1979-03-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the usual Standing Order respecting a matter of considerable urgency to the east coast of Canada.
The continuing presence of the stern section of the oil tanker Kurdistan off the Nova Scotia coast in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, coupled with continued delays in making final disposition plans, and in light of the apparent dangers posed by this continued delay in the final disposition process, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the responsible authorities take the earliest decision possible to resolve the situation either by removal from coastal areas for sinking purposes, or to arrange for its towing into a suitable and safe port for the discharge of the residual oil in the tanker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the introduction of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ABORTION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In consideration of the recent announcement by the Health Sciences Centre in Winnipeg that the abortion clinic will be moved to a separate location and operated by a private group for the expressed purposes of making a profit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Justice consult today with his provincial counterpart to discuss concrete proposals that would prevent an American interest from investing over $100,000 in an abortion clinic which, in effect, will offer abortions on demand. Such a clinic would be both a violation of the right to life and the Criminal Code of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House direct the government to take immediately such measures as the establishment of the guaranteed annual income to provide the bare necessities to Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order No. 43. As extreme disparities continue to exist in the Atlantic region, despite efforts of DREE, and 25 per cent of the personal income of New

March 19, 1979
Oral Questions
Brunswickers is a direct result of transfer payments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare):
That this House instructs the government to co-operate with the provinces in the establishment of a national industrial policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture; it relates to the government's recent announcement on tariff changes. In light of the fact tariff reductions were instituted, to use the minister's words, "only after extremely complex negotiations with the United States", I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, what reciprocal concessions has the government been able to obtain from our United States competitors?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member surely knows that there is a long list. I will send him a complete briefing on it so that he can understand in complete detail just what was done, because the Tariff Board recommendations are shown. It shows what the present tariffs are between our two countries; it shows the harmonization between our two countries; it shows the gains we made in respect of some of our products and some of the products they have in their country as well. It is a lengthy list, Mr. Speaker.


John Wise: I have a supplementary question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I will be looking forward to that long list. I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agriculture does not send it by Canada Post.
In view of the minister's recent statements to the horticultural seminar held recently in Ottawa, urging Canadians to drink Canadian apple juice and Canadian grape juice, why has he allowed the tariff on apple juice to be slashed by one-half, and why has he allowed the tariff on grape juice to be removed completely? Is this another example of the Minister of Agriculture saying one thing and taking one position, with his cabinet colleagues doing something the very opposite?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member sees the document I talked about, he will learn also that this is beneficial to the Canadian producer because on many occasions we have had surplus grape products and we were unable

to ship them to the United States. When the member says one-half, certainly he could be a little bit more liberal than that, in that I believe the amount he was talking about was one cent a quart on apple juice. The Canadian apple producers are well aware of this and well aware of the discussions. That is within the realm of the Tariff Board report also.
I am just saying this, that the hon. member seems to be trying to get the point across that this may not be beneficial to the Canadian horticultural industry. I cannot think of one delegate who understood the total package on tariff gains and tariff reductions who would not say that this is probably the most beneficial package to the Canadian horticultural industry ever presented on behalf of the Canadian horticultural industry, and I might say it is beneficial to this country too, Mr. Speaker.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I will be waiting for the minister's written response to my second question. My final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the very insignificant impact these reductions will have on the retail prices of fresh fruits and vegetables, does the minister not agree that the best way to lower food costs would be to lower farm input costs? Has the minister considered lowering the tariffs on imported agricultural commodities and chemicals, in view of the fact that with increases estimated as high as 30 per cent, the Canadian producer will have no protection whatsoever with regard to the 1979 crop season?


Eugene Whelan: Again, Mr. Speaker, I can show the hon. member a whole list in this regard. We have a review board, or a committee of producers, farmers and government people who investigate the prices of commodities. Many of the commodities here are quite reasonably priced. They have been subject to the nominal increases, in just the same as any other business in Canada.
We can show the hon. member that the costs in respect of many of the commodities that are volume items, such as the product to control wild oats, are much lower than they were last year. That cost is 10 per cent lower than it was last year, which I suggest is significant in these inflationary times.


SURTAX REQUESTED BY HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the negotiations that have been conducted both bilaterally and multilaterally, will the minister explain why the concession asked for by the horticultural industry, namely, the ability to add additional duties in times of emergency, was not negotiated successfully for the Canadian farmer and his production, which is often badly affected by the importation of unreasonably low-priced goods from countries all over the world? What became of the surtax they asked for?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, again we announced that the surtax was not finalized at this
March 19, 1979

time. We hope to have it finalized in the not too distant future. This is, again, a recommendation by the Tariff Board that we act in respect of the surcharge so that we can act immediately. Past history indicates that the system we have used is too slow.
I agree with the hon. member in this regard. This is something we have to finalize with our trading partners.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, do we, or do we not, have the opportunity to charge surtax against unreasonably low-priced products brought into Canada in competition with our own food producers and processors? "Yes" or "No"?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we still have the same system. We are using the system we have always used but, as the hon. member knows-or, I am sure, should be aware-the recommendation was that the new system should be one that would allow us to react much quicker than we could under the old system. By the time we go through the procedures and give them 48 hours' notice, sometimes the damage is done. What they wanted was what the Tariff Board recommended, that we react immediately to that kind of dumping of that kind of product into Canada.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary. Were we, or were we not, successful in negotiating with our foreign trade partners the right, without expense to other commodities, to impose surtax on imports at unreasonably low prices into this country? "Yes" or "No"?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange to me, after the hon. member rambles on in his question, that he can expect a short "Yes" or "No" answer from me. The hon. member knows full well, and I know that he knows, the present system which we use with regard to using a surtax. We have not at this time been successful in negotiating a proper system of surtax, but we offer them more protection under the new system than they have ever had in the history of any government in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Given that the Established Programs Financing Act, which was passed by parliament with the support of the Liberal party and the Conservative party, limited the financial commitment of the federal government to medical care by restricting its contributions to the size of the gross national product, regardless of the increases in health care costs throughout the country, can the President of the Treasury Board tell us whether or not the federal government is now prepared to fund increases in the
Oral Questions
medicare program that are required to meet the concerns of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the universal nature of our health care program is being eroded and that some provinces are not paying their doctors enough?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, that question does not fall within the bailiwick of the President of the Treasury Board. It should have been directed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a long-standing problem. When medicare was introduced, it was understood that after a certain period of time the costs would be shared in a different fashion. When the new arrangement was negotiated, the formula that we proposed at that time was totally acceptable to the provinces and now they have to cope with the responsibility. The hon. member should make sure that the Ontario government maintains the principle of medicare which they agreed to support all along.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance. Seeing that the government is a partner in restraint with the provincial governments in this matter of medicare, could the Minister of Finance tell us what the legal authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare was when she said that she would be cutting off funding under the Established Programs Financing Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice in this House to comment on legal opinions; I think the hon. member should know that. When we signed the agreement for the new formula, it was understood that medicare would be maintained in the spirit in which the program was established. Some of the provinces-by the way, most of the provinces which are getting out of medicare in this manner have Conservative governments-are not, in my judgment, respecting the spirit and the letter of the agreement.


An hon. Member:: There is only one Liberal government.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MAINTAIN MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. In the debate on the Established Programs Financing Act, the then minister of national health and welfare, now the Minister of Justice, said "these universal health insurance programs have become so deeply ingrained in the Canadian fabric that any retrograde step in the form of halting or even reducing these programs is absolutely unthinkable." In that same debate, the Prime Minister said that the elimination of an active federal role in medicare was "a gamble."
Now that the unthinkable has happened and the gamble has been lost at the expense of many Canadians, and this government has tied itself into a program which restricts its ability to administer the medicare program, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what he intends to do and what his government intends to do within its powers, granted the fact that it has

March 19, 1979
Oral Questions
locked itself into a straitjacket, to protect the medicare program?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have already responded to questions on this subject.
As the hon. member knows, the understanding with respect to medicare was founded on cornerstones which were accepted, certainly, by the Parliament of Canada and by the provinces. It is still the view of the Government of Canada that those basic principles are still to be the essence of the medicare plan.
The hon. member asks what we are going to do about it, in the circumstances. The matter is one that is quite serious. Obviously, the government will have to consider in detail what steps it could take in order to ensure that these fundamental principles will be observed.

