those years that pipelines were built to bring oil to market. Also natural gas lines were built to bring Canadian natural gas to markets. We arrived at a point in the middle seventies where Canada was somewhat more than self-sufficient in oil and gas. We were able to export volumes which at that time made an important contribution to our balance of payments, to our exports, and at the same time make a very important contribution to our neighbour, the United States.
In the middle seventies we reached a point where we had something in the order of 1,800,000 barrels a day of production. This included natural gas liquids, pentanes and other petroleum liquids. But now we have cut back to something in the order 1,600,000 barrels a day, and we will come down a great deal further. If we project into the very early part of the 1980s, we are told by the National Energy Board, and by most of those who make these projections, that the country will face imports in the order of 50 per cent of its crude oil supply.
I do not think anyone in the House, or in Canada for that matter, would disagree that a very serious situation is facing us in the future. It is not a problem which does not have solutions. There are some solutions, to which I will direct my remarks a little later. However, as I reflect on the events in the House in the last few days during oral question period and this debate, I must ask: What is the minister trying to do? I know hon. members on this side of the House are asking the same question. I maintain the minister is deliberately misleading Canadians. 1 do not know why. Is it deliberate? The minister is crying wolf. He is attacking everyone in sight, which is his style and that of his predecessor. But these problems will not be solved by attacking people. He attacked the industry, the provinces, the premiers and a lot of people who made a contribution. He took a swipe at the province of Alberta.
It is interesting to note in this particular year, if there is any question about what that province is contributing to the rest of Canada, just what Alberta is contributing. 1 do not think the citizens of the province of Alberta are complaining about this. In fact, they are happy to make this contribution. But it must be recognized that the export tax at the present time on crude oil, which picks up the difference between what the province
Energy Supplies
and the producers of Alberta receive and the international price, is yielding something in the order of $5 a barrel to the federal treasury. That money is being taken from the federal treasury to subsidize Canadians in the eastern part of the country. If that total is calculated over the period of a year, in 1979 the province of Alberta through this particular amount will lose some $2 billion which will be distributed in the form of subsidies to the rest of Canada. Because this has been going on for a number of years, we can look at the past and see that the total up until now is something in the order of $14 billion to $15 billion. I think that kind of contribution should be recognized by a minister who goes on the attack.
Perhaps the minister can tell us why he is taking this approach to things. If the minister was constructive, he would be giving us some of the solutions. Perhaps his problem relates back to the constitutency in which he was last elected. I understand that perhaps he is concerned about his chances of re-election there.
The other aspect of the minister's approach which concerns me is his escalation of Petro-Canada into the solution. Petro-Canada is a reality; it is in place. All Canadians hope to goodness that Petro-Can finds some oil. Everyone is pulling for them because we need the oil. Petro-Canada has huge resources. The government has backed them to the hilt. Presumably Petro-Canada has a chance to find some oil and gas. 1 think everyone here would agree that if Petro-Canada finds oil, it would be for the good of all. I think the minister is misleading Canadians by leaving the impression that Petro-Canada will solve the problem. Petro-Canada is only one of many, many companies. If the minister overlooks the private sector, which he seems to be doing, he is telling people that the problem will be solved by this government oil company. Petro-Canada may or may not be the solution. Many people would say that Petro-Canada is the problem. In any event, if Petro-Canada is part of the solution, it is a very modest part of the solution, even if and when the company is successful.
Why is the minister escalating this whole question? I think it is for political purposes. Perhaps the government wants to go into an election and be able to blame Exxon and Alberta. The government wants to point to this energy question and place itself in the position where it is everybody else's fault. The government is trying to be on the side of motherhood at the same time as prejudicing future supplies.
I do not intend to say much about Venezuela, but I think the minister owes us an explanation. The fact of the matter is that there is no surplus light oil in Venezuela. The contracts Exxon has there are ongoing ones which are called "evergreen"; they are renewed year after year. If the minister buys oil in Venezuela, it will be heavy oil. Heavy oil is not too desirable because it does not suit Canadian refineries. The minister has an obligation to explain to the House what oil he will buy. Certainly we can reflect upon the fact that the last time the government bought oil, Mr. Goyer bought it overseas at twice the price. Also the minister has an obligation to tell us what price he will pay. These are two questions which require answers.

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
We have security of supply, we have supply, and we have price. One of the facts about security of supply is this, and I hope the minister will take the opportunity of answering, if he will listen for a minute. The fact is that if all the oil companies are directed to buy their supplies from Venezuela, then it seems to me we have cancelled our insurance. We have an opportunity through the pools that large oil companies in the world will have to do some switching of supplies. We have some opportunity of benefiting when in fact our principal sources are cut off.
The minister seems to be tearing up that insurance contract. I want to know what happens in the future if the Venezuelan supply collapses. Nobody today can give us a very confident picture of Venezuela continuing to export its volumes. In fact, there is no doubt that Venezuela has cut off probably one third of its production in the last three or four years, and there is every reason to think it is going to cut it in the future. Why is the minister trying to give us the impression that he is going to buy oil from a country that has cut back and is unlikely to have any supplies available for him?
I do not think anybody cares if Petro-Canada can buy oil somewhere else from a new source, perhaps Mexico or China.
1 would say, good for it. If it can turn up some new supplies I do not think we would be anything but pleased. But to tell the House and to let us think that he is going to do something in Venezuela certainly requires a great deal of explanation by the minister. In fact, all he is talking about is the shortfall on the part of Imperial Oil amounting to 8,000 barrels a day, and the minister knows that is not a drop in the bucket.
The other reality in the world oil industry today relates to price. OPEC countries have, because of shortages, increased prices. Just a year ago Iran was considered a very stable source of supply. Who is to know what Venezuela, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia could do next? Saudi Arabia has been considered a moderate in the oil producing world. It has played an important role in keeping price escalations reasonable. What is more, today it is producing something in the order of 8.5 million barrels a day and has a capability of probably 11.5 million barrels a day. With more drilling it could probably produce 13 million or 14 million barrels a day. That country today has the power to control the world's oil supply, and in that sense its stability is far more vital than the stability of any other oil producing country in the world. However, even Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait as well, moderates in the oil producing world, are raising their prices. Today the spot price of oil is up anywhere from SI.50 to $3 a barrel. Our landed price of OPEC oil in Canada now exceeds SI7 a barrel, and some spot shipments are selling around the world at $25 a barrel.
The other reality is that the price is going to continue to go up. I recently had the opportunity of chatting with some of the world's leading petroleum economists who told me we had to think in terms of an 8 per cent to 10 per cent a year increase in oil prices. There will not be any more freezes. The OPEC countries did have a freeze for a while. If we take the $17

barrel price today and add on 10 per cent a year through 1985, which is not very far off, my calculation is that the price will be in the order of $30 a barrel. That is a very serious consideration, not only to us but to all the developing countries in the world which in fact are suffering much more from this situation than are we.
We must recognize that we are going to have to share some of our oil. We have made some strides in cutting back on our consumption, but we have this minister running around and putting the arm on somebody in order to recover the 8,000 barrels a day which have been cut off. I do not know where that oil went, but we have signed an agreement with Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg and many more countries to co-operate when it comes to shortages. Suddenly 8,000 barrels a day, and it was a little higher to begin with-


An hon. Member:: A great deal higher.


Peter Colwell Bawden: -is going to some other country, probably one of those I have mentioned, and the minister is now saying: "To hell with those other countries, we do not care what they get". I think the approach of this government is entirely wrong.
This bill contains a lot of powers. I think my colleagues on this side of the House have all said we recognize that some reasonable powers are good. Without getting into the reasonableness of the powers, I would like to get into the question about the reasonableness of the man who is going to exercise these powers. He is the minister sitting across the way in the government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and history has proven that we cannot trust those people with powers, any more than we can trust them with a gun. History has proven this, Mr. Speaker, and has proven that the industrial people in Canada do not have confidence in this government or this minister. We have much less confidence when we look at the powers he is asking for now.
Until this government, the former minister and the present minister, got into the act we were self-sufficient. Since they got into the act everything has gone downhill, everything has become worse. Everything will continue to get worse if they do not change their attitude. This government is bringing in negative legislation. Everything we hear from the minister is negative; he is going to take control, he wants more power, and everything in those powers is negative.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is also a problem in the United States. Just two years ago Mr. Carter came in with his great tax programs, but they had nothing to do with supply. They all had to do with consumption. That is good because we have to conserve, but there has been no regard for supply.
If this minister is really serious about what he is saying, he should jump to his feet and tell us about the northern regulations. We have some of our greatest reserves in the Arctic frontier. As of February 13 there were five drilling rigs working in the Canadian Arctic north of 60. A year ago there were 11 working, more than twice as many, and the year before that there were something in the neighbourhood of 20. We now have 25 per cent of that former activity in the Arctic today. I hope the minister will respond to that fact because
March 15, 1979

that is an indication that this government is playing politics with a very important commodity in this country. This is a cold country and our entire economic development depends on energy. If we do not have energy our economy slides.
As for exporting energy or giving some to our friends in the United States, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is very important. We must remember that we are exporting something like 70 per cent to our best customer, the United States. If the U.S. economy is starved because of energy or fuel, their economy will not be healthy and they will not be in a position to buy our manufactured goods. We in turn will lose more jobs.
I suggest that this question of energy is very much a question that is interrelated among nations. We on this continent cannot get along if we do not interrelate our activities and our security of supply. Most of the countries in the western world who are part of the International Energy Agencies feel the same way.
In the past few years we have experienced a situation during which the rules have become confused and taxation has been confusing. The whole matter has been so disorganized that there has not been any progress. This government has been dealing with the United States and with Alberta. I say that the government should get on with this job, bring in the legislation and let us get the northern regulations into place. There are some guidelines and the people have a rough idea of what is going to happen, but there are no regulations.
This is much like the budget situation. We have had a budget but where is the budget legislation? All of the tax provisions encouraging Canadians to invest in the oil and gas industry expire some time in June. Are we going to have a budget bill put before us before then? These are the kind of positive things to which this minister has to respond, instead of giving us all this gobbledygook about what he is going to do to control this and that, to chase Exxon and chase the rest. This is a red flag before a bull. I was brought up cn the farm and I can tell you that when you want to operate on a horse you bite its ear. This minister is biting everybody's ears in this country. I wish he would get on with the job.
I have one or two other things to say. The world's oil supply is declining. The fact of the matter is that as we reach the middle part of the 1980s supply will be shorter and shorter each year. The question is, what do we do about this? We in Canada have probably some of the greatest reserves in the world. We have the Alberta oil sands, which is a fantastic reserve. I guess we have a couple of hundred billion barrels that we can develop there. I suggest that is equal probably to the reserves of Saudi Arabia, which are about 180 billion barrels. What are we doing about those reserves? This consideration has been going on for years and years and years and we do not yet have any answers. We do not have the oil plants coming on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. If he needs only a
Royal Assent
few seconds to complete his remarks, I could perhaps not see the clock.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, if I could have another 60 seconds, I will conclude by saying that we need leadership today. I know all the political sides to this question, but we must drop them. The time is now. Canadians should know, as does the minister, that it takes five years to 15 years, probably an average of ten years, for any major energy project to get on stream. That ten-year projection means that we must act now. The future of our country is at stake. Our survival is at stake. We must stop playing politics and get on with finding and producing energy and putting the rules in place. Let us have leadership, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Transport- Arbitrary withdrawal of rail service for certain commodities; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-Energy-Cash incentives program to promote development of alternate sources of energy; the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare)-The Canadian Economy-Findings by CSIP-Government action thereon.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Four minutes left. You are using the Crown to avoid a vote.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
March 15, 1979 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Jean Beetz, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 15th day of March, at 5:30 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
4202