[ Translation]


POSSIBILITY THAT EXXON SUPPLIED BIASED INFORMATION TO NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology.
The minister stated recently in the House that 90 per cent of the petroleum industry in Canada is under foreign control. In view of this assessment and the recent events involving Exxon which clearly indicated where the loyalty of these multinationals lies, could the minister assure the House that these corporations had not deliberately supplied biased information to the National Energy Board, information which served as a basis for its most recent report?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I wish that it were as low as 80 per cent. Unfortunately, the industry is controlled to a greater extent than 80 per cent by foreign corporations in this country.
As to the question the hon. member asks with respect to the information provided to the National Energy Board, I can assure him that the National Energy Board is very much aware of the concern he has expressed, the possibility that information could be slanted. That is the reason the National Energy Board exists, and they have experts who are competent to assess the information they are provided with from the point of view of the Canadian interest.
[Mr. Rac.J


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Could he explain to the House, without being unduly evasive, how he could be in favour of exporting our surplus of gas, as he was two weeks ago in the House, while knowing that we risk facing a shortage before 1992? Is this not a policy which would greatly benefit the multinationals at the expense of Canadians?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the findings of the National Energy Board with respect to increases in gas reserves are, on the whole, probably conservative. That seems to be the view of many who have knowledge of the situation. I believe that by introducing two additional deliverability tests, the National Energy Board has protected Canada against any premature or excessive export of gas which has been found surplus to domestic needs.
I have also stated that I believe exportable surplus can be used for the benefit of Canada in making economically viable a gas pipeline and the movement of gas to eastern Canada and markets not now served by Canadian gas, and by so doing reduce our dependence on foreign oil.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) who is responsible for reporting to parliament on the activities of Loto Canada.
Could the minister confirm to the House that ticket sales in the present draw of Loto Canada, draw No. 12, are likely to be the lowest in its history, and that even if Loto Canada meets its target for draw No. 12, $20 million worth of tickets will remain unsold?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the assurance of Loto Canada that it will meet its goal of 3.5 million tickets for draw No. 12.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed that this will be the worst draw ever and that two million tickets, worth $20 million, will be returned unsold.
Last week, in an attempt to boost lagging sales of tickets for draw No. 12, Loto Canada signed a special arrangement with the merchandising giant, Miracle Mart, to deliver directly to Miracle Mart 5,000 tickets, worth $50,000, as a result bypassing Loto Canada's own wholesalers. I ask the minister why a decision was made to do this, in defiance of Loto Canada's own wholesalers, when the same arrangement is not available
March 19, 1979

to local, small retailers across Canada? Why has a special deal been given to this merchandising giant?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will feel, as I do, that that is a question for the corporation to answer. I will undertake to have them do so.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the minister is responsible to parliament for the activities of this corporation, and she cannot evade that responsibility. Is the minister aware of the fact that the special arrangement signed with Miracle Mart to deliver $50,000 worth of tickets to them in a special deal is very similar to an arrangement with the food industry which resulted in the Ontario government setting up a judicial inquiry into practices in the food industry in Canada? If so, can the minister indicate why it is that Loto Canada would go ahead with a measure which discriminates against small retailers and which clearly is detrimental to the best interests of consumers in Canada?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, as several members on this side have acquainted me with this matter today, I will be happy to ask the corporation to give the hon. member the same report that I give to them.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to gamble, so my question will be for the Minister of the Environment: it concerns the oil pullution situation created by the Kurdistan. Could the minister advise the House-it has now been five days since the accident

whether or not a final decision has been taken in this respect? Will the ship be towed out to sea and sunk or, alternatively, will it be brought into port? If so, which port and when?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the final decision has not been taken. Some proposals are being put forward with regard to the vessel and these are being examined. Coastguard officials, in close conjunction with officials from the Department of the Environment, will look at any proposal before a final decision is made.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the minister, who comes from the heartland of this country, the prairies, that the Gulf of St. Lawrence is not the most friendly stretch of water in the world. The longer he delays the decision, the greater the danger to the contiguous land mass.
Might I ask the minister, more directly, what is the nature and level of third party liability protection that his department would insist upon with respect to salvage operations? Have we set a dollar level, or do we have a clear understanding of what protection will be afforded with respect to third party liability?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is because we are so very conscious of the importance of the coastal areas and the
Oral Questions
fisheries concerned that we will take time to be sure that any proposal put forward will be examined and adjudged in the light of Canada's over-all interest.
The question of how to handle the stern portion of the vessel will involve, if it is a question of approaching the Canadian shoreline with it, an issue of potential liability. We are really concerned about the safety of the action more than the question of liability. However, the liability question is important in terms of the judgment by persons in charge of the salvage operations. That remains a part of the negotiations and discussions which are going on right now. On the other hand, the bow part of the vessel is being towed toward deeper portions of the ocean for disposal.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, we are getting nowhere with the Minister of Transport-perhaps he is not properly advised-so may I direct my question back to the Minister of State (Environment)? I understand he was in Nova Scotia over the weekend, taking a look at the situation. Can the minister give us his best guess as to where the missing 3,500 tons of oil are, and does it pose any environmental threat to our lobster and other ground fisheries?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, on the looks so far by my officials and officials of the Department of Transport, we have not been able to get a good handle on where the 3,500 tons of bunker C might be. There are a number of possibilities. If it was in a slick at some point, we feel we would have found it. A slick has been found in the last little while near the present location of the stern portion of the vessel, but it is a very small one.
The best indications we have as of now are that we do not foresee any environmental damage. Some of the guesses are that the bunker C that has escaped has possibly all been broken up and dissipated, or that it has sunk to the bottom of the ocean. As time goes on, we will be monitoring the situation. I will be pleased to give the hon. member any information I have as it becomes available.


PAYMENT OF DAMAGES FOR OIL POLLUTION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder whether the minister is considering amendments to existing legislation which would permit parties injured by offshore spills, such as lobster fishermen, to initiate legal action and obtain compensation for damage arising from oil pollution, or are Canadians going to have to wait until the damage is done on the shoreline?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, wherever there is a possibility of obtaining compensation for any damage done, obviously we will be zealous to pursue that. However, that obviously relates to establishing the facts of the law in relation to a specific instance.


Donald W. Munro: It would seem the minister is satisfied with the law under which compensation for oil

March 19, 1979
Oral Questions
pollution damage is sought by Canadians as injured parties. Is Canada prepared to take action under IMCO to ensure that pollution accidents such as that which occurred involving the Kurdistan recently are not repeated, and that offences committed within the 200-mile limit will be tried before Canadian courts and not left to courts of the flag?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that Canada has been in the forefront of discussions in IMCO to try to secure worldwide standards that are satisfactory. We will continue to do that. Of course, that will not necessarily avoid certain incidents from occurring. I think it would be wrong to prejudge the facts at this point in time.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of state responsible for fitness and amateur sport. In light of a recent study which was carried out in the United States revealing that the accident rate for non-smoking drivers is half that of smokers and, further, that some U.S. insurance companies are now offering discounts on life insurance premiums to non-smokers who exercise regularly, what steps or studies has the minister taken or what action will she take to persuade the Canadian insurance industry that this low-risk group should get some special consideration on their automobile and life insurance premiums?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is a good time to inform the House of the divisions of lifestyle between my ministry and that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has responsibility for such matters as nutrition, alcohol, drug abuse, tobacco abuse and obesity. In my department, we have responsibility for fitness. Therefore, we have the one positive in the lifestyle area.
The best thing that has been done in my department's operation is to inspire people, through Participaction, to a healthier lifestyle. That has been done at very little cost to the Canadian people. I take this opportunity to commend them. At $500,000 a year there is $8 million in return from the public media of this country which is free of charge. I believe statistics show that Canadians are improving enormously in fitness. The hon. member's question has given me a chance to say that Canadians are now becoming fit.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. The reputable firm of Dun and Bradstreet of New York recorded 7,919 commercial failures in 1977. In Canada, in 1978, however, the rate of such failures amounted to close to 6,000. On a month to month basis, Canada suffered from 458 bankruptcies last month, compared to 559 in February, 1978, in the U.S. With heavily disproportionate scales of economies, the rate of business failures seems to be the same. This is regrettable, though it is a correct reflection of the policies of economic mismanagement pursued by the government.
Does the Minister of Finance have any explanation for this alarming and dismal rate of business bankruptcies in Canada, and what action does he plan to take to reverse this disastrous trend?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that is part of the gloom and doom approach to the problem. In a market economy there are some people who try and do not succeed. In Canada, the rate of tax for small businesses is much lower than it is in the United States. I suggest the hon. member look at the document I tabled the night of the budget, November 16. Despite the fact that many more social services are available to citizens of Canada, the rate of tax for both citizens and corporations is not higher than in the United States.


Stan Darling: In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct my question to the same minister. Of the business failures indicated in my earlier question, the manufacturing component in the February total of 1978 represented 4 per cent, compared to the present 11 per cent in February, 1979.
Considering the importance of manufacturing in our economy, and taking note that failures in the manufacturing sector are taking place at an increasing rate, what assurances can the minister advance to instil some form of confidence in our manufacturing sector, and can he now take concrete steps to stimulate investment in this vital sector of our economy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not looked at the situation. For example, two weeks ago Statistics Canada released the fact that the rate of utilization of the capacity of production in Canada increased to almost 90 per cent in the last quarter of 1978, the highest since 1973. In addition, in the last 12 months the manufacturing sector of the Canadian economy created 159,000 new jobs in that sector alone, a record over previous years. The hon. member does not want to look at the positive aspects of the Canadian economy.


DEVALUED CANADIAN DOLLAR-PRICE OF TEXTILES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance: it concerns prices as they relate to the falling Canadian dollar.
March 19, 1979

Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS
On Friday, the Minister of National Revenue said that he was investigating the charge made by clothing manufacturers that textile companies were taking advantage of the falling Canadian dollar to increase the price of their materials so that they are competitive with foreign prices and foreign textile manufacturers. 1 ask whether this inquiry is now complete. If it is complete, what are the results and what is the government going to do to make sure that domestic firms are not taking advantage of the low Canadian dollar to increase their products to the level of prices of their foreign competitors?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course the question was put Friday. The hon. member must know whether or not the inquiry has been completed. To my mind, he is exaggerating somewhat. We are very efficient but not quite that much.
I should like to tell the hon. member that, naturally, if the situation is indeed what the hon. member says, I should be very sorry indeed because in the fall of 1976 we imposed quotas in Canada to give a chance to the textile industry to recapture that part of the Canadian market it lost to importers in years past. Now that they have the benefit of the devalued Canadian dollar, I hope they will not waste that opportunity of taking advantage of the situation by, instead of increasing their prices, taking over an even larger share of the Canadian market, increasing their investments and creating more jobs in Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is also my understanding that the Department of Finance has launched a similar investigation into lumber prices in this country, in view of the fact there are some charges that lumber prices here are being tailored to competition from abroad or the export price. We have also been told that Dow Chemical and Uniroyal Chemical are going to increase the wholesale price of herbicides by about 15 per cent, again because of the export price. Can the minister confirm whether there are investigations into lumber prices and chemical prices? If, indeed, they do find that these companies are taking advantage of the falling Canadian dollar, what kind of action is the government contemplating to make sure those prices are rolled back?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we do not have the intention of controlling prices in Canada. I have said on many occasions since I became Minister of Finance in 1977 that we must move away from a controlled economy, get back to a market economy and let market forces operate. But I do hope people will not abuse the fact that we have a more competitive dollar which has opened up more opportunities for Canadians.


ADVERTISEMENTS RESPECTING CREATION OF WESTERN ARM OFCTC
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the acting minister. It arises from the full-page advertisements on grain transportation placed by Transport Canada and being carried in western newspapers. I presume this is an attempt to bolster the image of the Minister of Transport. The advertisements make a great issue of the creation of the western arm of the Canadian Transport Commission. They give the impression that the western arm of the CTC can almost perform miracles in preserving branch lines scheduled for abandonment by the minister's own selected Prairie Rail Action Committee.
Could the minister investigate these blatantly misleading advertisements? I ask this because today, on contacting the information department of the Canadian Transport Commission and requesting an address and a telephone number for the western arm of the Canadian Transport Commission, I was informed that they had never heard of that institution; the only thing they knew was what they read in the newspapers.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to direct the hon. member's question to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs later today. He will be back in the House tomorrow. Judging from the content of the question, though, perhaps the hon. member should direct it to the Minister of Transport who, I am sure, can explain the situation to the satisfaction of the hon. member and of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the reason we are not directing questions to the Minister of Transport is that we are fed up with his non-answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: However, since the Minister of Transport is so willing to reply, may I ask him how much of the taxpayers' money he has authorized to make possible this exercise in blatant political partisanship?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be delighted to give the hon. member the exact figure-I do not have it with me today. I hope he will understand that when farmers and communities are as concerned as they naturally are about the process of making application in connection with the abandonment of branch lines it is important they should have a clear understanding of that process and the way in which they can make their views known to the CTC. In my view it is very desirable this information should be brought to their attention in every possible way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is the phone number and the address of the western arm of the CTC?

March 19, 1979
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member asks what is the phone number. He should know that we have just announced the creation of this western arm.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: He might also be interested to know that the western farmers and municipal representatives with whom I have met in the last few days are delighted at the prospect of this western arm being set up in Saskatoon, and delighted it is the western arm which will be conducting most of the hearings with respect to these applications. It will be located as quickly as we can find the space in which to house it. It is true, of course, that as a result of the booming economy in western Canada it is not always easy to find office space these days.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. The reply just given by the Minister of Transport is nothing but a joke. I do not think farmers in western Canada or, for that matter, anybody in western Canada, are going to believe a word of what he says.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister investigate these misleading and slanted, political articles which have appeared in western newspapers to determine whether they ought not more properly to be paid for by the Liberal party rather than by the taxpayers through the Department of Transport?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there are others in the House more capable of investigating politics than I am.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that the hon. gentleman, on the eve of an election, has capitulated to complaints from all parts of Canada over the deterioration of mail service in urban centres resulting from the freeze on door-to-door delivery, will he respond positively to the longstanding complaints about the freeze on rural mail delivery contracts which has existed since 1974 and has resulted in serious deterioration in rural mail delivery service in all parts of the country?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have capitulated. I simply listen to the people and do whatever gives them better service. That is why I have decided, along with my colleagues in the cabinet, to give home delivery to most areas where there is such a disparity in the service. I think this was a good move, and I hope some members of the opposition who have been writing to me and complaining about it are happy because this is a government which does not promise, but acts.

As far as the question about the $10,000 limit on rural letter carriers is concerned, this is a very difficult subject and I shall explain why. The Post Office is the only service which has authority to award a $10,000 contract without public tender. We have increased from time to time the value of the contract to reach $10,000 within the limits permitted by the Post Office Act. When the amount goes above $ 10,000, we are obliged to go to public tender. That is the law.
The hon. member asks me why we do not change the act. We intend to discuss this matter when the Post Office Act comes up for review. But I would like to ask him this: to what limits should we go without calling for public tenders? Should it be $15,000? Should it be $30,000? I imagine we would then be getting complaints perhaps from people in his own riding that they do not have occasion to take part in the tendering process. Such extension of the limit might be unjust to those who wanted to obtain contracts and wanted to put forward public tenders. This is a matter we shall have to discuss in committee or when the Post Office Act is amended.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, successive postmasters general have undertaken to resolve this rapid deterioration in rural service, but the excuse for not doing so-as in the case of the letter carrier freeze-has always been lack of sufficient funds. Now that funds have been made available for restoring service to citizens in urban areas, would the Postmaster General not agree to delay costly implementation of the metric system in the Post Office, commonly known as metric madness, so that funds could be made available to provide for the fair compensation of rural mail carriers?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, every time the hon. member asks questions it is really depressing, because they are always about deteriorating services. He has been in the House for a long time. I know it has been depressing for him to be on that side for so long, but I would ask him to be more optimistic, more objective. A lot of good work is being done in the Post Office. We are moving ahead against competition and even against depressing remarks from the opposition. I will be able to give the hon. member an answer to his question tomorrow when we go into the transport committee.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED SERVICE IN WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. In view of the increased service by the letter carriers, is there any guarantee that the faster growing areas in western Canada will receive their proportionate share of increased service?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this is proof of the fact that it is not only because of the reactions that we change the policy of the Post Office. I would say that, perhaps more than the Liberal members, the Conservatives would profit by this move, considering this is a very fair government which gives to all Canadians the service they deserve, even in Conservative areas. I can tell the hon. member that western areas such as Edmonton, Saskatoon and
March 19, 1979

Calgary will get as good a service. Toronto, too, will be an area where that service is very much needed.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the dramatic results achieved in recent years in reducing cases of ASA poisoning in children, including no deaths in the last four years, thanks to voluntary action by manufacturers, will the minister soon be making an announcement requiring that at least one size of certain medicines be in child-resistant packaging and that there will be enough flexibility in this regulation to provide for regular, convenient containers for those who need them, such as the elderly, those with seeing problems, arthritis and other handicaps?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to continue the procedure of consultation regarding child-resistant containers in the way in which the hon. member described it, keeping in mind the problems of people suffering from arthritis or other physical handicaps. If I remember correctly, the plan of action was proposed and published for the first time in the Canada Gazette, but my second publication is not yet ready.


FUNDING OF MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and in putting it to her I am returning to one of the most serious issues facing Canada today, namely, the possible erosion of the provisions of the medicare act.
In view of the fact that contributions which the federal government may wish to make to the provinces for medical care are limited by the provisions of the Established Programs Financing Act, which puts the contributions on a gross national product basis rather than on the basis of the actual cost of medical care, will the minister, in addition to the information that she is collecting and in addition to the appeals she is making to her colleagues in the provinces, discuss with her colleagues in cabinet the possibility of amending the Established Programs Financing Act or taking any other steps that will enable the federal government to make sure that the medical care program is saved?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, if the question implies that under the new block funding legislation the provinces are not receiving sufficient funds for health costs to offer adequate fee schedules to their doctors and comply with the basic conditions of medicare in Canada, I assure the hon. member that such is not the case. Ontario, for instance, received a 13.7 per cent
Oral Questions
increase in 1979-80 over 1978-79 under the legislation referred to by the hon. member. Manitoba, his own province, got an increase of 14.4 per cent, a higher percentage rate of increase than some other provinces.
If, on the other hand, the hon. member is attempting to make me say, as his colleague from Broadview (Mr. Rae) suggested a bit earlier, that we cannot control medicare payments, I can only disagree with him, since the established programs legislation remains subject to the provisions of the 1968-69 medicare act, and in particular to section 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was trying very carefully to put my question in a way that did not call for confrontation but rather on the basis that all of us share, which is that the Medical Care Act is one of the most important programs we have in Canada.
In view of the seriousness of the situation and of arguments and discussions on both sides, will the minister take up with the Prime Minister the possibility of there being held a federal-provincial conference of the ministers concerned so that this matter can be thoroughly gone into and the Medical Care Act can be saved before it is eroded any further, no matter who is to blame?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as a representation. A conference could be the best tool whenever we are ready to discuss the matter with the provinces and to make known the concrete guidelines defining acceptable universality, accessibility, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The time is now.