March 15, 1979
Government Contracts
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. There being no items under private bills on the order paper, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Thursday, December 14, 1978 of the motion of Mr. McKenzie:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all government contracts, excluding Crown corporations and agencies, with Canadian firms and individuals in the years 1976 and 1977.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House previously considered this motion, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) had the floor.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, he is not here.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the continuation of debate on this motion permits me to speak about the openness of the Department of Supply and Services' contract system. It is vital, that hon. members of the House and all Canadians are made fully aware of the underlying principles of fairness and equity which guide the operations of the supply administration in carrying out its prime objective of providing or obtaining the goods and services essential to government programs at a fair and reasonable price.
In the achievement of this objective, the supply administration ensures prudence and probity in the expenditure of public funds and an equal opportunity for Canadian small business and industry to do business with the federal government. The openness with the supply administration contracting systems guarantees that full information on all contracting is available to potential suppliers on each procurement action.
How do we ensure that there is an equal chance at getting these contracts for all people in Canada who have the supplies and can give us the services we need in this particular department? To ensure consistency and equity in the contracting process, the supply administration generally uses three methods to solicit bids from the suppliers. I will name the three methods and then give an explanation of what they mean. First

of all, there are the invitations to tender, secondly, requests for proposal, and requests for quotation.
An invitation to tender is employed to solicit bids from two or more suppliers where specified criteria were known and adequately defined. In other words, when we know the specific type of material or service that we need-and we know this from past experience or from studies made in advance-we then put out an invitation to tender. A request for proposal is employed in competitive situations where requirements cannot be adequately defined and, as a result, the selection of a supplier cannot be made solely on the basis of the lowest priced responsive bid and in single or sole source procurements with an estimated value over $5,000. A request for quotation is intended to provide a fast efficient method for the processing of lower dollar value requirements; that is to say, those requirements of a value not exceeding $5,000.
The last two basic approaches are modified slightly to achieve necessary efficiencies in the area of low dollar value contracting. Once bids or proposals have been received, the work of evaluation and, in many cases, negotiation begins and then the ultimate contract is awarded. The policy of the department is to have public openings on all invitations to tender for which a competitive bid solicitation has been issued. This action prevents the consideration that there is anything illegal or underhanded. The bids are opened publicly and any interested parties, such as the people who are bidding or their attorneys, may attend to assure that everything is in order.
However, the work does not stop there. Once the contract has been awarded, the supply administration is responsible for contract administration which involves ensuring that the terms and conditions of the contract are strictly followed. The information on bids solicitations and responses is recorded and made available to suppliers in various forms which I will now describe.
The Department of Supply and Services regularly publishes two bulletins, "The Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities" and "The Research and Development Bulletin". In "The Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities" is contained all the contracts awarded to Canadian firms on behalf of federal departments or agencies in the amount of $10,000 or more for the week preceding its publication. The bulletin gives the commodity and file number, the contractor, the customer, department or agency and the value of the contract. In addition, the total value of contracts awarded is given along with a list of the top suppliers.
What could be more forthcoming? What could be more above board? Contracts classified for security reasons are not included in the list of contracts awarded, for obvious reasons. This bulletin is distributed to suppliers on the mailing list, to the media and to all members of parliament who have indicated, after receiving an offer to subscribe, that they wish to be on the mailing list. In other words, the information is public and is freely and widely distributed to any interested party.
March 15, 1979

It is still incredible that, in spite of the availability of such information, hon. members of the opposition continue to distort the facts concerning government contracting activities. I refer here not only to these facts but to others that hon. members alluded to in a note sent to me a short while ago which was not exactly in accordance with the facts as I understood them when 1 rose to speak. When these particular things are alluded to, I think we should have more warning so that we can take steps to have the necessary information available to counteract such statements.
I will give two recent examples of government contracting activities. In the House of Commons on November 16, 1978, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) alleged that a purchase of 460,000 boxes of paper clips at a cost of $44,000 was a weekly order for government consumption. In fact, this purchase of paper clips was for the total federal government's requirements, nationwide, for a 12-month period. The order was distributed in varying amounts to supply centres in the Atlantic region, Quebec region, national capital region, Ontario region, western region and Pacific region, for subsequent issue to federal government offices and agencies as required. What could be more of a distortion of the facts than to allege we would spend this money for this type of material for such a short time?
The second example concerns the member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Howie) who on March 12, 1979, in the House of Commons wrongly accused the government of charging a $292,440 award to Decision Dynamics Corporation, for an evaluation study of gun control legislation to the science budget of the Department of Supply and Services and not to the Department of the Solicitor General. In fact, the "Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities" of February 23, 1979, clearly states that the Department of the Solicitor General is the customer for this contract, and therefore pays the bill, not the Department of Supply and Services.
Another public and freely distributed document available from the Department of the Solicitor General and pertaining to contracting activities is the "Research and Development Bulletin" which appears in the second week of each month and contains four main sections. The first is the "Science Procurement Update" which covers developments in science procurement and other science topics of interest; and second, projects for which proposals are expected to be invited. This section describes selected research and development requirements for which the science centre of the Department of Supply and Services expects to solicit proposals.
I hear the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) interjecting that he does not get this bulletin. I will see to it that it is delivered to him in both official languages so that he can keep up with things.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wishes to refer to me, I wish he would do so as the hon. member for Edmonton Centre instead of Edmonton West. My colleague is from Edmonton West. I would appreci-
Government Contracts
ate it if he would change that reference and make sure I am referred to as representing Edmonton Centre. Next year it will be Edmonton North.


Gilbert Parent: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I thought the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) was moving to Edmonton West, so I stand corrected; it is Edmonton North. I would not want anyone to refer to my hon. colleague as not being where he should be, wherever that is.
The third section to which I am alluding is a statistical summary which lists contracts awarded by quantity and amount, their distribution by organization type, location and client department; and, finally, contracts awarded during the previous month. For each contract there is a short description of the work, the value, the name of the client department and the name of the contractor or principal investigator.
Periodically, the "Research and Development Bulletin" will carry a section of unsolicited proposals which are unique proposals from the private sector in support of government science missions. It will contain aggregate statistics on the number, type and status of unsolicited proposals received by the science centre during a certain period. Also, this section will have a summary of all contracts awarded during that period as a result of unsolicited proposals.
Incidentally, this bulletin is printed commercially under contract. This also went out on tender when we were first beginning to do it.
The "Research and Development Bulletin" receives wide distribution to universities, private and public research bodies and individuals, and customer departments. I can testify to this personally because in my riding of St. Catharines, where Brock University is situated, professors have written to me on many occasions about specific contracts which were let as a result of this policy. They told me they were satisfied that it was done on a fair and equitable basis for all universities across the country.
In addition to the two valuable regular publications I have just described, the supply administration has a well established supplier relations activity to ensure that all relevant information on contracting is provided to businessmen. In addition, the supplier relations function ensures the provision of information on contracts awarded to the House, other government departments, other governments, political party research offices and the public. In carrying out this function, supply administration officials interview representatives of companies visiting or corresponding with the department, make presentations to businessmen at industrial seminars, and organize visits of representatives from other countries and trade missions of suppliers from provinces.
In the last two months one of the seminars was conducted in the city of Calgary, in the latter part of February. One of our colleagues from Quebec attended it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And did a great job.


M. Parent:: The hon. member for Edmonton West I presume was there because he acknowledges the member who was sent,

March 15, 1979
Government Contracts
the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Dupont), who did a great job. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton West knows what he is talking about-I am sorry, I mean the hon. member for Edmonton Centre-when he recognizes the quality of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
Supplier relations is an internal responsibility of each line organization and, in addition, the executive secretary of the supply administration has an over-all responsibility in this regard and carries out liaison with the small business secretariat for the supply administration's involvement in the small business program. This liaison also includes other organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and discussions with industry on subcontracting activities particularly related to small business.
The supply administration attempts to give all business-big or small-the same chance at government contracts while getting the best value for Canadian taxpayers' dollars. This is one of the basic premises with which we must operate. The basic idea behind this is that all qualified businesses in Canada should have equal opportunities to win government contracts. Generally, large and medium-sized firms have learned to do business with government through experience. However, many smaller Canadian firms are often unaware of how to become government suppliers. With this in mind the supply administration has launched a continuing program to generate awareness of government contract opportunities. This clearly shows our intent and success in providing relevant contracting information to the public.
Now I will deal briefly with the second possible area of concern which may arise from recent comments by the Auditor General on contracting in government. On this issue let me simply quote the Auditor General's statement in section 9.112 of his 1978 report. He says:
In general, contracting arrangements in Supply Administration are entered into with due regard for economy.
The contracting tradition of this department and its record regarding prudence and probity, fairness and equity to suppliers and due regard to economy is well established within the business community of this nation. I refer to big and small business right across Canada.
While I am on the subject of the Auditor General's report, I would like to take this opportunity to reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), as reported in Hansard at pages 2142-2143 for December 14, 1978 pertaining to the use of competitive and non-competitive tendering.
From the statistics presented in section 9.4 of the Auditor General's report it has been widely interpreted that approximately 50 per cent of the contracts, both in quantity and in value, in the Department of Supply and Services are awarded without competition because many DSS contracts are designated in our statistical reporting system as "sole source", "selected source" or "no substitute". This misinterpretation stems from a lack of explanation provided in the Auditor

General's report about the various selection methods used by the supply administration in its contracting procedures.
For example, under the government contracts regulations, section 8(b) permits entry into contract without inviting tenders under $15,000. The supply administration, however, has a much stricter interpretation of this regulation and has always followed a policy of either inviting tenders or insisting on a competitive quotation which can be equally as competitive or rigorous as the formal tendering process. As evidence of the success of this approach for 1976-77, in the contract range from $0 to $2,500, 70.6 per cent of the documents were other than "sole source", "selected source" or "no substitute" and in this range a total of 226,022 contracts were awarded. This represents 80.2 per cent of the total number of contractual documents issued by the supply administration. This shows that we take great care to award these contracts on a fair basis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.
If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understand your comments correctly, Your Honour has just indicated to the House that, in accordance with the proceedings under this motion, we would have five minutes of reply from our side and then the hon. member would have five minutes to address himself to the motion and that would terminate the debate. If I may I would like to make a contribution at this time, following up what my friend, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent), has talked about at great length.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First 1 should clarify the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary. Standing Order 48(2) provides that a minister of the Crown be allowed to speak for five minutes at the termination of the 90 minutes allowed for the debate, following which the mover of the motion may speak for not more than five minutes.
I have looked through the precedents and found that this point has never been contested in the past. The only time it was brought to the attention of the House was on April 17, 1975 when the then Acting Speaker mentioned that the only way the parliamentary secretary could speak after the 90 minutes allowed was with unanimous consent. The House gave unanimous consent to the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, which did not create a precedent.
In my opinion, a minister of the Crown is entitled to speak under this provision. I might add that if a parliamentary secretary is allowed to speak for his minister, it is not mentioned in Standing Order 48(2), in general at least. In this instance the Standing Order is precise. But there is nothing to prevent the parliamentary secretary from speaking at this time to refute whatever he wants to refute because we still have a further eight minutes of debating time left. This would allow the mover of the motion five minutes upon conclusion.
March 15, 1979

[ Translation]


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to that. In view of the few minutes left, I might not be able to go into as much detail as I would have liked. As 1 will be referring to notes that were prepared for me in English I will be speaking mainly in English about the cost of the documents.

The cost of tabling the contract documents as requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) would be excessive. In our view, the existing process of disseminating contracting information to the public has significant benefits in terms of prudence and probity in the use of taxpayers' funds and equity of opportunity for interested suppliers. For example, the supply administration's contracting system encourages government agencies to take advantage of the DSS policy to buy if something can be bought more effectively and cheaply in the private sector than it can be "made" within government. By wide dissemination of contracting information and opportunities, business is encouraged to increase its share of activity in providing goods or services which the government may have provided in the past. 1 will describe a number of examples of make or buy initiatives that are well known to Canadian suppliers.
Take printing for example. Printing encompasses the two distinct modes, the "make" manufacturing printing performed in the main plant, Hull-


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused by your ruling. I understand we are awaiting a call from the Senate. Will I be allowed my five minutes of debate this afternoon? Will a vote be called? If there is a call from the Senate, does that stop the debate and therefore preclude me from having my five minutes of debating time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I cannot tell the hon. member when the messenger will come to the House. If a messenger were to come now, the debate would have to be stopped and whatever number of minutes there are left-and it is some six minutes, I believe-would have to be allowed after we return from the Senate, giving another five minutes to the hon. member. If that brings us past six o'clock, this debate would have to be continued at another time. So I cannot give a clear answer to the hon. member until I know exactly when the messenger is coming.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have not researched this point, Mr. Speaker, but it would seem to me that, in accordance with the historical traditions of this House, if the messenger comes at a time that is inconvenient to us, we have no obligation to accept the message. It seems to me the business of the country should take priority, that the rights of commoners should take priority over any message which comes prematurely. In my view, this debate should be allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, which would be reached before 5.45 p.m. If the messen-
Government Contracts
ger happens to be listening, 1 would think that that is the time at which he should come here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If 1 were to follow the suggestion made by the hon. member, I am sure the House would find itself in very difficult situations, because there would always be one member who would not be ready to open the door to the messenger, so it has been the practice that when the messenger comes we open the door.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Still on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to know how many more minutes are left for the debate, and how much time is left to the member who has the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mercier has the floor and he is entitled to 20 minutes. I see the hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on another point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will be rising in due course to answer the point of order raised by the hon. member for Edmonton North but 1 would like my hon. colleague to have the opportunity to conclude his speech in the four minutes he has left. I would remind the Chair that the hon. member who rose from this side started at 5.04 because an hon. member, an oil magnate was extended the courtesy of speaking longer than his time. In the circumstances I am surprised by the attitude of the opposition which wants to prevent the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) from continuing his speech. So, Mr. Speaker. 1 reserve my right to rise on the point of order after the hon. member for Mercier concludes his remarks.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to comment on the point of order, but that would be one of my arguments: we have already spent four minutes on question of procedure and I do not see why further time should be taken away from me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I do not mind if hon. members wish to continue raising points of order until six o'clock. I am adding to the time available for this debate. I have already given instructions to add four minutes, so this debate is prolonged until 5.40. If members wish to continue to raise points of order I will extend the time because the motion is entitled to be debated for 90 minutes. When we are on points of order we do not debate the motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All 1 want to say, Mr. Speaker, is this: I want to thank you. I wanted to know. I am not concerned about what the hon. parliamentary secretary has to say or about what the hon. member has to say. We should like to know how much more time is left in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My interpretation of the rule allowing for interventions and points of order is that the debate should

March 15, 1979
Royal Assent
conclude at 5.40, plus an extra five minutes allowed for the minister and five minutes for the mover.
The hon. member for Mercier.


Prosper Boulanger: I turn, now, to printing. Printing encompasses two distinct modes, the manufacturing printing performed in the main plant, Hull, and in over 100 plants and copy centres across the country; and the purchasing function which, through a consolidated purchasing capability, distributes federal printing requirements to the industry in Canada on a competitive basis. This year, over $130 million worth of government printing requirements will be handled by the supply administration. Some years ago, over 60 per cent of the printing business was made in government facilities with 40 per cent going to the private sector. Through a concerted effort by the supply administration's printing products centre-
1 guess I have to stop, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Nobody was listening to you anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Four minutes left. You are using the Crown to avoid a vote.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor Genera! desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-35, An act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Chapter No. 13.
Bill C-28, An act to amend the Northwest Territories Act-Chapter No. 14.
Bill S-6, An act to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act-Chapter No. 15.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McKenzie:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all government contracts, excluding Crown corporations and agencies, with Canadian firms and individuals for the years 1976 and 1977.
Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, before we went up to the Senate chamber 1 referred to the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent), mentioned the introduction of bulletin board bidding for government printing requirements. This new technique provides a unique opportunity for local printers right across the country to bid on government requirements. In the past they were hindered by the need to get bids in from remote locations. That was with regard to printing.
With regard to publishing, the publishing centre was integrated with the department when Information Canada was disbanded in April, 1976. Its objective is to supply effectively priced publications of various departments and agencies to the Canadian public.
The "make or buy" policy was an element in the decision to close the six Canadian government bookstores. The government run bookstores were providing relatively few Canadians with a costly service that could not be self-supporting on the basis of sales revenues. With the closing of the bookstores more members of the Canadian bookselling community are being encouraged to become government sales agents, and annual savings in excess of $1 million are being achieved.
Mr. Speaker, the government rightly believes that all qualified businesses in Canada have the right to know the requirements of the state. The DSS has allowed everyone to have access to public contracts. Whatever their size or field of endeavour, all Canadian businesses are entitled to do business with the federal government.
Our policy is guided first of all by the principle of equal opportunities for all suppliers. This principle is foremost in our daily activities and ensures the impartiality of our negotiations. By using objective business practices and recognizing equal opportunities for potential suppliers in all regions of the country, the department applies this principle to its publicity methods as well as its information and advertising programs.
In the field of contract negotiation, the department sees to it that the contractors have equal opportunities to do business with the government, because we are convinced that it is a right and not a privilege for any businessman to be able to deal
March 15, 1979

with the Canadian government. It is quite easy to do business with the Department of Supply and Services. Our procurement methods ensure real integrity and accessibility guarantees for our department. These principles are reflected by the following initiatives, which are as follows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but according to Standing Order 48(2), the time provided for consideration of this motion has expired.

If there is no minister-as I can see-who desires to participate at this time, the Chair will call upon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) who will close the debate.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that parliamentary secretaries standing in for ministers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I already ruled on that point of order, so I cannot allow the hon. member to raise it again.


Yvon Pinard: I certainly do not intend to appeal your decision, but I think that the point raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary is not the one he raised earlier when you made your remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the formula used in Standing Order 48(2). It reads as follows and I quote:
When debate on a motion for the production of papers... has taken place for a total time of one hour and thirty minutes-
This is what is happening now, you have just interrupted the debate. The problem could not exist earlier, Mr. Speaker, as you have just interrupted the debate. And further we can read. -Mr. Speaker shall at that point interrupt the debate,
And it is only after, Mr. Speaker, that you recognize the mover of the motion for the production of papers, not before.
You shall certainly ask: But why is it that a parliamentary secretary can take the floor instead of a minister? On that subject I wish to refer you to Standing Order 15 concerning the oral questions period. Standing Order 15(2) reads, and I quote:
(2) Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House members, other than ministers of the Crown, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 at this time. Not later than 2.15 p.m., or 11.15 a.m., as the case may be, all questions shall be taken up.
Indeed on oral questions, it is stated that any member other than ministers of the Crown, before oral questions, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, and on oral questions we know parliamentary secretaries answer on behalf of ministers. I therefore wonder on what basis the parliamentary secretary, who could not properly raise his point of order before the end of the debate on the motion before the House,
Government Contracts
that is only a few seconds ago, cannot when acting for a minister be recognized for the five-minute speech provided for by Standing Order 48(2).
Since in the case of motions proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, members other than ministers may propose motions, and since on oral questions parliamentary secretaries may answer questions on behalf of ministers, for what reason the five-minute speech provision under Standing Order 48(2) may not at this stage be extended to parliamentary secretaries, since under the Parliamentary Secretaries Act they are supposed to help their respective ministers? If making a speech on behalf of a minister as provided in the standing order is not helping a minister, I wonder what is. All this of course is submitted with all due respect. I have no intention whatsoever to appeal a decision you may have made, but I do not feel that in effect you made a decision on this, because this point could not be properly raised before the end of the debate just concluded.
The basis you used for your decision, Mr. Speaker, is not a Standing Order, it is a half-precedent two or three years old. I say it is a half-precedent without any derogatory intention, however it does not quite apply here, because as you stated there was unanimous consent, which is not or does not appear to be the case here. It is premature to assume there would be unanimous consent. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit it would be important that this House have a formal, clear and precise decision to guide us in the future, so we may know whether a parliamentary secretary may make the five-minute speech referred to in Standing Order 48(2).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have no intention of stopping the hon. parliamentary secretary, but I must confess the point he is discussing is exactly that on which I have already made a decision. Whether I did so on a wrong or half-precedent, it has been rendered and has not been taken exception to at that time. I am not here to change the rules. I read the Standing Order and 1 did interpret it as I saw it. And if there is no minister wishing to be recognized at this point, I have to recognize the hon. member-


Mr. Cafik:: I will take the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have no objections. I am ready to recognize the minister, but I wish he had made up his mind earlier. We would not have lost all this time.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it is appropriate for anyone to cast any reflection of the timing when I wish to seek the floor. In any event, I want to say that the motion which is before the House that an order of the House do issue for a copy of all government contracts, excluding Crown corporations and agencies, with Canadian firms and individuals for the years 1976 and 1977, is totally irresponsible-

March 15, 1979
Government Contracts


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: -when one bears in mind the volume of these contracts, the millions of sheets of paper which would be required to meet such a request.
I think it is a clear indication to all members of the House and, I am sure, to the public at large-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The minister is misleading the House and trying to give the impression that there is only one copy of government contracts. There is no such thing as only one copy and they do not have to spend $18 million to produce copies. They can give us the second or third copy. There is no cost involved to the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have the opportunity to say what he wishes when he speaks in the five minutes allowed to him. I have to say-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can we not see the clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a suggestion-

Would the House agree that I do not see it is six o'clock? [English]
Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Cowards.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Mr. Cafik.)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motion No. 2 (Mr. Lawrence).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to clarify the proceedings. Are we still dealing with the second amendment? I should like to put forward a suggestion. I realize Your Honour recognized the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) on this particular amendment, but if there was disposition at this time to move on to the second set of amendments, the amendments of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), it might be a way to expedite the proceedings in respect of this bill. 1 believe my colleague would be agreeable to that, as long as he is recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no way 1 can decide this except to say that the House is still considering motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). The next scheduled motions are motions Nos. 3, 4 and 6 which are to be debated together. A vote on motion No. 3 would dispose of motions Nos. 4 and 6. After that we would move to the consideration of motion No. 5. I am ready to receive any direction from the House.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, other hon. members want to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham is indicating that other hon. members want to speak.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can hear from a spokesman on the other side. That might help to settle this qestion. If there is disposition to move on to the next group of amendments at this time, we should attempt to determine whether that would be agreeable to other parties. If it is not, clearly we should continue with the consideration of motion No. 2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I find it difficult to be in the middle of negotiations, but the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham indicated that other members wanted to speak on motion No. 2.
March 15, 1979


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, when there are a number of amendments I suppose it is really immaterial who speaks on what. My impression was that there were at least two other members who wanted to speak on motion No. 2. Certainly I do not wish to, and I do not think anyone else in our group does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is because they have already spoken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can only ask the question again, is the House ready for the question on motion No. 2?


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, if the House agreed to dispose of amendment No. 2, I would have accepted that, but since we are carrying on the consideration of amendment No. 2 moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), the critic of the Progressive Conservative party on energy matters, 1 am glad to take part in the debate. It is evident, as pointed out by previous speakers, that the amendment strikes at the very principle of the bill. It therefore leads us to refer to the bill generally and to its substance.
Even if some spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative party state that they really approve the substance of the bill I think it is difficult to say that they approve the substance if they are not prepared to provide all necessary means to make it effective. If we consider amendment No. 2 moved by the member for Northumberland-Durham, we note that it would make that legislation entirely ineffective. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because he could cripple 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.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about national emergency measures. Not of ordinary situations, not of legal structure for ordinary occurrences in a society such as ours, of situations that can occur and which the government must face every day. We are talking about measures required in times of emergency. The bill provides that, in such cases, according to clause 11, the governor in council, that is the government, would declare a national emergency. The government would then introduce that measure in parliament where it would be debated for three days. What the amendment would achieve is to remove the time limit on that debate. Let us not delude ourselves, Mr. Speaker. What the Progressive Conservatives are proposing is really that we do without an efficient way of facing emergency situations when control or regulated distribution of oil supplies is needed.
Mr. Speaker, when there is a crisis, when there is a national emergency, let us admit that we do not have weeks or months to decide. A decision has to be made immediately. When the
Energy Supplies
Progressive Conservatives claim that the government wants dictatorial or totalitarian powers, under such circumstances, they are really going too far.
Mr. Speaker, in an emergency situation or in any situation at all, nobody relying on the common sense inherent in Canadian politics would expect a government to come to parliament, proclaim that there is a national emergency in a situation like that and try to use a measure like Bill C-42, when it is adopted, unless there actually exists an emergency situation. I listened to the Conservatives this afternoon. I read most of their speeches and 1 heard some of them say during second reading that the government could use this bill unfairly and inordinately to acquire overwhelming powers in the field of resources. Mr. Speaker, we have to reach a decision and the Conservatives have to make up their minds and decide whether or not they want the Statutes of Canada to contain an act like Bill C-42 which would give the government power to act swiftly in emergency situations because in such cases there is no time for lengthy debates. The government must be quick to react.
Mr. Speaker, the situation which erupted a few weeks ago, and which could reappear any time, required such measures. Why? Because some oil companies, some multinationals decided to divert elsewhere oil supplies destined for Canada. Because they wanted to allocate oil supplies themselves between various countries. To counter such a situation, a government must give itself the necessary powers to allocate these supplies.
To suggest, in such a situation, that the act should not set a time limit on debate is tantamount to objecting to the government's need for firm measures to deal with a situation such as this. So instead of merely saying that they are against limiting debate, the Progressive Conservatives should admit that what they are in fact trying to do is to support Alberta's and now Ontario's opinion that this bill is really not necessary. If in principle they are against the bill, they should say so. They should not say that they are for it and then propose an amendment which would make the legislation a totally inefficient measure. To say that in such a situation, the government should not have enough freedom to declare a national emergency and then come to parliament to have it approved, if parliament cannot decide this within three days, Mr. Speaker, then parliament is really not up to date, it could not react to an emergency. I repeat that what we are talking about is an emergency.
I would like to make a few more comments on this matter. The government could possibly declare an emergency even though there was no emergency. However, Mr Speaker, there are other means to question the government in the Canadian parliament. The government is before the House every day, ready to answer questions from the opposition, from hon. members from all parties, to be accountable for all its actions, whether they are routine measures, declaration of emergency,

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
or whatever. So to say that the government should come before parliament to be examined in a three-day debate is really to have no knowledge of how the parliamentary system works, because in fact, if the government did not have the support of parliament, then parliament could defeat the government. If the government were to declare an emergency for no reason, then parliament could introduce a motion of non-confidence and defeat the government.