DOCTORS OPTING OUT OF MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's concern over the number of physicians opting out of medical care and the possible erosion of the universality principle, and in view of the fact that the widely accepted principle of opting out by provincial Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Social Credit jurisdictions-particularly the NDP in Saskatchewan, one of the most liberal-does the minister consider that this long-standing opting out principle should be terminated or restricted?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier, and now I would like to remind the hon. member, that I have tried to prevent undue escalation of that problem-in this House or outside the lobby. I have said that we are defining guidelines which would translate into concrete definitions of the cornerstones of medical care in Canada. I have no opinion to express at this point on the cancelling of the opting-out formula which, if I am not mistaken, was also quite important in the negotiations throughout the decade that led to universal medical care in the country.

March 19, 1979
Oral Questions YOUNG CANADA WORKS


METHOD USED TO DELIVER APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The applications for Young Canada Works grants were delivered to the 11 members of the minister's advisory board in the riding of Capilano by courier, at a cost of $7.50. For the Capilano riding alone, this is a cost of $82.50 over and above the minister's frank or the official government envelope. If this were repeated in other ridings in Canada, the cost would be about $22,000.
I should like to ask the minister if this use of the expensive courier service in a period of restraint is an official departmental condemnation of the Canadian postal system.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the latter question is no; I think we have one of the finest postal systems in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Then why don't you use it?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I guess we could fill this room with letters about mail delivered on time, but hon. members opposite are always ready to criticize the postal workers and the outside workers. They refer to "kangaroo courts" when they conduct their in-house operations. I do not think that does the postal service much good. If the hon. member had really been interested in an answer, he could have given me notice of his question and I would have checked it out. However, I will do so.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The only thing you can fill this room with is letters of complaint which all hon. members in this room get about the condition of the postal service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: For the minister and his department to be spending $7.50 to deliver these brown, government envelopes does not require prepared notice of the question: all it needs is an answer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, who is aware that on Friday the Deputy Prime Minister was unable to answer this particular question accurately. In 1969, the government delivered a mandate to our security service to conduct certain investigations into groups that might support or advocate separatism. The following year, in 1970, the government received a 23-

page report identifying by name those groups and a description of their activities, including the Parti Quebecois.
*
Having given that mandate, having received the report, and knowing the continuation of the investigation was foremost in the minds of the security service, did no predecessor of the minister or any other minister, including a justice minister, a prime minister or a member of the cabinet committee on security and intelligence ever ask, in the period subsequent to 1970, what methods and procedures were being used by the security service to fulfil the mandate the government had given it?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to read the question asked by the hon. member and the answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council. I have nothing to add to what was said except that some of the conclusions drawn by the hon. member, which are reflected in the preamble of his question, obviously demonstrate the accuracy of the answer by the President of the Privy Council, namely that we should not jump to conclusions before the proceedings of the McDonald commission are over.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, again my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I have read the answer of the Deputy Prime Minister, who said no investigation was ordered into a political party. That was not the question at all. The question was that the government had ordered an investigation into various groups and their activities respecting certain political activities, not political parties. A political party happened to be one of the objects of surveillance.
Is the minister saying that the terms of reference of the McDonald commission are so encompassing as to exclude from the House of Commons its right to judge ministerial competence and responsibility and, specifically, that of previous solicitors general? Is that the position of the minister?


Mr. Blais:: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have a notice from the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), but there is an outstanding matter of order from Friday in respect of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


PRIVILEGE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this matter fully with Your Honour this morning, and I will review something of what actually took place. I moved a motion on March 7 commending what was being
March 19, 1979

done by President Carter in his courageous initiative in going personally to Egypt and Israel in his continuing endeavour to bring about peace. So that my motion would receive the unanimous support of the House, I called up the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), who has done exceptionally well in that position. I am one who knows something about the difficulties of the position. I read to him what motion I had in mind. He said that he did not think he could second it. I had not asked him to, but T would have welcomed it.
I made the motion, or at least generalized what the motion would be. Mr. Speaker asked the House whether it would accept it, and it did. Then before I had the opportunity of saying in the regular course that I move, seconded by whoever it was, Mr. Speaker said that it was moved by me and seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who apparently bowed his head when the question arose as to who was seconding the motion. Your Honour accepted that, as naturally you would. However, being concerned on the basis of what the minister had said, that he could not second my motion because of international responsibilities-and I can understand that-I knew there was a change in that regard. By the time the House met ten minutes later, he indicated to Your Honour by his motion of the head that he seconded it. I was concerned about that because 1 felt he would be embarrassed by having been placed in the position of doing that, which he advised me or informed me he would have difficulty doing within the ambit of his position. I immediately rose and said I should point out that I moved the motion and it was seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski).
When the blues came out that afternoon, and as soon as I noticed that there was no reference to what I had said in this regard, I pencilled the blues. I underline the fact that I have not seen them since, but no doubt Your Honour has seen them. But a mistake had been made because this motion of mine did not appear in Hansard. Time goes on and nothing whatever is done to clarify a situation which could have been explained very clearly and succinctly, as it was by Your Honour this morning in our discussion.
I betray no uncertainty in my stand when I say that through the years I have had the views of various Speakers. In 1957, when I became prime minister, I endeavoured to bring about the achievement of a Speaker who would be dissociated totally from any political party. I suggested to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that if he would permit me to nominate him, I was sure it would be acceptable, but he decided otherwise.
As to yourself, sir, I have no hesitation in repeating what I have said on two occasions out of the House and publicly two or three months ago, that Your Honour has discharged your responsibilities as Speaker in so acceptable a manner that I hoped Your Honour could be induced to become the permanent Speaker. Now, that was my attitude and it is unchanged.
Having had no word at all concerning the reason my motion did not appear in Hansard-and in particular I emphasize
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
that in the blues 1 set out the exact wording-I could conclude only that something had taken place which would not be in keeping with parliamentary tradition as I understand it. Now,
I claim always to be right and sometimes wrong, but never on the side of wrongness. When there was nothing said about this and no answer given by anyone to the wording clearly set out in the blues, naturally I wondered what had happened.
I raised this matter on Friday in the course of dealing with some matters which concern me very deeply, the erosion of parliament. It is no longer the institution as I have known it through the years, with its ups and downs. But, sir, what has been happening in the last few months is that questions remain unanswered and questions run over a period of months simply because ministers of the government realize that if they answer those questions it will not put the government in good light. I have put two or three questions on the order paper, and I am not going to refer to them again. Then, sir, I raised this question.
If I had had the very comprehensive answer which you gave me this morning at any time in that period of nine days, there would have been no reference to this matter. If anyone who interprets what I said as in any way unjust to you, I can only say I never had such a probability or possibility in mind.
I love this institution of parliament, and when I see it being derogated from day after day, and ridiculed, I begin to wonder. The last few days have been an example. I was not present when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) allegedly made this statement, but on Saturday night-and by that time I had gone home because at my age one does not stay out until 1.30 in the morning-a report came over the radio that he had said that the House would be dissolved. Well, now, either he meant that or he was kidding the Canadian people. Sir, I mentioned parliament. There is no more lonesome position for anyone to occupy than being the only living former prime minister of Canada, but on the basis of things like that people across the country are beginning to point out to me that I will have company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have no hesitation in saying that there was nothing said in derogation of yourself. That stand I take. There is no other stand I could take when I did not have any word for seven, eight or nine days, having pointed out that there was no reference to this motion of mine. I made it here from my seat. It was heard and it was known of. It did not appear in Hansard. Why, it is not for me to say. Whatever takes place of that kind in the House of Commons must appear in Hansard.
I can understand the incongruity of the position, a motion having been passed and bringing in the Secretary of State for External Affairs as the seconder. I, foolishly, decided I did not want to embarrass him and that is why I immediately announced that it was moved by me and seconded by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vegreville. Anyone who interprets

March 19, 1979
Privilege-Mr. R. Stewart
what I said as any derogation of yourself is simply not stating the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I welcome very much the intervention of the right hon. member now as I welcomed the extensive conversation we had about this question this morning. I say it is typical of him that when differences have arisen there has always been this avenue of direct conversation about them. I think that stands the institution of parliament in the best of stead.
In the circumstances, the right hon. member and 1 did discuss the facts that he has referred to in respect of his motion. I remember the events very well.He had made a preamble in reference to his earlier conversation on that day with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), and he introduced the motion in that way. When he introduced the motion he did not at the time indicate a seconder. I looked in the direction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which was, of course, entirely a voluntary movement on my part. Obviously I had no advance notice of the motion by the very nature of it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps felt put upon in the circumstances to nod in the affirmative, which he did, and I therefore announced that he was the seconder of the motion. That was, as I say, an action entirely of mine because the right hon. member did not mention a seconder at that time.
After the question was accepted by the House, put and carried, the right hon. member did, indeed, get to his feet to indicate that the seconder he had in mind was the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). However, at that point I had moved to the next person who was in the House ready to make an application and, therefore, the right hon. member's later intervention became a non-proceeding and was not in fact recorded in Hansard. Even now going back over it, I do not know in what way it could. However, it does point out a serious dilemma in that there are events of this sort, and unless given some formal recognition by the Chair they cannot be inscribed in Hansard. That is a very delicate situation.
I think the right hon. member has very fully explained that both he and the Chair were caught in a situation in the circumstances, which can happen in the quickness of the moment, particularly during the putting of these motions under Standing Order 43. I am pleased, as I am sure the House is, that the matter is entirely resolved.