Really it is obvious what the Tories are doing with this amendment. Again they want to be on both sides of the fence. They want to say that they are in favour of the principle of the bill, yet they are proposing an amendment that would completely emasculate it. We are dealing with a bill that proposes to put in the statutes of Canada a legal system by which the government could declare that there was a national emergency.
We know that members of the Conservative party when it comes time to talk about energy, have a very hard time making up their minds. They have shown this fact in this debate and in the debate on second reading. I would like to know what the Conservative party would have done about the problem of energy if they had been in power for the last three or four years. They say now that they support a one-price system, but in debating the Petroleum Administration Act a few years ago they were against it. Elowever, when they realized that the Ontario government was supporting the federal government to a certain extent, the shoe was suddenly on the other foot. When Alberta agreed with the federal government that the price of oil in Canada should be increased, this Conservative party stopped their filibuster of the petroleum administration bill.
The Tory party has said time and again, in this debate, and over the last two or three weeks, that the government does not have an energy policy. Where have they been? This government does have an energy policy.


Mr. Symes:: Not a very good one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is too conservative.


Herb Breau: This government adopted the policy that we would have a one-price system at the wellhead for crude oil. What does this mean? In the present circumstances with the price of crude oil in the world rising, because of the Iranian political crisis which has reduced their production, the five eastern provinces, or the area east of the Ottawa Valley, which is dependent on imported oil, is shielded from the recent price increases in crude oil. Since the Iranian crisis the increase in the price of crude oil would have meant to eastern Canada-if it were not for the one-price system implemented by this government and opposed by the Tories because the premier of Alberta at one point did not agree with the one-price system- an increase in heating oil of $150 per householder for this year alone.
As if the price of gasoline is not high enough right now, the increases in world crude oil prices would mean an increase of 25 cents per gallon of gasoline. The present national energy policy of a one-price system has protected eastern Canada from that increase. It seems to me that that is a pretty good policy.
Other elements of the energy policy of this government include an extension of the oil pipeline from Montreal to Sarnia which has decreased our dependence on imported oil by 40 per cent. Because of this government's energy policy, Petro-Canada supports the concept of a gas pipeline from Montreal to eastern Canada, the Q and M line, which would reduce our dependence on imported oil in eastern Canada and ensure security of supply as it is ensured in western Canada. Another element of the government energy policy has been to help in the development and diversification of other modes of energy.

In my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is funding a power generation research project where a peat-burning pilot plant is now in its design stage. This program include many other projects in solar energy and in alternative forms of energy, such as attempts to burn forest waste, for instance, to produce electricity. There are many aspects of the government's energy policy which give Canadians a greater feeling of security concerning oil and energy supplies for the present, in emergencies, and in the long term.
Mr. Speaker, I hear the Progressive Conservatives say that the government should get rid of the only important oil company Canadians have, Petro-Canada. One really wonders, Mr. Speaker, if the members of that party really understand what makes Canada great.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Progressive Conservative party could decide by itself, without asking the Premier of Alberta or someone else outside the House what would be a good energy policy.

I would very much like to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) answer the real question of energy. I am sure that most Canadians would also like to know where he stands. Would he approve or disapprove of the policies of Premier Lougheed on the pricing and production of oil? Does the Leader of the Opposition agree or disagree with the position of Premier Lougheed that only in cases of emergency should the Government of Canada, in accordance with the constitution, have the right to regulate interprovincial trade and prices? I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition answer, one of these days, those very real, crucial questions.
Does the Tory leader accept the position of Premier Lougheed on the whole question of energy? The position of the Premier of Alberta at the last constitutional conference on national energy control was that even in cases of compelling national interest, however broad those terms might be, he does not accept that the federal government should be able to

March 15, 1979

regulate prices and the supply of oil interprovincially. The premier said that it should only be done in cases of emergency. Where does the Tory party stand on this issue, because the people of Canada would like to know? When the Conservative party suggests that we do not have an energy policy, I wonder what their policy is, if they have one at all.


Benno Friesen: What have you done?


Herb Breau: The hon. member asks what have we done. I just explained that this government adopted an energy policy in 1973. I see hon. members opposite laughing. They can laugh, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind them that the compensation program for imported oil is really the cornerstone of the one-price policy in this country which means that the Atlantic provinces and Quebec have received compensation in payments, or reductions in the price of oil, up to $2 billion. That is the equivalent of $1,000 per person, Mr. Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why are we in such a mess then?


Herb Breau: Only this year the one-price policy shielded us from the increased costs imposed by the Iranian situation and an increase of 25 cents per gallon at the pump will not occur this spring. That is what the energy policy of this government means.


An hon. Member:: Why are you attacking Lougheed then?


Herb Breau: I do not attack Lougheed. I can understand him. He is the premier of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: Hurray!


Herb Breau: The Leader of the Opposition is the leader of the Conservative party and he is a member of this parliament. I do not mind Lougheed.


An hon. Member:: Blakeney is the premier of Saskatchewan. You have got one province right.


Herb Breau: If hon. members opposite would keep quiet I would finish my remarks.
I do not mind Premier Lougheed defending the position of his province. That is what he is elected for.
[ Translation]


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Clermont):: In that case, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) whose name appears on the list has the floor. Maybe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would like to have the floor.
Energy Supplies


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you very much.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are very nice. [English]
Mr. Speaker, 1 give full credit to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) for persuading me-perhaps I should wait until he listens.
I give full credit to the hon. member for Gloucester for persuading me to enter this debate, even though it will be a very brief contribution.
In his speech the hon. member ranged over the oil field from one end to the other but he did speak for a moment or two about the essence of the amendment that is now before us in the name of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). It is what he said about this amendment that made me feel I wanted to say a few words. Let me make it clear that when I come to the defence of a motion put down by a Conservative member, that does not mean I am defending the Conservative party s position with respect to oil or energy. Far from it. Indeed, everyone knows that we are prepared to accept this bill when we get to the final stage. However, my good friend from New Brunswick really must think that we are simple minded in this House when he tries to tell us that the proposed amendment now before us would emasculate the bill.
The bill provides for certain things to be done in case of an emergency. We accept that. But it goes what to my mind is a step too far when it builds into the bill something that should be a matter of the procedures of this House, namely, a statutory form of closure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: All this amendment now does is that it seeks to take out that element of closure that is in the bill. The hon. member for Gloucester says that if the government does not have that element it cannot act, that it would be hamstrung, or whatever phrase he used. I point out to the hon. member that, much as I dislike them, the ordinary rules of closure are still on the books. I suggest that if the government really has an emergency and is not able to persuade members of this House that it is a sufficiently serious emergency, that its resolution should be dealt with quickly, it has the right to fall back on either of the closure rules that are in the Standing Orders of this House.
What 1 do not like about the clause that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is trying to take out of the bill is that it robs the House of the right to control its own procedures; it builds into the statute a form of closure.

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
The hon. member may tell me that there are already several instances in our statutes where that is the case, and I know that is true. The first time it happened speeches were made in the House about the impropriety of writing rules for the House into the statutes, but after we had done it two, three, four or five times, the government goes on doing it quite freely. 1 believe it is a mistake and that is the reason why we in this party are prepared to support this amendment. As I say, we do not agree with the Conservative party policy on energy.


Mr. Dawson:: What policy?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody asks, what policy? 1 would be happier if I knew what the Liberal policy is too.


Dennis Dawson: Read the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least some of us who are grown up are aware of the fact that emergencies can take place in this area, and we accept the fact that there needs to be a piece of emergency legislation on the statute books. But it is not necessary to go to the extent of building another rule of closure right into the statute, interfering as it does with the right of the House to establish its own procedures. If this bill goes through the way it is-it is three days, and that is it! This amendment would take that clause out of the bill but it would still be within the power of the government to impose closure on the House. It is my view that if the emergency was clear, the government would not have that kind of trouble.
I said my remarks would be brief, Mr. Speaker, and that is the extent of them. I am dealing not with the whole broad energy question but with what 1 think is wrong in principle, namely, to write another closure rule into the statute. That is the reason my colleagues and I will be voting for this amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take too long to make my remarks. I have made them already as part of the second reading debate, I have made them in committee, and I made them part of the argument in the discussion on motion No. 1.
What is amazing to me, and it is, I think, probably one of the most frightening things about this bill, is the attitude the government is taking with regard to this amendment. This bill has been described by outside observers, not by members of this party, as a kind of "energy war measures act". It puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of the government to take a great deal of arbitrary action in virtually running all aspects of a tremendous sector of the Canadian economy. Any member of parliament who feels some sort of responsibility toward democracy should think long and hard about putting that kind of power into the hands of the state. Dr. Peter Treu could give us a story about what happens when the state has excessive powers of the kind granted in the Official Secrets Act. And, of course, we have had the experience of the War

Measures Act and the kind of abuse that is possible by a state that is unrestricted by a vigilant legislature.
The only check on that tremendous power that this bill grants to the government-which I must repeat at least for the benefit of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) who apparently has not heard of it-we agree that the government should have the ability to take action in the event of an emergency but we think the government has that ability now, but if it will be added through the establishment of a new board, we think the National Energy Board could probably do that. We recognize the government has to be in a position to handle an emergency. Let there be no mistake about our position in that regard. But the powers asked for here go beyond anything necessary to handle any conceivable emergency.
Motion No. 2 in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), would give parliament an opportunity to bring public will to bear on this government or any future government that might seek to abuse that power. The motion seeks to amend clause 11 of the bill. Clause 11(1) states:
When the governor in council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the governor in council may, by order, so declare and by that order authorize the establishment of a program for the mandatory allocation of petroleum products within Canada in accordance with this act.
This clause allows the government to take action immediately in a crisis. It does not even have to be a real crisis, which is one of the frightening things about it. I repeat, the governor in council can take action immediately. Any claim that this amendment would prevent the government from taking action is silly. A claim like that can only be made by someone who cannot read or by someone who has not read the bill. The hon. member for Gloucester probably falls into both categories.
This bill goes on in clause 11(3) to outline a procedure for laying before the House of Commons a motion to concur in government action. Remember that government action is started because it is trying to deal with a real emergency. It does not have to wait for the approval of the House; it can be done without, but a motion must be put before the House. The government does not have to tell us what it is doing. It does not have to tell the House the nature of the crisis nor does it have to tell the House what sort of allocation procedure it is putting into effect. The government does not have to tell the House or the country a thing. All that is required is a motion to be put before this House. Then after three days, by closure, that motion must be put to a vote and the government with its majority can force it through. The fact that we have members on the other side willing to agree to vote closure into the statutes indicates that the government backbenchers cannot be trusted to be vigilant watch dogs of the government. Their role in life as they see it is to say, "Aye, sir, aye".
March 15, 1979


An hon. Member:: They are vigilantes.


Harvie Andre: To trust government backbenchers, at least that crop, to see there is no abuse of power, is a trust that is simply not justified.
One of the ministers over there for whom that groups says "Aye, sir, aye" used to reside over here. I am referring to the hon. member for Crowfoot, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner).


An hon. Member:: A good man.


Harvie Andre: A good man, he says. The hon. member for Crowfoot when he was over on this side used to say that no motion should get through this House in less than seven days. The reason is quite simple. He told us that because this is a large country it takes two days for information that arises from debate to get across the nation so the people can hear about it.


Mr. Forrestall:: That was the old days. It takes a week now.


Harvie Andre: And it takes two days for that information to be digested and two more days for any feedback to reach here to influence anything that is going on. That was in the old days before he got his 30 pieces of silver.


J. Michael Forrestall: And indexed.


Harvie Andre: That may well have affected his thought process, although I do not know; but that is a fact.
Three days' debate is not enough for this House to check that kind of abuse if the government was not faced with a real crisis. If this House is not a check on government, what is the purpose of parliament? Why do we not just pass a one-clause bill which says that the government can do whatever it wants? If this House cannot exercise any real authority in terms of checking the government, why are we here? Why are we here, if not to represent our constituents on an ongoing basis checking the authority of the state? After all that was the reason for Magna Carta and the creation of parliament in the first place. Parliaments were created to check any abuse of powers by the state. Forcing closure on parliament by way of legislation is totally foreign to what parliament stands for. Any member of parliament who goes along with this is failing in his duties and responsibilities to the nation. Maybe he is being responsible to his party, but he is not being responsible to the nation.
All this motion does is to eliminate closure; that is all. The government has all the power it needs to act. If there is a genuine emergency that is well known to Canadians, Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that the motion would be passed and passed quickly. I have a lot more confidence in the collective responsibility of the House of Commons than I do in the responsibility of those with the power which this bill gives to them. All this amendment does is let parliament have the freedom to decide what to do. After all, that is the role of parliament, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated. To write closure into legislation means to hamstring future parliaments or to put a gag on
Energy Supplies
parliament by way of legislation. This can only be done by a group of people who have nothing but contempt for this House, as their leader has demonstrated so many times.
I would ask members on the other side to take their responsibilities a little more seriously as members of parliament. I would hope the hon. member for Gloucester has read the act now and has realized his admonition that this would gut the act and render it totally worthless is an absurdity of the first order. It can only be made by somebody who has not even glanced at the act. Maybe it is too much to hope that Liberals can be responsible, but possibly they might feel the pressure of the public who are being vigilant.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Nick Taylor.