MR. STEWART (COCHRANE)-STATEMENTS MADE BY HON. MEMBERS FOR THUNDER BAY AND TIMMINS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OF CONSTITUENTS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, it pains me to have to present this question of privilege today because it arises out of remarks made publicly and on television by two colleagues of this House. The matter goes, in my view, to the very heart of our representative democracy in parliament, and

it questions the ability of a member of this House to represent his constituency based on his party affiliation.
The crux of the matter is that the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) and the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) have advised my constituents in the riding of Cochrane publicly that since I changed my caucus affiliation I can no longer represent them properly here. Furthermore, the population in the northern part of the riding was instructed that representations should be made to the hon. member for Thunder Bay, and the population in the southern part of the riding was instructed to address their problems and so on to the hon. member for Timmins.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Both those hon. members have now alleged they now have responsibility for the Cochrane riding.
This has served to confuse my people further. First, the redistribution of ridings had confused many of the people. This was complicated further by the postponement of the election. Finally, when I crossed the floor of this House and indicated my intention to continue representing the people of Cochrane constituency in the future, they at least knew then where matters stood. But immediately thereafter, when my two northern colleagues chose to make their statements, one can imagine the kind of confusion that was created in the minds of my constituents.
The danger of the remarks made is in the fact that they question the value of our system of government. According to these gentlemen, if followed logically, all the members sitting to the left of Your Honour represent no one. In other words, caucus affiliation alone would determine whether or not an MP represents his constituents.
On many occasions I have pointed out to my people that I did not believe in partisan politics once an election campaign is over, but rather that, once elected, I represent all my constituents whether they happen to be Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Social Credit or of no political affiliation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I believe that is of the essence of our democratic system. The hon. member for Timmins was not elected by anyone in Cochrane riding, nor was the hon. member for Thunder Bay. I am their sole representative and I will continue to be until the next election and hopefully for many years to come. Neither of these gentlemen should be too concerned with the way the constituents in Cochrane will be looked after and represented, because for 11 years they have been quite happy with the service they have received from me. I do not need any help from them.
My argument is reinforced by precedents. I should like to cite a quotation from May's Nineteenth Edition at page 151 as follows:
March 19, 1979

Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
Further concerning the nature and consequences of my actions, in Beauchesne's fourth edition, Citation 111 (1) reads:
Wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members is an offence of the same character as a libel.
Not only were the statements referred to contemptuous of me personally, but they are even more contemptuous of parliament because they first of all cast disrepute on the Elouse as a whole by implying that only those elected on the government side can represent their constituencies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Secondly, they attempt to obstruct me in my duties as a member of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has referred several times to statements made by other members of the House, but to this point I do not have any such statements before me. It would be helpful if I could have such statements so that I could better judge the question of privilege.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have given the essence of the statements. The statements were made on more than one occasion and particularly on television. They are a matter of record. They were to the effect that from now on the two members in question would be looking after and having the obligation to look after the matters of my constituents, and that the hon. member for Cochrane would no longer be looking after their affairs. That essentially is the matter.
In order to complete my remarks and, indeed, if you judge, Mr. Speaker, that this is a question of privilege, I would like to place on the record a motion. The essence of my argument is that not only are my privileges affected here, but also the privileges of any member who does not happen to have an affiliation with the caucus of the government party. I have cited two citations which I think reinforce that argument. If it is found that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre):
That the attempts by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and the hon. member for Timmins to interfere with the duty of the hon. member for Cochrane to represent and act for the people of his constituency be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to see the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), but I do hope that the point which I just made is appreciated by the hon. member for Cochrane. He has in the circumstances made reference to certain statements, and in order to judge, since those statements form the very basis of the hon. member's question of privilege, the Chair cannot be left in the position of relying on an interpretation of the statements. I would have to have something in the nature of a precise example or reference before I could begin
Privilege-Mr. R. Stewart
to judge. I do not know whether I can come to a conclusion or not, but this fact certainly leaves me in very great difficulty.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, at the very outset, what you have indicated to the House is the point that I intended to make. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has entered this House with these scurrilous charges based on nothing more than hearsay, and they are not substantiated with any kind of written record or tapes.


Mr. Andre:: Are you denying them?


B. Keith Penner: You, Mr. Speaker, must obviously look at what he has to offer to make the matter something much more than mere hearsay.
Let me now deal with what the hon. member has said. First of all, I can understand why he is so very sensitive. Naturally, any member of parliament with a record of service as poor as this member's would certainly be sensitive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member enters this House-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Seldom.


B. Keith Penner: -telling us that the constituents of Cochrane have a right to be served by him and by him alone. Any constituent in Canada, no matter where he or she lives, if not adequately served because the member of parliament is unavailable or because the member is in some other part of the world when he ought to be in his own riding or here in the House of Commons, has the natural right to turn to some other hon. member, such as the member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) or the hon. member for Thunder Bay, to get the service to which he has a right as a Canadian citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: As I indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, these comments by the hon. member are not worthy of extensive comment because they are unsubstantiated and totally wrong. Now that the hon. member has decided to leave the party of which he was a member-and he went out to the satisfaction of all members on this side of the House-the constituents of Cochrane know that if they want someone who is on the government side to provide effective action, they can come to a government member, and that is myself or the hon. member for Timmins.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alexander:: That is a lot of baloney.


B. Keith Penner: I conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I hope you will use your authority at the earliest possible moment to collect all the evidence that the hon. member for Cochrane believes he has. I would be delighted to appear before any committee of this House to talk about the things which he

March 19, 1979
Privilege-Mr. R. Stewart
claims I have said. I think that the whole matter should be aired. I would welcome it, and when it is I think that the hon. member who made those charges will be seen once again for what he really is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) come dangerously close to the allegation made just a few moments ago by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). He seemed to imply in his remarks in this House that there are two kinds of members, those who are in and those who are out, in terms of what he said. That is precisely the point that has been made by the hon. member for Cochrane.
Given that state of mind and given the fact that there has been no denial whatever by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) or any other member who is alleged to be involved in this matter that these remarks were made in the context indicated by the hon. member for Cochrane, then I think that the hon. member for Thunder Bay is quite right, and we had just better wait for that evidence. I hope that you, sir, will see fit to reserve judgment on this matter so that the evidence can be collected and the House itself can look into the matter and settle it once and for all. Clearly, in view of what the hon. member for Thunder Bay said today, there is at least a hint of suspicion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No hint; he said it.


Walter David Baker: I will put it on that very, very generous and open scale. There is at least a hint that perhaps the hon. member for Cochrane is not so wrong, that there has been a concerted effort to create the feeling in the northern part of Ontario that there are two kinds of members. You come from that area, Mr. Speaker, and you would not want that suspicion to exist, would you?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), who is absent today because he is attending-


Mr. Speaker:: Excuse me, I should correct myself. I recognize the hat of the hon. member for Timmins!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out two things only. The first I bring up on behalf of the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) who is absent because he is attending the funeral of his brother. I should like to ask that he be reserved the privilege of answering the accusations made against him. The second point is one of procedure. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather preposterous for you to be asked to find that there is a prima facie question of privilege when the hon. member, who

presented the motion, limits himself to quoting his doctrine or principles without any specific incident or detail which could justify, as you yourself mentioned, a ruling on whether or not there is at first glance a question of privilege. When the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says that a "hint" would be sufficient, to my mind he is not being fair, Mr. Speaker. The House does not base its decisions on whether or not there is a question of privilege on "hints". The hon. member who rises on a question of privilege, which procedure must not be abused and must be seldom used according to Beauchesne, the hon. member, I say again, must quote a newspaper article, a television broadcast, or mention the person who is alleged to have made the statement on which his claims are based, to give you something specific on which to base your ruling on whether or not the beautiful principles he mentions are applicable or not.
The second point on my intervention, Mr. Speaker, is intended merely to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member who presented the motion today completely omitted referring to any specific incident. He limited himself to saying that the hon. members for Timmins (Mr. Roy) and Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), according to what he heard, had claimed that. I say that is a gross abuse of our Standing Orders which allow hon. members to rise on questions of privilege, and that you need not wait for the hon. member for Thunder Bay or even the hon. member for Timmins to deny it officially: you can simply find the motion out of order because its allegation is not supported by any specific incidents.
In any event, out of consideration for the hon. member for Timmins, who should have the right to deny accusations that at first glance seem ill-founded, I should like him to be reserved the right to make his views known and to deny formally the allegations founded on the rumour reported by the hon. member who presented the motion.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, as another member involved in this question of privilege but not named, and taking over part of the riding of Cochrane when an election is called, and also having always believed that anyone who had a problem in northern Ontario and felt that I could be of help knew I was always willing to do what I could, I do not object to the matter being made public although my mail is sufficiently heavy that I am certainly not asking for that kind of publicity.
In conjunction with what was said by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the second point of order arising out of this issue, perhaps if Your Honour finds there is a prima facie case you could also look at what I consider to be the undemocratic and certainly dishonest statement made by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner). He indicated that the only way people in Cochrane are going to be serviced is by having a member who can speak for the government.
March 19, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Mr. Nielsen:: Divine right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As is so often the case, as we get further away from the core of these procedural questions we get into greater danger. If I am not mistaken, I thought I heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) say that a statement made earlier this afternoon by another member was dishonest. Obviously we are complicating this matter very greatly and I think we have to be very careful.
I wonder if the House would not realize that in the circumstances it would be a very dangerous practice for the Chair, as a matter of practice, to indicate in some preliminary way that there may be some question here but the parties ought to go out and gather more evidence in support of their relative positions. That, as a matter of practice, is a matter of great danger.
I think we have to recognize the rather fundamental point that the burden of proving an allegation at the time it is made is upon the person making it. If you produce the material at that particular time, that is fine. If an unanswered point arises in the discussion and a member claims he was not prepared for it and would like to make some answer at a later time or asks the Chair to reserve and give a chance for further argument, that I can understand.
I think it would be dangerous for the Chair to make a preliminary finding of some sort now on the basis of evidence that may be produced. What I have to say now is that there has been a suggestion of sorts but obviously it has not been made with precision because I have no language in front of me that I can look upon and say it constitutes something upon which I can make a decision. If that language does in fact exist, I think I would be acting fairly; our procedures ought not to be too rigid in this regard. I think it would be safer to say that in the present circumstances, and in view of the arguments presented up to the present time, I cannot, in the absence of any precise language, make a finding. For the moment, therefore, I think I ought to set this matter aside.
I do this with leave to the hon. member, if he so wishes, to raise it at some time with something that may not have yet come to his attention but does in the interval, or something of that sort. I ought not to put procedural bars in his way that would at that time at least prevent him from raising it. At this time the sensible course is not for me to say, "Yes, I have some difficulty here because there is a lack of precision, a lack of evidence; what I will do is hold it open for the evidence to arrive." I think that is a dangerous procedure. Therefore I have to say, since I have no specific language in front of me at the moment, that I cannot make a finding and I have to set this matter aside on that basis at the present time.
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Railton.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-49, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


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

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, respecting Canadian ports.


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

Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, I wish to advise the House that the representatives of parties have been unable to reach agreement under Standing Order 75A or 75B on the allocation of time on report stage and third reading of Bill C-42, an act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada.
Therefore, I wish to give notice that a minister will move, at the next sitting of the House, that not more than one additional day be allocated, if necessary, to each of the said stages of the said bill.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 942, 1,112, 1,119 and 1,120.

March 19, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West): 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77 (d) 1977-78, under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Programme for Export Market Development (PEMD) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP), what was the number and total value of contracts (i) between $0 and $1,000 (ii) between $1,001 and $5,000 (iii) between $5,001 and $10,000 (iv) between $10,001 and $50,000 (v) $50,001 or more (vi) in total?
2.	For the same years, what were the expenditures of the Department under the Programme for Export Market Development (PEMD) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP) in (a) the Textile and Consumer Products Branch (b) the Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Products Branch (c) the Chemicals Branch (d) the Electrical and Electronics Branch (e) the Machinery Branch (0 the Resource Industries Branch (g) the Construction and Consulting Services Branch (h) the Transportation Industries Branch (/) all branches?
3.	For the same years, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the Department under the Programme for Export Market Development (PEMD) or any successor programme under the Enterprise Development Programme (EDP)?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: the computer program for PEMD program data is not programmed to provide all of the requested information.
1.	Number of contracts
(a), (b) and (c) not available
(d)-(i) and (ii) 637, (iii) 227, (iv) and (v) 212, (vi) 1076
Value of contracts (Approved)
Distribution by value of contract and (a) and (b) not
available
Total Value of Contracts (Approved)
(c)	(vi)-$7,900,000
(d)	(vi)-$11,200,000
2.	Not available by branch
(i) Total expenditures all branches
F.Y. 74/75 $2.5M 75/76	3.5M
76/77	4.9M
77/78	5.7M
3. Grants and contributions (a) and (b)		not available
	(c) 1976-77	(d) 1977-78
Provinces	Amount Expended	Amount ExpendedAlberta and N.W.T.	$ 375,000	$ 369,000British Columbia	700,000	481,000Manitoba	63,000	57,000New Brunswick	21,000	11,000Newfoundland	9,000	23,000Nova Scotia	68,000	116,000Ontario	2,006,000	2,456,000P.E.I.	2,000	7,000Quebec	1,700,000	2,140,000Saskatchewan	15,000	40,000Total	$4,959,000	$5,700,000(Mr. Pinard.]


Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West): 1.	Did the government finalize an agreement to provide capital assistance to Burrard Yarrows Corporation of Vancouver, British Columbia and, if so (a) in what amount (b) under what terms and conditions, including the terms of any loans, interest rates and other relevant conditions?
2.	Was any of the capital assistance provided by way of a grant or was the assistance all by way of a loan and, if any grants were involved, what was the total amount as compared to the amount of loans made available?
3.	Will the government table a copy of the agreement in the House of Commons?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	The agreement to make a contribution to the Burrard Yarrows Corporation of Vancouver has not been finalized. However, the government has offered to make a contribution and the company has accepted the offer in principle. The amount of the offer is $28.8 million towards the cost of a project estimated at $50 million.
2.	Negotiations on the terms and conditions are continuing and it would therefore be inappropriate to elaborate further on them at this time.
3.	The terms and conditions to be included in the agreement will be approved by the governor in council and there will be public access to them.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1, 2 and 3. See table I below.
4.	See table II below.
5.	See table III below.
March 19, 1979

Number of Persons in Canada in Receipt of
1. Old Age	2. Guaranteed Income	3. Full Guaranteed IncomeSecurity	Supplement	SupplementNewfoundland	40,286	32,633	18,712Prince Edward Island	14,037	10,211	4,050Nova Scotia	85,697	56,706	22,246New Brunswick	65,154	43,383	17,933Quebec	518,400	327,913	134,300Ontario	778,360	354,243	94,529Manitoba	112,420	63,418	18,783Saskatchewan	108,043	58,950	18,574Alberta	145,465	80,502	26,026British Columbia	255,465	128,308	40,037Northwest Territories	1,176	942	760Yukon	662	364	220Total	2,125,165	1,157,573	396,170
Note: Above figures relate to January, 1979.
4. Average Amount of Guaranteed Income Supplement Being Received Each Month by Recipients of the Old Age Security Pension
	Based upon	Based upon
	Old Age Security	Guaranteed Income
	Population	Supplement Population
Newfoundland	$91.91	$113.61Prince Edward Island	78.87	108.50Nova Scotia	70.31	106.44New Brunswick	71.48	107.60Quebec	66.29	104.89Ontario	45.43	100.00Manitoba	57.37	101.93Saskatchewan	56.45	103.56Alberta	56.80	102.77British Columbia	51.09	101.94Northwest Territories	97.45	121.66Yukon	64.33	117.00Average in Canada	56.11	103.16
Note: Above figures relate to January, 1979.
The left hand column gives the average amount of Guaranteed Income Supplement paid in January, 1979 on the basis of the total Old Age Security population (2,125,165). The average based upon the lower Guaranteed Income Supplement population (1,157,573) is indicated in the right hand column.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each month during 1978, how many persons were in receipt of the spouse's allowance provided under the Old Age Security Act and how many were (a) male (b) female?
2.	In each month during 1978, how many persons who had been receiving the Spouse's Allowance had it discontinued because of the death of the older spouse, and how many were (a) male (b) female?
3.	In how many cases was the discontinuance (a) immediate (b) up to six months after the death of the older spouse?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1. See table I below.
2 and 3. See table II below.
1. Number of persons in receipt of spouse's allowance for each month during 1978
January	74,307
February	74,156
March	73,835
April	66,259
May	70,885
June	72,824
July	73,801
August	74,369
September	74,699
October	75,157
November	75,201
December	75,012
(a) and (b)-Information to indicate the sex of spouse's allowance recipients is not available on a regular basis. However, information compiled for the month of June, 1978 only indicates there were 5,753 male and 67,071 female recipients of the spouse's allowance.
5. The figures in schedules I and II do not include persons living outside Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security The number of persons outside Canada receiving benefits
2. Number of spouse's allowance discontinued because of the death of the older spouse for each month during 1978
Newfoundland	94	January	189Prince Edward Island	44	February	207Nova Scotia	321	March	202New Brunswick	342	April	199Quebec	2,754	May	169Ontario	16,887	June	186Manitoba	618	July	127Saskatchewan	349	August	151Alberta	630	September	149British Columbia	2,318	October	165Northwest Territories	November	204Yukon	December	142Total	24,357	Total	2,090Note: Above figures relate to January, 1979.	(a) and (b)-Information to indicate the sex of spouse's
March 19, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. McKenzie allowance recipients whose benefits were discontinued is not available.
3.	(a) The number of persons whose spouse's allowance was discontinued immediately due to the death of the older spouse in the year 1978 is 2,090.
(b) The legislation concerning this item took effect on November 20, 1978. The first spouse's allowance to be discontinued after the six months extension will not occur until May, 1979. The number of spouse's allowances that were extended in 1978 for a period of six months is 26.
The number of benefits discontinued in December relate to situations in which the death of the older spouse occurred prior to November 20, 1978. The action to discontinue payment had to be taken in December.