Harvie Andre: The public will bring this to the attention of those who desire to be re-elected. As members of parliament they are expected to be concerned about traditions in this House and about our parliamentary democracy. On occasion they are expected to be more than trained seals, and to think a little bit before they vote.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I listened to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) misinterpret completely the purport of the amendment put forth by my hon. friend. The hon. member has indicated that the amendment would emasculate the bill. I think he is wrong. I hope he realizes the position taken by the opposition parties with respect to this amendment generally.
No one in this House will dispute that there may come a time when an emergency arises with respect to energy. The bill before us clearly gives the government the power to declare such an emergency by order in council; it envisages that the appropriate measure will be placed before parliament. I do not believe there is anyone on either side of the House who would react negatively to a statement by the government that a real emergency existed or fail to accept it, providing opportunity were afforded for due examination for a reasonable length of time. That is the issue which concerns us.
I must say I was amazed by the position taken by the hon. member for Gloucester. He took the view that the amendment would render the government powerless. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House long enough to know that when it wants to do so the government manages to get its bills through, right or wrong. To this end the government has at its disposal rule 75C; it can apply that rule whenever it feels like doing so. Of course the opposition also exercises its judgment when it decides to move in such a way as to require the government to use rule 75C. These are all political judgments, they all have their perils, but it is absolutely inappropriate to add to that power the power to conclude debate in the face of an opposition which might, conceivably, be silly in dealing with an emergency, by overriding the rules of this House to the extent of enshrining in law something that transcends the rules which govern parliament. After all, these Standing Orders do mean something.

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
Surely there are certain principles which ought to govern ministers opposite when they consider this matter, and surely it is not too much to ask that members of parliament on all sides of the House, who are no less Canadian than any other group of people who will be considering this matter when it arises, should be relied upon to review the evidence presented by the government in an appropriate way, and be prepared to accept the judgment of the government, after due examination.
Under the proposal which has been made to us we would be limited to three days of debate. Moreover, we would not have the right to question the government about what was taking place; we would have no right to direct questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if he were the appropriate minister at the time, or to the officials who presumably advise him. The hon. member for Gloucester interjects that we could use the question period. He is correct. There is a rather limited right, during the question period-


Herb Breau: Consideration of supply.


Walter David Baker: -and during consideration of supply, though that might take place four or five weeks beyond the point at which the crisis developed. The hon. member knows this to be the case, and the measure would not be before the House even under the bill as it stands unless a situation of urgency had arisen. For these reasons I think it is improper for the government to have the right to run roughshod over parliament.
I repeat, no member of this party denies the government's right to appropriate powers to deal with an emergency situation. It would, to say the least, be inappropriate and contrary to the best interests of the country for anybody to advocate such a course. But it is equally contrary to the best interests of this country to develop the habit of coming to parliament and asking repeatedly for more power than is required. It is acknowledged that this has happened in the case of the referendum bill-it has been acknowledged by dispassionate observers of the political scene. And we find it happening again in this bill. The government is seeking not only appropriate powers to deal with an emergency, but powers which are improper in the kind of society in which we live. I hope the hon. member for Gloucester, bearing this in mind, will reconsider the remarks he made, and I hope the government will reconsider its approach to the amendment.
Again, I say no one in this House who is right-thinking at all would deny any government the powers it needs in these circumstances, but the power which is sought here is too wide. The amendment, which I invite hon. members to support, would not diminish the government's ability to deal with an emergency, and by approving it members opposite would be doing this institution a great service, perhaps a greater service than they realize-it may be they are beyond realizing it, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope not. Nevertheless, I think this is important.
The hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) talking from his seat again describes an emergency. Obviously, he has not read the bill.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Cheap!


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member continues to make speeches from his seat he must expect retorts from me while I have the floor. We are friends, and he knows what I mean. The bill describes an emergency in clause 11. It states:
When the governor in council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada-
When that situation exists in the judgment of the government, it may do certain things. All we are asking with this amendment is that when the government makes that judgment-and I assume it would do that in good faith-it consult all of us in parliament who represent the people of the country, and submit its case to parliament. In the unlikely event that parliament should become obstreperous in the absence of the three-day limitation-and I doubt that would happen in the case of an emergency properly found by the government-the minister knows, and the hon. member for Welland knows, that there are extraordinary powers under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons to do under the rules of this House that which the government now seeks to augment by a statute.
I would not want in any way to interfere with the rights of members on the government side who are not in the cabinet to exercise their duty with respect to the matter. I just do not want parliament to put its imprimatur, its approval, on a piece of legislative machinery which is inappropriate to a free parliament. I think the minister should understand that, but perhaps he suffers from the same disease suffered by some of his colleagues. I think it is a sad day for parliament when this is so.
I have nothing more to say with respect to the matter, but I hope there are some hon. members on the government side who would be prepared-


Mr. Railton:: We are for the government.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member says he is for the government. If he continues to exhibit this attitude, he will not be supporting a government for long. I hope the hon. member for Welland will consider the position he intends to take with respect to this matter and have regard for what he is prepared to support in damaging the institution which he has served rather well since 1974.


Samuel Victor Railton: That is very nice of you.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would accept a question.


Walter David Baker: I will try to answer.


Herb Breau: Does the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) at least admit that this kind of motion placed before the House would not be placed before the House at the discretion of the government? Normally the government has control over orders of the day. The hon. member says it is
March 15, 1979

terrible to have in a statute this kind of closure. Does he not realize that in the case of a proclamation the statute would also provide that the government does not have a choice? I have read the bill; the hon. member knows that. Subclause (2) says that a notice of motion to concur shall be laid on the table within seven days. Subclause (3) says that a notice of motion laid before the House pursuant to subclause (2) shall be set down as an order of the day. Does the hon. member not realize that this would not be an ordinary order, but that once a proclamation has been made by the government, it has to come before the House? Flexibility on the part of the government to withdraw an order is not provided for, and that is why this kind of limitation has to be provided.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is quite right with respect to what the subclauses say, but all they provide is that when the government acts upon its finding that there is an emergency, the matter will be brought before parliament promptly. I recognize that the three days' debate is to ensure that parliament deals with the matter promptly. 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. I think it is particularly inappropriate when there is nothing in the procedure with respect to this matter which would allow members of parliament to examine the minister and his officials in any way except during the question period, which is an examination of the minister only.
It may very well be that it would be extremely helpful to parliament if we had the right to examine the minister and his officials, but we would not have that right under this bill. Debate ought not to be limited to three days when there is already sufficient power under the Standing Orders to limit debate. That is my whole point. I am glad the hon. member for Gloucester raised this matter. It is not the position of the official opposition-I am sure it is not the position of the New Democratic Party, and I do not think it is the position of anyone in this House-that the government ought not to have the power to declare an emergency with respect to the matter set forth in this bill.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief but I cannot help comment at this stage on the question of procedure which was referred to in the last speeches.
I listened very attentively to the remarks of the parliamentary leader of the Progressive Conservative party, and I wonder to what extent his comments reflect our rules. In short, he is suggesting that under the bill when a situation of crisis, a situation of emergency arises in Canada, according to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), parliament would have to be given a reasonable opportunity to study, consider and discuss the declaration of an emergency resulting from the
Energy Supplies
order made by the governor in council as set out at the beginning of clause 11.
Mr. Speaker, the clause provides later on for a minimum of three full days of debate on that very order or that very declaration of a national emergency. Even taking the argument of my colleague from Grenville-Carleton, those three full days of debate would give the House more time to discuss the order or the declaration of an emergency than the present provisions of our rules would allow if the government applied them from the beginning of the debate in view of the urgency, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton suggests. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. There are two possible ways to limit the debate under our rules. There is S.O. 33 which is rarely used and commonly referred to in parliamentary terms as the real guillotine. There is also S.O. 75A, 75B and 75C which are often but wrongly called the "guillotine" by members of the opposition but which in fact amount to a limitation of debate.
Now, in both cases, if, in view of the emergency we were to resort to those weopons provided by the Standing Orders as they now stand instead of stipulating in this legislation a full three days of debate, something to which the opposition is objecting, we could in theory get away with a maximum of two days of debate on the declaration of national emergency.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Yvon Pinard: We could within two days-and I see my colleague for Grenville-Carleton is acknowledging the accuracy of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, that is just why we wanted to limit the debate to three days, to allow for still more time than is allowed by the strict application of S.O. 33 and S.O. 75A, 75B and 75C.
As for Standing Order 33, it provides that the government simply has to give a day's notice to limit the debate to one more day. If we were to use Standing Order 33 as the member of the opposition has suggested, when the government at any given time judges that there is a crisis or a national emergency, the governor in council would declare a national emergency and table a notice of motion within seven days. At that stage, if instead of doing what is provided in the bill we were to do what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) wants and use Standing Order 33, we would simply have on the first day to give the notice required under Standing Order 33 and, on the very next day, limit the debate to that one day and conclude it in two days. This would mean that, to discuss in the House the order or the decision of the governor in council or the cabinet concerning a national emergency, members of parliament would only have two days instead of three.
If we refer to the other rule that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton or his colleagues would have us use in a real crisis or national emergency, the only thing that the government would have to do, in my opinion, within seven days after the order is given by the cabinet and the notice of the

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
motion is given in the House, would be to give notice on the very first day of debate. The minister would simply have to rise in his place and say: I advise hon. members that tomorrow I shall move a motion to limit the length of the debate to one day. That would be the whole extent of the discussion on that day concerning the crisis or national emergency.
The next day, the minister would rise in accordance with his notice. He would move the motion asking the House to limit the debate to one day, and there would then be a debate of two hours, not on the substance of the order, but on the reasons why the government wants to limit the length of the debate to one day. These two hours would be used to make petty politics rather than to discuss the national emergency or crisis in the House. The next day, we would have the second real day of debate on the motion or emergency order of the cabinet, and the debate would then be over. To sum it up, by resorting to this second weapon or, if you prefer, this last resort available under the Standing Orders as some members of the opposition want for all practical purposes the House would have only two full days to debate the motion, to discuss the emergency order passed by cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, this is a specious argument in my opinion. The indignation or this show of indignation on the part of some members of the opposition does not impress me. I can hardly find any good faith in this argument. I think that if truly, in the sense it is provided for at subclause 1 of clause 11, there is a national emergency with regard to the supply of petroleum, if the population of the maritimes or Quebec, in the middle of February, because of Siberian temperatures, find themselves freezing and if there is a shortage of petroleum, if there is a shortage of heating oil, it seems to me that this would constitute a matter of emergency and a state of national crisis. The government, the cabinet, must use its political judgment to decide whether it should pass the order or declare a state of national emergency. So within seven days, the cabinet, and remember that it can be very cold during these seven days, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet I repeat will table before the House its order which will have to be debated here for a period of three full days not just three days of procedural debate, not just three days during which it will be decided whether the government is right or wrong to limit the duration of the debate, because that will have been settled by this bill, but during three full days of debate to allow the members to express themselves on the statement of national emergency.
So, Mr. Speaker, once again this procedural argument does not hold water. If we were to go strictly by the suggestions of those who take offence at the fact that a bill attempts to bypass the Standing Orders of the House, to those I therefore want to say that this bill is more generous than the Standing Orders if there is really a state of emergency because, as I have just shown under Standing Orders 33, 75A, 75B and 75C, the maximum provided for is two days. Once again I can see that my hon. colleague from Grenville-Carleton agrees. It is a max-
[Mr. Pinard.J
imum period of two full debating days and even if he had not acknowledged that, it is a matter of fact that it could be a maximum period of two debating days that we could have over this order because under this bill what we are suggesting is a period of three full debating days, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the circumstances, to anyone who truly wants our policy to have national scope and benefit without discrimination to all parts of our country, I say it is ridiculous to oppose or delay passage of a bill because it contains provisions that take the place of the Standing Orders of the House which, if applied to the letter, would be even more strict, and would limit even more the debates of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the short intervention I wanted to make. I want to specify, using the very argument of my colleagues of the opposition, that the bill allows, to all practical purposes, a full day more of debate on the order of national urgency than would the Standing Orders of the House if they were applied strictly in a case of crisis, as suggested by hon. members of the opposition.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious-


Alastair William Gillespie: Filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: -in view of the logic that can be associated with the last two speeches made by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) and the hon. member member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), it is the government filibustering its own bill. It is just as simple as that. Take a look-


Alastair William Gillespie: Not when you consider the number of speakers you have put on. Are you ready for the question?