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


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



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I see the parliamentary secretary is not going to answer any starred questions today. On October 24, 1978, I placed starred question No. 355 on the order paper. It has been explained to me that starred questions are supposed to be answered within approximately two weeks, not five months. I placed a legitimate question on the order paper which reads as follows:
Did Canadian Aviation Electronics purchase hangars at the Winnipeg International Airport formerly owned by Air Canada and, if so (a) how many (b) at what cost in each case (c) did the Company pay the total agreed purchase price in each case (d) does the Company own the hangars fully, completely and outright (e) does the purchase agreement allow the Company to resell any of the hangars?
This is a legitimate question dealing with public buildings and I have a legitimate reason for asking it. The parliamentary secretary takes issue with this because we get up repeatedly and make remarks additional to the wording of our questions. It is no wonder we do that if we cannot get these questions answered properly, especially starred questions. I would ask him to look into starred question No. 355 and tell me tomorrow why he could not give me the information that I asked for last year.



MR. LAMBERT (EDMONTON WEST)-DELAY IN ANSWERING ORDER PAPER QUESTIONS

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, some three weeks ago I placed some very straightforward questions on the order paper to be answered by the Minister of

Transport (Mr. Lang). These matters are of notorious knowledge and they are within the competence of the department to answer within a week.
I cannot protest loudly enough on behalf of all members of this House regarding this situation. In most cases answers could be given in a week or ten days, yet we are kept waiting weeks and months. It is not the fault of the parliamentary secretary; he funnels the questions into the House. The fault lies with the ministers and their staff who do not take parliament seriously enough. It is parliament which asks for this information and it is not for the bureaucracy to say no. I say there must be a change. There has to be a change in attitude with regard to answering questions.
Many of us place questions on the order paper but infrequently. We do not do it for a joke, but bureaucrats backing ministers consider that it is a joke. They take all the time in the world to defuse or to try to obfuscate or cover up. Frankly, when I was in your position I would not accept that stand from departmental ministers who told me they could not answer questions. The Speaker of the House is there on behalf of members. I would suggest, sir, that a cluttered order paper is not something of which one should be proud.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, this applies to both questions. When there are 2,000-odd questions per session, it is rather difficult to guarantee a reply for each one within one or two weeks, as hon. members suggest. With 2,000 questions on the order paper, each department obviously has more than one question to deal with, and I have always made sure that no question was deliberately put aside and that all necessary action was taken to try and offer, as quickly as possible, the best and most complete answers as possible. All I ask hon. members is to realize that we must consider roughly 2,000 questions per session. Several of them refer to 40-odd departments or agencies, and it is impossible to reply consistently within one or two weeks, as hon. members request.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I say to
the parliamentary secretary that there are persons whose sole employment is parliamentary returns. They are either incompetent or the most underemployed people in certain departments. I will agree with the parliamentary secretary that there are some questions which are complicated and of the multi-agency type. But those questions which are straightforward within the department and within reasonable, competent knowledge should not be taking a week or ten days to be answered.
March 19, 1979



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, notice of which has been tabled in the House on Monday, March 12, 1979, be agreed to.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That a ways and means motion to amend the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, notice of which has been tabled in the House on Monday, March 12, 1979, be agreed to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I trust that we will have an appearance by the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a ways and means motion which has to be put without debate.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.	That Schedule A to the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960, be amended by striking out tariff items 104a and 106 and subitem 152(i), and the enumeration of goods, the rates of duty and margins of preference, if any, set opposite each of those items.
2.	That any enactment founded upon this motion shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of October, 1979, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said motion imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Customs Tariff

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.	That Schedule A to The Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, be amended by striking out tariff items 104a and 106, and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items.
2.	That any enactment founded upon this motion shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of October 1979, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said motion imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the two items which have just gone through. It pertains to any radical departure which may occur in agreements which Canada has concluded with the countries in question. I have found our relations with Australia far less extensive than what I would like. It is the same thing in the case of South Africa, regardless of what some of the bleeding hearts-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is launching into a debate on the motions. They are not debatable motions. I have to put the question without debate. It is a ways and means motion. When the bill follows, which I assume will be shortly, I will certainly recognize the hon. member.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-51, to amend the Customs Tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960, and the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, be now read the first time and printed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and motion No. 5 (Mr. Symes).
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when I called it four o'clock on Friday I was nearing the completion of my remarks. However, today I was preceded by a motion put by the minister. I find it almost beyond belief that the government would institute closure at this point in time. I do not think I am giving away a confidence when I inform the House that we were quite prepared to pass this bill last Tuesday had the government co-operated on one item, that of not insisting upon closure. Now we have closure to institute closure on a bill which, according to the government of Ontario, would, and I quote:
-convert the modestly endowed Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources into a king of energy. It would grant him absolute and dictatorial powers that are wholly foreign to Canadian practice ... in times of war. And these dictatorial powers and managerial responsibilities will be exercised by a minister and a board who have no background in such management.
That is the nature of the legislation. We ask one thing, that closure not be put in the bill which would prevent a future parliament from debating the order of the governor in council should these dictatorial powers be assumed. That is all we ask. We ask no closure in the legislation. The minister could have had the bill last Tuesday. We now have closure to implement closure, which is a despicable act by a minister who, besides being modestly endowed, has no respect for democracy and our democratic procedures.
Before closing off this portion of my remarks, I wish to put on the record of this House some comments made in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on March 1, as recorded in issue No. 5 of the proceedings of that committee. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) was questioning the minister. I quote from the final part of his question which I think catches the essence of it. The hon. member suggested:
-that Petro-Canada should make the direct contractual link with countries such as Venezuela in terms of oil supply rather than a subsidiary who has to take orders from a parent outside of Canadian control.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) replied as follows:
To suggest-as you may be suggesting or as some of your colleagues have suggested-that Petro-Canada should be the exclusive and sole importing agency for all crude oil would be, it seems to me, to bring about an impossible situation for the Canadian national oil company. I cannot think of a way which would at the present time, at any rate, probably discredit the national oil

company of Canada more than asking it to do something which is technically beyond its competence at the present time.
I am not at all sure that in the longer period one should look towards an exclusive importing arrangement. I think it would be far too complicated. I think we should recognize that there are some situations, particularly where crude from the eastern hemisphere is involved, where the international pooling arrangements are to Canada's advantage as long as the Canadian subsidiary and Canadian companies have an access to that, because they can hedge the insecurities associated with middle eastern, eastern hemisphere crude.
On March 1 the minister said to the committee that Petro-Canada lacks the competence to negotiate deals with foreign companies. The minister said it would be a mistake to cut us off from these international pools since it gives us a hedge that is to Canada's benefit. That was the minister's view on March 1. That is the view this party has been talking about throughout this debate.
Somehow between March 1 and a week later the minister said that may be the fact, that maybe in reality Petro-Canada does lack the competence and that we would be putting ourselves in jeopardy in cutting ourselves off from these international pooling arrangements, but in terms of politics it looks good. He said he was going to forget all of the logic, reason and wisdom and pursue the political path. If that damaged the country in the long run, it would not matter to him because we would have an election under our belts by that time.
That was basically the position of the minister in that regard. The fact that it is an irresponsible position is hardly surprising since we are dealing with an irresponsible minister who demonstrated his irresponsibility by moving closure, rule 75C, a few minutes ago. It was a despicable act by a despicable minister.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the minister?


Alastair William Gillespie: I intend to participate on this particular amendment, but not at this point.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that, an amendment having been moved by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) on behalf of the New Democratic Party, the official opposition having stated their position on it in two speeches, the minister, who would be expected to express the government's point of view, remains in his seat. I know the minister wants to hurry the legislation through and we certainly have no intention of prolonging the debate, but surely this House and the country have a right to know where the minister stands with regard to this amendment. The minister knows perfectly well that if he stays seated long enough and lets everyone else speak, he will be able to close the debate with no opportunity provided for members on this side to answer him without appearing to obstruct the debate, the very thing he is trying to avoid by moving a motion of closure.
The purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is quite clear and specific. Under this
March 19, 1979