Fred Alward McCain: And yours have not followed, man for man? You have not been sitting docilely in your seats? You are filibustering your own bill.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: The logic of the last two speakers escapes me, absolutely and completely. There is an old statement that there are those so deaf that they will not hear. I have to say to you that that applies, because if you read the bill you find it authorizes the government to take the necessary emergency measures as soon as the emergency occurs. We are therefore discussing the period of time which, after the fact, we would be discussing it if the emergency measures were put in place. The emergency measures-and the minister knows this-do not have to await the debate.


Alastair William Gillespie: But approval certainly does in an emergency, and that is very important. That is what we are talking about.
March 15, 1979

We are dealing with an emergency, a crisis. You are talking as if it were business as usual.


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


An hon. Member:: You do not know what to do.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me extra time at the end because I am certainly losing it at the beginning.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Could I try again, sir? The government has taken the measures and they will be discussed. If they find themselves in a minority government, what they are citing is perhaps correct, but the approval will not be dependent necessarily upon the time of the debate. If you are in a minority government, there may be some problem with the approval, and I do not argue that. But if you are a majority government and as pigheaded as is this government, with a bunch of lap dogs to vote for you, then there is no problem in getting the approval.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Fred Alward McCain: I say to you that the only subject which is under discussion in this amendment is how long the democratic system will prevail and the opportunities exist to discuss a situation which may be at hand as decreed and defined by the government. That is all that is at hand, that is all we are discussing. To say anything more and to try to distract everyone by the reading of the rules and to suggest that you might put in the closure motion, as you submit, and therefore we could have even fewer debating days than this bill permits, is drawing a red herring along the trail.


Alastair William Gillespie: You are talking about parliamentary approval for executive action. That is very different from discussion.


Fred Alward McCain: Are you afraid of the decision which parliament might make? Are you so incompetent in your decisionmaking that you do not trust parliament to back you? You can rest assured, sir, that there are people in the House who will not back you if they find fault with your decision, and there is no reason why the people of Canada or the House of Commons should be expected to take at face value the government's definition of any particular situation.


Alastair William Gillespie: Talk, talk, during an emergency.


Fred Alward McCain: We are not in an emergency now and you certainly are in no hurry to get this through, otherwise the last two speakers would never had risen, so do not hand us that. Let us be consistent.
The hon. member for Gloucester made a few remarks this evening. It bothers me that he did not express any concern about the lack of planning for emergency supplies for eastern Canada. He applauded the government because it provided
Energy Supplies
equal pricing across Canada at the expense of taxpayers, the users of petroleum products. The people of Canada supported that generously. It is appreciated by those who need that equalization money, as eastern Canada does. Let us understand what we are referring to by eastern Canada. We are not referring to anything except that part of Canada which lies beyond the end of the Montreal pipeline. The Montreal pipeline was built to capacity to supply Montreal area needs and nothing beyond. The hon. member for Gloucester did not express any concern about the fact that after five years there is no plan in place which will look after the needs of eastern Canada and a large portion of Quebec. The energy policy is lacking. It has been fuzzy for a long while.


Alastair William Gillespie: Tell us a few things about your policy.


Fred Alward McCain: I will tell the minister a few things in a minute. The energy policy has been fuzzy for too long.


Alastair William Gillespie: Tell us about your pricing policy.


Fred Alward McCain: I did not criticize the government's pricing policy. Canadian taxpayers are not criticizing the government's pricing policy. The government had to bail itself out of its pricing policy and make peace with the provinces because it wanted a favourable situation on which to win an election. The government preached its promise to Canada respecting its pricing policy. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that we could not do any worse.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Fred Alward McCain: Those who suggest that I address the Chair might remind other members-


Alastair William Gillespie: Tell us about your pricing policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has the floor, and 1 remind the hon. member to address the Chair.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker is right on. Perhaps Your Honour would speak to those on your right in the same tone.
The past policy of the government has inhibited exploration. It retarded the development of reserves. It is only in the last year that the government began to recognize by budget measures that it had been excessive in its control of exploration money. The government has recanted and admitted the error of its ways. Canada might not be in a position of worrying about how long its present resources will last if the government had not fought with the maritime provinces over who had jurisdiction over what. We in eastern Canada do not know what we have because the present minister, his predecessor, and the government inhibited exploration in fields which were considered fertile by geologists. Our policy includes generous opportunity for exploration in eastern Canada. That is more than the government can say for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies


Fred Alward McCain: Our policy will not leave eastern Canada hung out to dry if a real emergency happens. I assure the minister that our policy will not be a major reflex reaction to something which could have been anticipated. It is fair to say the western world has not been on the best relations with the Middle East. Since the days of the Crusades they have looked upon each other with an element of mistrust. Perhaps we could say that earlier we used the Middle East in our turn, and they are using us today.
Canada is dangling at the end of the string because there has been no policy to permit exploration of the potential resources of this nation. This motion would not be before the Elouse now if they had not quibbled over resource opportunities with the provinces and with those who would have explored. There will be exploration in our policy, and if the resource is there it will not be short and for just ten years down the road as it is presently.
The government has had options open to it for the last five or six years. I do not know which one would be more practical because we are operating in a vacuum of knowledge. We cannot get answers to questions. We cannot get beyond the secret veil or the iron curtain of secrecy which shrouds and protects the government. We cannot find out what are the authentic reserves of gas and oil. Therefore, until such time as we have access to the knowledge in the hands of the minister, it is somewhat difficult to define precisely what might have been the best plan to follow in the last six years. There are five options, any one of which might have been practical and none of which has been discussed by government members in the House as of today.
The first option, the one for which there is obvious capacity to provide, is that the government might have considered fora short emergency situation the movement of oil from the west coast of Canada to the east coast by water transit. Apparently there was adequate pipeline capacity to deliver oil to the west coast. It could be loaded on boats, and perhaps there are boats to bring it around. That is one option the government might have considered. Perhaps it would have been rejected out of hand for reasons which are still behind the iron curtain of secrecy.
It would not have been inconceivable to establish pipeline capacity to reach the head of the Great Lakes, and transport the necessary oil requirements from there to eastern Canada in an emergency. Perhaps it would have been difficult to transport the oil in February or March, but rarely is the supply so low in eastern Canada that one could not have survived by one means or another for 30 days or 60 days until such time as the lakes and the Seaway would be open to bring the oil out of Thunder Bay.
The third option is that the Montreal pipeline could have been built with excess capacity. Petroleum energy might have been ready for emergency delivery by rail, truck or water to eastern Canada if the Montreal pipeline had been built with a little foresight. All we can go by is what we hear through the grapevine. We have been advised that the Montreal pipeline was built with barely enough capacity to supply the area which

it now serves, and that it does not have the capacity to deliver to the rest of Quebec and all of Atlantic Canada.
The fourth option the government might have had is that it could have built the pipeline from Montreal into some point in Atlantic Canada from which the oil might have reached the rest of Atlantic Canada by truck, ferry, or other means.
The fifth opinion is perhaps the most economically practical. There is a possibility of massive storage in some of the capacities which exist in Atlantic Canada or perhaps exist in Quebec. I am not aware of the capacities which exist in Quebec. This subject has been a matter of international discussion. The capacity of that storage has not been defined, but I have been advised that these possible storages could accommodate one, two or three billion barrels. Also I have been advised that the storage capacity is already there, and that it is merely a matter of planning to get the oil into storage. Perhaps this was a course the government could have followed in co-operation with the United States which is as concerned about the possibility of an energy crisis and has planned a little better than we have. Probably this is not the last crisis we will see, but none of these five options has been given any serious consideration by the government or, if so, it has never been made public.
Eastern Canada has been hung out to dry if by any chance an emergency should arise. I submit to you that it was incumbent upon the hon. member for Gloucester to have mentioned the very naked position in which government policy has left that part of Canada. I can assure you that the policy of the Conservative party when it becomes the government will not leave any part of Canada hanging out to dry in an emergency which may occur abroad as far as energy is concerned. That is our policy, Mr. Minister, and you cannot claim it because you have neglected it. Your performance has denied a sense of responsibility to that part of Canada which is dependent for its oil on other sources.


Alastair William Gillespie: Be serious.


Fred Alward McCain: I am deadly serious.


J. Michael Forrestall: Talk to us about light and heavy crude and security of supply.


Fred Alward McCain: Half of the problem we are now faced with in Atlantic Canada from the arbitrary, high-handed, inconsiderate, and improper way in which the last crisis was handled, because when the government foresaw 48 hours in advance an element of a crisis the taps were turned on these pipelines which lead to our neighbour to the south, and they were turned from east to west, and all the contracts which were in place with state or private enterprise were cancelled. New prices were negotiated and supplies were placed on a limited basis only. That is one of the reasons why there is now a 750,000-barrel additional refining capacity in Canada left idle, and it stretches from Sarnia to the harbour of Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland.
March 15, 1979

That refining capacity was established all the way from Sarnia east, with the idea that that part of United States which they could properly reach required refined products. In my constituency during the last crisis the tap was turned by the predecessor of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie). The tap was turned overnight on the pulp mills, the universities and the hospitals which were dependent upon refined products coming from refineries in Canada. That is the way it was done. The full consequence of that was not realized until such time as there was the possibility of an l.n.g. operation at Saint John, New Brunswick. When the proponents of that operation went to Washington to seek support for its establishment, what message did they bring back? They brought back the message that islands in the Caribbean had been able to be incorporated into the petroleum pricing structure of the United States. Though they are not part of the United States they were considered as part of it for the purpose of petroleum pricing structures.
Venezuela and islands in the Caribbean which are not protectorates of the United States shared that market. Since they turned the tap without any consideration for the consequences to our neighbours, no Canadian refinery can be placed in the pool of energy or the pooling price system of the United States, from Sarnia to Come-By-Chance, and these refineries are now operating at less than capacity and at the expense of the eastern Canadian consumer.
That is the kind of planning we have by this government, and that is why these refineries are idle or closed. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the performance of the Canadian ministry and this government, the answer from our neighbour to the south was that we are not a reliable source of energy and the United States would be ill advised to put such a large dependence for its source of energy on the l.n.g. proposal for New Brunswick.
This was not because of the lack of a buyer in the United States, a large corporation that wanted the energy, and it was not because of a lack of effort by New Brunswick in support of that project. This was the result of the government of the United States stating that Canada was not a reliable source of energy.


An hon. Member:: Just listen to this.


Fred Alward McCain: The minister can mock that statement, but he knows it to be true. Ele knows that a minister from Newfoundland has tried his best to work the Come-By-Chance product into the price mix in the United States. Ele went as high as the vice president of the United States and was rejected out of hand. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has tried in vain to have the Port Tupper refinery again accepted into the United States pricing structure so that it could again operate to capacity as it did prior to the breach of contract and the dishonourable behaviour of this government in respect of supplies which were going south before the last emergency. It is not for lack of trying by cabinet ministers in the cabinet of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
Energy Supplies
and Minister of State for Science and Technology that the situation remains the same, but because they have run into a blank wall.
Venezuela did not run into a blank wall and the islands in the Caribbean did not run into a blank wall. They are mixing their refined products in with pricing in the United States, and the minister knows that. The minister knows that, and his mockery and his delirious laughter will never remove that from the record. This is the message that was brought back. Eastern Canada has been neglected and this bill is a charade.
The discussion on this amendment by those who will not understand is a filibuster by representatives of the government, and it cannot be interpreted in any other way. Whether it is discussed three days, five days, or for whatever number of days it may be discussed, no government which exerts sound and proper judgment would have trouble with the House of Commons when Canada is in an emergency. The House will respond. I suggest there is now a lack of trust for the responsibility of the House of Commons. Most of the time of this House has been spent in debating irresponsible, blank cheque legislation. It is a request for unreasonable, unnecessary, and unacceptable powers that-


Mr.   Becliard@Acting Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time, to which I have added two extra minutes, has expired.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have just one or two observations and they will have very little to do with that snake pit opposite, as a colleague of mine used to refer to the arrogance that is shown on the other side when serious points are being made. We hear hissing, and witness a downright disregard for these serious points. This makes it easy to understand the way people react. That sort of action on the part of the government contributes to nothing. In fact it has a negative effect upon the government's intentions and aims.
Closure, which is what this is tantamount to, is repugnant and always has been to any democratic system. As has been mentioned very clearly by members on this side, there are ample provisions in the existing law to deal with any emergency that is perceived by the government. Indeed, in my experience I know of no situation at any point in time which could be perceived as an emergency when the government did not in fact act, and debate the matter afterwards. In a situation such as this the people of Canada would expect the government to act. Had the government in fact acted years ago when it should have, we would not be here this evening debating what my friend, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), describes as a charade.
I support this amendment, and I would like to make one or two points of a different nature. One of them relates to comments by the minister himself in the House yesterday.
I regret that I do not have the Hansard, but it is because of some technical difficulty as I understand the situation. I can

March 15, 1979
Energy Supplies
always make it up. My impressions are, I think, fairly accurate, and they have to do with your comments that there will be no third party intervening or taking profits-I believe that that was your inference-out of the secure supply of oil to eastern refineries. I think that that is what you said and that that is a fair recollection. If I am wrong you can correct me, and I know that you will.
I wonder if the minister is at all aware of the difference between heavy and light crude. I wonder why today in this debate nobody has stood and made reference to this, "secure supply", of oils that we have from Venezuela for our eastern refineries. I would ask the minister just where, in the name of God, he expects us to handle and treat heavy crude, because that is what he is talking about and he knows it. The minister knows that Venezuela will be short of light crude within the next two or three years. Stand up and tell me that you were not told that by the Venezuelan government, or get some of your noisy backbenchers to tell me.
My first point was, what are we going to do with the heavy crude? My second point is, how in God's name are we going to move it? The third question I would put to you-and get up and answer this question or have one of your backbencher lackeys get up and answer it-is what was the going price of non-pool oil this afternoon at four o'clock, on the four principal markets in the world? What was the purchase price and what was the going price in the marketplace? I would like the minister to get up and tell us that, and then tell us in eastern Canada.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, eastern Canada, for the edification of this House, when I refer to it is the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec; not Ontario and western Canada, but the maritimes, Newfoundland, Labrador and eastern Quebec. How are you going to move the oil and what are we going to pay for it? Why has the minister, with all his rhetoric and damned nonsense, not had the courage of his own convictions and stood up in the House of Commons and told the people in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Labrador and eastern Quebec what the cost increase to the consumer will be next fall because of this, "secure", supply of oil? Where are you going to refine it? What refinery process in what country are you going to put it through before we can use it? I do not know why the minister takes this so lightly.


Harvie Andre: He's from Ontario.


J. Michael Forrestall: Even the people from Ontario know what we have been doing with heavy crude in Canada for the last 30 or 40 years. We have had to send it out of the country for processing. Give me some kind of indication. If you think that I am way out in left field, nod and say so and I will sit down, or get on your feet and demonstrate the difference. Do we have secure light crude without swapping or changing?


Alastair William Gillespie: You weren't listening.


J. Michael Forrestall: And for how long? You are so full of it that you are right up to the crest. Those are just two or three

questions which nobody over there has had the courtesy to eastern Canadian consumers to get up and answer. My colleague from Carleton-Charlotte laid a very serious charge tonight, and all the minister could do was sit there and guffaw, which is what he is doing now, laughing.
What the minister knew about oil six months ago, two years after he had become minister, could be written on the back of a postage stamp.


An hon. Member:: Tell him what Gerry Regan said.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is right. What did Gerry Regan have to say about you? You do not have to take my word for it. Gerry Regan is one of your former colleagues, the last of the bastion. As a matter of fact, the minister used another word.
My colleague from Carleton-Charlotte made a very serious charge a few moments ago about the failure on the part of this government with respect to the mix of eastern Canadian refinery capacity in the U.S. market, the mix of supply and the mix of cost. The islands in the Caribbean and a dozen other countries around this world enjoy this situation, but not Canada, and particularly not eastern Canada. I wonder when the minister was last in eastern Canada, except to go out and toot the government horn on some political spree at the taxpayers' expense.
The minister said, when speaking in the House yesterday, that we were well off in the east. I would like him to get up and tell me what it is that my industrial users pay for energy and what he is paying for energy in his backyard. Tell my people in Ecum Secum what they pay, and at the same time tell them what your people pay, and then tell us again that we are well off. We are in serious trouble. The actions of this government have brought about our difficulties, with its equalization and stabilization. How much longer do you think that we will be able to play games, with the world price of oil what it is? How much longer do you think we will be able to go on with an unreliable source of oil for our refineries? How much longer do you think that our refineries can continue to operate, unless they have access markets for the disposal of their production capacity?


Alastair William Gillespie: Is this about the amendment?


J. Michael Forrestall: Speaking to the amendment? What the hell has the amendment got to do with the nonsense you have been perpetrating for the last three or four days?


Alastair William Gillespie: Filibuster.


J. Michael Forrestall: Filibuster, be damned. You are the filibuster of your own argument and you know that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he must address the Chair. I have been very tolerant, and he should address himself to me.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are right, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to you. It is just that the total ignorance of a situation lends to provocation which in fact is justifiable. It is a good thing that
March 15, 1979

it is not Saturday and St. Patrick's Day or I would teach the minister a lesson the proper way. The eleventh hour attempts by this government to correct what is one of the most serious situations facing eastern Canada are not good enough. When are we going to get our oil refineries back into production so that we can enjoy some of the benefits? When are we going to get the security of Canadian oil? When are we going to learn about the reversal of one of the Portland pipelines which is touted in C-42? When are we going to get it?


Alastair William Gillespie: What is the amendment you are speaking to?


J. Michael Forrestall: The amendment that I am speaking to is the balderdash and the damned nonsense that you perpetrated in this bill, saying that you need a three-day closure motion. That is what you are talking about. It is not worth the time of day, and you know it.


Alastair William Gillespie: You are quite right; the amendment was balderdash.


J. Michael Forrestall: This bill is repugnant to our system and to our democratic society. There are three things which concern us in eastern Canada. I do not care whether the matter is debated on the floor of the House of Commons or not. The procedures of this House provide for it. There is an old, old rule in this House that the members will be heard, so we do not need this war measures type of security.
I wonder if the minister understands what the word "closure" means. I wonder if he has bothered to look up the word "emergency" or the word "comedy" in the political sense? I will send the Concise Oxford Dictionary, sixth edition, over to him so that he can look them up, but for now I will read the definitions to him. Emergency is defined as a sudden state of danger, a condition needing immediate treatment. Politically, it is a condition approximating to that of war. That is what emergency means. Comedy is defined as a stage play of life, of amusing and often satirical character. With this measure the minister has perpetrated a comedy on this House-light, farcical, not dealing with the subject in depth.
The minister should be condemned for this. His failure to treat the question of oil security in eastern Canada seriously and the matter of our refineries to function at or near their levels of production, his failure to secure a mix of supply and costs for them in the United States market, his failure to secure light crude oils for eastern Canada, his failure to conclude adequately with the Norwegians, for example, the type of industrial mix they would like if we are to participate in their production supplies-for all of these reasons the amendment should be supported and the minister's motion should be defeated. It is not necessary. He already has adequate authority to take action when he decides there is an emergency, and it does not need to be an emergency immediately prior to a state of war.


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you voting against it?


J. Michael Forrestall: Bring the election on.
Energy Supplies


An hon. Member:: Any time.


J. Michael Forrestall: 1 will give the minister his emergency authority. Nobody is denying him that. I just say that he has overstepped his boundaries substantially. He is arrogant, and uncaring about eastern Canadians. It is the same with the whole government. By God, they will the finished when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has the guts to call the general election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) for the education they have given us on the needs of eastern Canada and the maritimes. I must confess that I was resting rather easy about this bill until I read the editorial in the Globe and Mail last Saturday.


An hon. Member:: You cannot make up your mind, you have to read the Globe.


Benno Friesen: At least I can read. I know Liberal members do not want to hear this but I think it is worth putting on the record. Referring to this bill the editorial had this to say;
It is a bill which will put everybody having anything to do with energy under the control of a minister of energy become a czar. It is a piece of tyranny, with the tyranny handled by amateurs and all the professionals shoved aside.
When I look at the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) I cannot help but believe that the editorial is correct. It did not take a great deal of insight but at least the editorial said it.
The second thing that made me take notice of the bill is the indecent haste with which the government wanted to see it passed. They twitched nervously as soon as another member rose to speak. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is wont to say-if you have nothing to hide, why hide it? Why not let it see the light of day? Why not expose it?
I look at some of the reasons there might be for an emergency. When I came to this House five years ago we were assured that Canada had an unlimited supply of energy and oil reserves. A year later, we were doomed to a kind of 1984 freeze-up. All of a sudden we are told we have a 25-year supply and I ask myself if this government has any kind of policy at all. When will we get a table and dependable analysis of our reserves?
I can imagine that prior to the North Sea discoveries, countries like Holland, France or Italy would have emergency allocations because their own supplies of petroleum were inadequate. I can understand why they would want legislation like this, but why should Canada, a country supposedly rich in petroleum reserves, ever come to the point of needing an emergency allocation of petroleum? The legislation shows that the minister is not content simply for petroleum to be allocated but provides that he can expand his powers. Clause 12(5) of the bill reads as follows:

March 15, 1979
Adjournment Debate
The governor in council may, by order, add any product that is manufactured wholly or in part from petroleum to the mandatory allocation program and thereupon that product becomes a controlled product for the purpose of the allocation of the supplies thereof in Canada.
So it is not simply petroleum that the bill deals with. What this energy czar wants to do is control all the products that deal with energy, not just petroleum. When is he going to add hydro and coal?
The minister asks if I looked at those clauses that I just read. If he can understand English, surely he sees it is not the intent simply to talk about petroleum but to add other measures to it? The record of this government of predicting the needs of this country for petroleum resources does anything but encourage confidence.
There was a time before this Liberal government came into office when the word "liberal" had some good connotations. It meant generosity. When I read clause 16, however, I do not think it equates with generosity but rather with dictatorship. They want to control every aspect of the energy system in Canada-supplying wholesalers, allocating the marketplace, allocating the prices-everything is supposed to be under the control of this minister whom the newspaper called an amateur. Are we supposed to give him these unlimited powers after three days of debate? It is no wonder that the editorial says we have a responsibility to bring this to light and debate it as long as possible. Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, on November 2 last, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) which pertained to a problem in eastern Canada arising as a result of the railroad structure of Canada, saying it was going to withdraw the type of equipment which is necessary to transport potatoes to the markets of Canada and to export markets as well. I asked the minister at that time if he had any control, or if the Canadian Transport Commission had any control over the behaviour of the railroads in such a circumstance.
Is the railroad at liberty to withdraw a particular type of service upon which an area has been historically dependent, without any consideration being given to the necessity of that service, without any advice to the minister or to the Canadian Transport Commission? Is there in fact any authority in the

hands of the minister or the agencies of his department which can say to a railroad that it must continue to render this service to an area because it is dependent on the service? It may be dependent on it because there is absolutely no other source of transportation to the destination. It may be dependent on it because it is the only means of transportation which fully fills the market area, fully in which the product has been sold. It may be dependent upon it because of all the capital investment which has been made to ship by this means, and the changes which would be incumbent upon the shipping industry to change.
I am concerned that there has been no response to my question. The minister said in reply to me that if he had the question in written form he would obtain an answer. Because it has been said many times in this House: "I will take your question under advisement and reply," I assumed this would be adequate written notice to the minister concerned and that I could anticipate a reply. I have waited patiently through November, December, January, and February and now I have to bring it to the attention of this House that I have had no reply. I submit that there is no excuse to hide behind the idea that he had no written question. The written record of my question is not only here for him to read but it is here for the public to read.
This is a very serious problem on a national scale and not on a particularly local or colloquial scale. There is a fixed cost in the operation of any business. There is a fixed cost in the operation of a branch line of a railroad. That fixed cost will be there and it will be distributed over the total amount of traffic that travels over that particular branch line. I interpret this withdrawal railroad equipment to haul potatoes as advance notice that they will be applying next for branch line abandonment. I base my case upon the fact that the first application which reduced the use of the lines concerned was for the elimination of passenger service. When these applications for the elimination of passenger service were presented they included the cost of its operation. But two particular items were included in those costs. One was management and the other was maintenance.
Because one took a passenger car-a Budd car-off the railroad line that in no way would decrease the amount of maintenance required on that line nor would it probably take a single employee out of the administrative structure. Simply put, this means the administrative costs of that particular line now had to be distributed upon less traffic than before. It was quite significant that the loss incurred by one of those passenger services was less than the total of the maintenance costs and the administrative charges to the line, both of which were to continue after the passenger service had been discontinued. It would therefore have been cheaper to operate the passenger service than to discontinue it.
Now we are faced with the idea that one of the items which is moved in the largest quantities over that line will no longer be carried because the railway will no longer choose to present
March 15, 1979

equipment to the shipper suitable for carrying it. So, there were these stages: first, withdrawal of the passenger service; second, the raising of the rates for the movement of wood products to such a level that producers could no longer afford to move their material on the railroads of New Brunswick. That is the second stage. When you couple the withdrawal of the transportation of wood products with the withdrawal of passenger service and, now, withdrawal from the movement of potatoes, it is not hard to foresee that the next application will be for branch line abandonment.
I want to know this: is there any authority vested in the minister or any agency of the Department of Transport which would permit him to intervene and request that the railroads provide services which are historically necessary for the economic viability of the area? That is precisely what is necessary-competitive transportation for the province. It has now become subject to truck rates without competition, whatever they may be, and that is not healthy.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) is outraged because he did not receive an answer to his question of November 2. In the interim answer he gave him on that date, the minister quite clearly invited the hon. member to put his question on the order paper, or to write the minister stating the precise details he wanted to have. Mr. Speaker, I checked on this earlier today, and the hon. member never raised that question again. He could very well have contacted the minister or myself, orally or in writing, and we would have been quite happy to supply him with the details or answers requested.
It is further my view, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member could also have looked up the Railway Act. Section 262 compels railways to supply adequate and suitable equipment to accommodate all traffic offered for carriage; it also empowers the Canadian Transport Commission to order a company to discharge that obligation. Further in the same act, he could have found that section 276 calls for compensatory freight rates, which is freight rates exceeding the variable cost of the movement of the traffic concerned as determined by the commission. Still further, the hon. member could have read in section 277 that the Railway Act empowers the commission to conduct an investigation on any rate and disallow any rate it finds not compensatory.
Mr. Speaker, railways in some cases are the most cost-efficient ways of shipping or moving large volumes of goods over long distances, when shipments are made on regular basis. Now the transport of potatoes in New Brunswick is characterized by irregular shipments distributed over a seven-month period and covering only a few hundreds miles. The companies must also dispatch cars at various loading points here and there and bring them back. Under such circumstances, the railways' operating costs are high and it becomes difficult to
Adjournment Debate
make available a satisfactory service to shippers. This is why for the past few years we have noted a constantly increasing use of trucking companies which are in a position to provide a more flexible and quicker service at attractive rates.
The Canadian National which carry potatoes on long hauls in New Brunswick can compete with the trucking industry because its large traffic to the maritimes enable them to provide good service and make available enough equipment to producers. On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific carry less goods, except potatoes in northwestern New Brunswick, and they can provide steady service to potato shippers only at very high rates. Canadian Pacific have realized that they cannot cut out the losses incurred on those goods.


ENERGY-CASH INCENTIVES PROGRAM TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATE SOURCES OF ENERGY
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight pursuant to my motion of February 22 and my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) on March 1 as reported in Hansard at page 3712, which reads as follows:
In view of the apparent sustained energy problems in motive power that now exist in this country, will the minister and the government devise some form of cash incentives program which could offer national prizes to encourage our inventors and scientists to develop and attain more efficient uses of fossil fuels as motive power and also to develop alternate sources of energy for the same purpose?
The minister's answer that day was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to take that representation under consideration and to discuss the specifics of it with the hon. member.
I am glad that the minister indicated his willingness to pursue this proposition further, and I am pleased and proud to be the prime mover of this action, provided something is done about it soon. As I stand in my place tonight in this House, I am confident that what I propose will be done, if not by this government then by the next one.
The pockets and basins of petroleum in our old mother earth are certainly limited and are of an unrenewable nature. To depend on petroleum with a protracted attitude into the twenty-first century would be a foolhardy policy. Indeed, we are told by those we hire to inform us that we are close to a crisis in supply vis-a-vis consumption. We now talk of rationing petroleum fuel, six-day weeks for automobiles, and laws forbidding Sunday driving. I believe in self-reliance in individuals as well as nations, and I believe we can rely on Canadians to come up with solutions to our fuel problems, if we adopt the right policies nationally. For these reasons I propose that we do what was proposed in my question, that we set up a generous fund, with guidelines, rules and provisions included, which would give certain national cash prizes and cash awards for the accomplishment of certain fuel saving and fuel inventive goals. We would ask our young and old Canadian inventors,


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) for his remarks. However, I was surprised to see him bring up that matter in the House of Commons. It is obvious that steps encouraging people to discover new ways of developing the energy required fo mechanical drive, whether it be for driving cars or use in sawmills and other places, is extremely important. The hon. member suggests that a special fund be set up and that considerable amounts of money be awarded those who make discoveries or suggestions for reducing our dependence, as a society and as individuals, on the hydrocarbons whose reserves are limited and will soon run out. The idea is interesting and gives me a chance, Mr. Speaker, to indicate some of the measures which we have already taken in that respect. First of all, the federal government has projects encouraging research varying from the use of the methanol produced when sawdust is burned, the use, its reprocessing of the gas resulting when coal is burned, to the recent subsidies paid the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute at Varennes to encourage the use of a special reactor in nuclear fusion.
Between this first example I gave and the last one in a highly advanced field of power generation technology, there is a whole spectrum of programs funded jointly by the National Research Council of Canada and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in an effort precisely to find new sources of renewable energy and reduce our dependency on oil.
Regarding the reduction of our needs, which is really an effort to avoid waste, incredible efforts were also noted. We should first make people aware of their responsibility as elements of society, in ensuring a more rational use of oil. In a recent experience undertaken in Ontario, it was found that by combining reduced speeds and optimal carburettor adjustments, gas consumption can be reduced by 20 per cent.
These are a few of the concrete measures taken by our government. I would like to add a whole string of them, Mr. Speaker, but I see you are impatient to give the floor to someone else, so I thank you for the time you allowed me.
March 15, 1979


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-FINDINGS BY CSIP-GOVERNMENT ACTION THEREON
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 9, I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the new toothless watchdog which he created, the National Commission on Inflation. Here we have another in the long line of task forces to "study and monitor" inflation but having at the same time either no independence or no power. The government's answer to every discomforting problem which arises seems to be the same: appoint another commission. It either cannot deal with the problems directly, or it is afraid to take action for which it might later be held responsible. The government would rather pass the buck to a commission, hoping that it will take the heat off. Well, it will not take the heat off because Canadian people are not so stupid as to be deceived by this kind of buck passing, this throwing of commissions at problems. Canadians know that with a good government the buck stops on the Prime Minister's desk, and that is what the government will see after the next election.
Since 1969 we have seen five commissions appear, and four of them disappear. First we were given the Prices and Incomes Commission. Then it grew tired and had to be replaced by the Food Prices Review Board. The Food Prices Review Board begat the Anti-Inflation Board which was to impose those controls which the Prime Minister had said would never be. The controls ended after three years, but the government had grown so accustomed to its commissions that it had to create another one. So, the Prime Minister went to Dr. Sylvia Ostry and instructed her to build CSIP, the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity, within her Economic Council of Canada. But it seems the Prime Minister made an error in judgment, for CSIP proved not to be the uncritical handmaiden the other task forces had been. Because it was brought into being under the auspices of the Economic Council of Canada, CSIP operated in the same independent, uncompromising way which had characterized the economic council. It would not be an apologist for government policy; it chose to be outspoken and often critical.
Soon after it was created, CSIP proved its refusal to be manipulated. It issued a criticism of the government's wage settlement with letter carriers, attacking it as being excessive and inflationary. Then in October, 1978, it ruffled the government's feathers by its critical assessment of federal dairy policy. CSIP argued, and many agreed, that it did not make economic sense to use taxpayers' dollars to subsidize the overproduction of industrial milk, especially when the milk had to be sold at a loss on the international market. CSIP was being insubordinate to the government. It was behaving like a delinquent child and, like a delinquent child, it had to be disciplined. After all, the government could not have its own commission criticizing the government as aiding and abetting inflation. Thus the government destroyed this troublesome CSIP with its annoying penchant for public criticism, and
Adjournment Debate
created another commission, NCI, the National Commission on Inflation.
Why did the government decide to replace CSIP with this new agency? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) claims it was because some firms refused to disclose information CSIP had requested. He did not mention how many, but I will. There were two out of 190, just under 1 per cent. It is clear that, by and large, the companies have nothing to hide in so far as prices, profits and wages are concerned. But can we say the same for this government?
When the disbanding of CSIP was intimated shortly before the announcement on March 2 of the creation of the NCI it was reported that some staffers expressed dismay over the closing of CSIP. Let me quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 6 in which a CSIP spokesman was reported to have said:
We were on the edge of some really super stuff. Our program was just starting to take shape and in the next three to six months, we would have broken out with some important results.
I would like to ask the minister what will happen to those incipient findings? What will happen to the CSIP studies that were in progress, the studies dealing with structural aspects of inflation and labour force mechanisms, and the study on the Crowsnest pass freight rates? What will happen to the $500,000 in research contracts that CSIP has outstanding? Will they be muzzled and aborted in the same way that CSIP was?
I would also like to ask the minister to explain the mandate of the NCI. On March 9 the Prime Minister told the House that CSIP was not reporting directly to parliament but that it was reporting directly to the Prime Minister. The truth of it is that CSIP was reporting to parliament and the public through the Prime Minister, but he had no control over the content of its reports. Can we say the same for the NCI? Where is the provision in the order in council creating the NCI which specifies that it will report to parliament, unimpeded, in the same way that CSIP did? It is not there; instead we are told that the national commission will be reporting to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance said in his March 2 press release that the NCI would be making its reports public "when it was deemed advisable". What does this mean? Does it mean that the public release of some reports of the NCI will be deemed "inadvisable" and that these reports will then be kept secret?
My objection to this is twofold, Mr. Speaker. First it is that the appointment of commissions, studies, task forces and review boards has been proven over the last ten years to be a hopelessly inadequate way to deal with inflation. The government must take responsibility for inflation, and the problem should not be dumped on the shoulders of commissions.
The second is the fact that this government kills the commissions it creates before they have a chance to get off the ground. As Mrs. Ostry was quoted in the March 9 edition of the Montreal Star, "What saddens me is that we've been killed just when we were gaining momentum."
4226

March 15, 1979
Adjournment Debate
The NCI will be done away with in the same way. Its term expires in 1980, just over a year from now. Will the government appoint another commission on inflation then? I am happy to say it will not because the government will be a Progressive Conservative one, and-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in initially responding to the comments of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare) regarding the next election let me just say that he should keep a close watch over his own shoulder as the people of St. Boniface rush to restore membership in this House to the Liberal stronghold where it so traditionally belongs.
The hon. member asked what action will be taken to follow up on CSIP's findings in a number of areas. He specifically mentioned CSIP's public statements with regard to food industry profits, dairy industry costs, and CSIP's criticism of the wage settlement with the letter carriers.
In reply I would like to note that the government has replaced CSIP with the National Commission on Inflation in order to monitor prices and incomes more effectively. The NCI will be better able to monitor because it will have powers under the Inquiries Act to require the submission of information.
CSIP had requested the voluntary submission of information from 190 of the largest companies and some of them had expressed their reluctance to co-operate. The government could not give CSIP Inquiries Act powers because such powers were judged to be inconsistent with the mandate of CSIP's parent organization, the Economic Council of Canada. As the new agency responsible for prices and incomes monitoring, the National Commission can be expected to follow up on many CSIP's findings.
Concerning a follow-up on CSIP's comments on food industry profits, I would like to remind the hon. member that Mr. Renouf, the head of the NCI, has already been involved in the question of food industry profits as chairman of the AIB. The AIB has done two studies of food industry profits, the second of which could be seen as a follow-up on the CSIP's comments. The AIB studies have been supported by the more complete information on food industry profits contained in the release of Statistics Canada data on non-financial corporation profits for the first three quarters of 1978. CSIP itself has noted that its
original comment on food industry profits had to be revised in the light of the more complete data. Given Mr. Renoufs involvement to date, I am sure that the NCI will have a continuing interest in the profit performance of the food industry.
As far as other studies that CSIP was undertaking are concerned, final decisions have not been made. Some of them may be taken over by the NCI. The terms of reference of the NCI instruct it "through publication of reports ... to promote understanding of the inflationary process and its implications for the economy". It will be up to the NCI in consultation with CSIP and the economic council to decide which studies should be continued under NCI's auspices. Some other research studies with a much less immediate relation to monitoring may be continued by the Economic Council itself and could eventually result in council publications. Finally, it is possible that some studies could be discontinued if they do not fit in with the research priorities of NCI and the Economic Council.
The hon. member also asked why the NCI is not directly responsible to parliament, as he suggested CSIP was, and why the NCI is reporting to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and not to parliament and the people of Canada. I should first remind the hon. member that CSIP was set up under the direction of the Economic Council at the request of the First Ministers' Conference in February, 1978. As such, CSIP reported through the Economic Council to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and not directly to parliament. The NCI will report to the governor in council, with the Minister of Finance providing the liaison between the two.
According to its terms of reference, the NCI has been instructed to report to the public when it deems it appropriate to do so. It is authorized to publish its reports and the results of its studies and investigation under its own authority. The Minister of Finance has no veto power over what it can make public. The NCI is expected to report publicly on many of the cases it examines, and on more general issues as part of its effort to promote public understanding of the inflationary process.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Friday, March 16, 1979