legislation it is proposed that the government in an emergency situation will have the authority to set up an allocation board. By an amendment moved by the minister, which our party will support, it is proposed that Petro-Canada can be named by the governor in council as a member of the allocation board. We think that is a good idea. However, we have gone one step further and said that, in our opinion, Petro-Canada should not only be a member of the allocation board but should be the sole importer of oil into this country. We say that in order to ensure two things. First, it would ensure security of supply. There has been a great deal of talk by members of the official opposition to the effect that only the multinationals with their pools of oil will be able to meet the needs of the Canadian people. That is myth. It is a hangover from a day that is long gone.
There was a day when the multinational corporations had pools of oil because they were the operating companies in the Middle East, Africa and Venezuela. That is no longer true. With the exception of Canada and the United States, in almost every country the great pools of oil have been nationalized. Today they are being developed by government-owned oil companies. That is true today for Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria and practically all of the oil producing countries.
The oil companies which once controlled the supply of oil have been reduced today to being middlemen and transporters of oil. Exxon, Gulf, Shell, British Petroleum and all these other companies simply buy from these state trading corporations the oil which they need for their subsidiaries. They have the tankers, they ship it and then sell that oil to their subsidiaries and sometimes to other independent companies. They do not have any pools of oil.
For a number of years the trend for the producing countries through their state oil companies has been to insist that they want to deal with oil companies owned by the importing countries. That has been said again and again. When the Shah of Iran was still sitting on the Peacock Throne four or five years ago, he visited Washington where he was interviewed by the press. He said that they would prefer to deal on a government to government basis. The reason he gave was that every time they raised the price of oil at the wellhead by $1 a barrel, the multinational companies, which are the middlemen, raised the price $2 a barrel. Therefore, they were not only blamed for the $1 barrel increase for which they were responsible but for the $1 a barrel which the oil companies added as part of their mark-up.
This has been said by the governments of Mexico, Venezuela and many Middle Eastern countries. I think it can be demonstrated that security of supply is much greater on the basis of having Petro-Canada, with all the prestige that goes with representing the government and the people of Canada, secure our oil supplies. There would be much greater advantage and a greater degree of certainty than if this were done by a multinational company, particularly a multinational company which has incurred the hostility of many of these oil producing countries.
Energy Supplies
The other benefit of making Petro-Canada the sole importing agency has to do with price. I have heard a good deal of talk from the representative of the Progressive Conservative party to the effect that having Petro-Canada act as the sole importing agent would increase the price. Exactly the opposite would be the case. A government agency buying oil directly from government oil agencies in various part of the world and selling it in Canada to the oil companies which have refineries and facilities for distributing it would ensure that the price charged to the ultimate consumer would be the actual cost of purchasing, shipping it and refining it, with a mark-up for the oil companies which render those services.
One thing the Canadian people would be sure of-and they cannot be sure of it now-is that a multinational company purchasing oil in any part of the world, ostensibly for one of its subsidiaries, say, in Canada, could not under pressure from its own government divert that oil to its own country.
That is what happened in the case of Exxon. Exxon, under an obligation to deliver 100,000 barrels to its subsidiary Imperial Oil, decided unilaterally to divert 25,000 barrels a day to the United States. We cannot complain about that, I suppose, if we look at the situation from the point of view of Exxon. After all, Exxon is incorporated in the United States. It wants to get along with that government; it wants to keep the good will of the people of that country. I suppose the decision it took is one which most of us would take if we were members of the board of directors of Exxon. But by using Petro-Canada to make these oil purchases, we would know that oil contracted for delivery to Canadian oil companies would reach Canadian oil companies and would not be diverted. We cannot be sure of that under the legislation before us.
That is why I had hoped the minister would rise to take part in this debate. As we know, Exxon has thumbed its corporate nose at him twice. First, the hon. gentleman said to Imperial Oil: "We want you to deal directly with the state-owned company in Venezuela, the source of supply". But it did not take Exxon very long to tell Imperial Oil what to do. After all, Exxon owns Imperial Oil, or 70 per cent of its shares. They said, in effect: "You tell Gillespie to forget it".
The second occasion was when the minister demanded restoration of the 25,000 barrels which has been taken away from them. It is true some adjustment was made. They cut the 25,000 to 9,000 as a gesture, but in principle they told him to mind his own business. This was their business, they estimated, and they could distribute oil wherever they wished.
The government has made a lot of fuss. The minister has beat his breast here in the House. He was standing up to Exxon, he told us; he was not going to allow the Canadian consumer to be dependent on what the multinationals did. But what is the role laid out for Petro-Can in this bill? It is merely that it can be a member of the allocation board should the government so decide and be given the right to import oil from Venezuela if it can get agreement from Venezuela to do so after the present agreement with Imperial Oil expires.

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies
If Petro-Canada can do what the minister has said he would like it to and become the importer of oil from Venezuela on a straight government to government trading basis, why could Petro-Canada not do the same thing vis-a-vis the other oil exporting companies in Mexico, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and so on? There is no reason at all why this should not be the case. Why does the Liberal party always fail to carry through? It makes a cosmetic gesture but never does anything which is meaningful and effective.
I hope the minister will tell us why he feels Petro-Canada should not be authorized to deal with state oil companies other than those of Venezuela. There is nothing mandatory about the amendment in the name of my hon. friend. It simply gives the government power to take action should the occasion arise and should the occasion warrant it. The government would then have the power to make Petro-Canada the sole importer.
I do not intend to take up much time dealing with the comments which have been made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) or the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). The hon. member for Calgary Centre said, if I remember correctly, that this legislation gave dictatorial power to a minister and to a board which had no experience of dealing with these matters. Would the official opposition prefer to continue to put these powers in the hands of the multinational oil companies which have deceived us and exploited the people of this country down through the years?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come, now! You are not speaking in the Alberta election. You are speaking this week, not last week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that the position of the Ontario government and of the official opposition?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Your record in Saskatchewan on oil is a great example. That is just old party dialectics.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) should not allow himself to generate more indignation than he can handle. He is going to burst one of these days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am just confused by the hon. member's statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know the hon. member is confused and I am trying to straighten him out.
How have these multinational oil companies been described? They have been described very adequately during the last few days. Let me give just one description which hon. members who are interested in the subject may find at page 4256 of Hansard for last Friday. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is reported as saying:
I certainly do not want to defend in any manner the present or past history of the multinational oil companies of the world in the world market. On many

occasions they certainly have not acted in Canada's best interest. They may not even be acting in Canada's best interest right now. They are obviously acting in their own best interests. That is what they are there for.
He went on to say:
It is a shame, and one of the tragedies of this government and this country that we have to rely on multinationals at any time for any amount of crude oil.
In my wildest moments I have never made a more excoriating attack on the multinational corporations than those two quotations. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has put the problem in very clear and concise terms. As he describes it, these multinational corporations are not acting in Canada's best interests, have not in the past nor are they now. He points out that it is a shame and a tragedy that we have to rely on them for any amount of crude oil.
If he believes that, then how can he in the same breath oppose this legislation and this amendment and suggest that we should turn over to the multinational corporations, as we have done for decades, the whole question of the distribution of oil? He makes the point in one place that we do not really need to worry about that because the International Energy Agency is now setting up such an organization.
Of course, that is complete nonsense. The International Energy Agency has an agreement which has brought together some 19 countries, of which Canada is a member, and they will from time to time have the authority to agree among themselves as to what amount of reduction they will impose with reference to the importation of oil. In other words, they will try to agree among themselves to reduce the demand so that it will come somewhere close to equating with the supply. But they have no machinery for distributing oil and they will not decide how much Iranian oil will go to Canada, how much to the United States or how much to Japan. Unless we set up our own machinery under this act, unless we give to Petro-Canada the power to be the importing agent with respect to the purchase of oil for Canadian oil companies, that decision will be made by the seven "Big Sisters", by the big oil majors. They will decide, as the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has already stated, what is in their own interest, what is to their best advantage and what will best please the countries where they are incorporated, and that is not Canada.
I shall listen with interest to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has to say. I do not want him to tell us that he is against the multinational oil companies controlling the distribution of oil but he proposes to leave Petro-Canada without any power other than what the government has already given it to negotiate for sales with Mexico. The minister has so far given a good deal of lip service to strengthening the powers and the capacity of Petro-Canada, and for that I give him credit. I think that Petro-Canada needed more clout, and I think the minister has given it that. It has become a much more effective instrument during the time that he has been minister, and for that I commend him.
I have also noticed, of course, that my friends in the Progressive Conservative party have become more vehement every day about destroying Petro-Canada, and that is going to
March 19, 1979

be a confrontation in this country. But 1 want to say to the minister that we do not want any pretence about supporting Petro-Canada. The Conservatives want to strangle the baby in its cradle, but I want to make sure that the minister and the Liberal government do not want to starve it in the cradle. Because Petro-Canada might as well be wiped out unless it is going to be given an effective role, and the only way it can have an effective role is to be the sole importer of oil in Canada so as to make sure of security of supply, to make sure that those supplies cannot be diverted to some subsidiary, and to make sure that the price which the Canadian consumer pays is a fair and reasonable price, not a marked up price that takes advantage of the world situation, such as we have today.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the last speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), as I did to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).
First, I should like to deal with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary Centre. He seemed to resent the fact that I introduced a motion of time allocation prior to his concluding remarks. There was a very simple reason why I introduced that motion. It was because we had been confronted in the House with delaying tactics on the part of the opposition which we on the government side could no longer accept.
If hon. members look at the record, they will see exactly what I mean. We spent four days last week on the report stage. That is an unusually long period of time. Indeed, we have spent the whole week on report stage and we are still on the report stage. There is one reason alone why we are still on the report stage. It is because hon. members opposite have talked and talked and talked. They have kept the debate running and they have not been interested in bringing it to a conclusion. That comes after three days on second reading and another eight meetings in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today notice was given of a motion under Standing Order 75c. I believe the time to debate that is tomorrow when the motion is put. It is not before the House today.


An hon. Member:: The minister should talk about his bill and about the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The point of order is well taken.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I addressed myself to these points because the hon. member for Calgary Centre specifically raised them in his opening remarks and I think the House would expect me to respond to his comments. I think it is also of some interest since most of us know that this is not a new bill in the sense that its provisions have been before the House once before. I am referring to the bill which was introduced in
Energy Supplies
1973 and reported out in 1974. There is no substantial difference in the provisions here. This bill has been considered by parliament on a previous occasion, so that to suggest that we needed an extra amount of time when we had already dealt with the bill and there was much on the record, I think is just playing politics with the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands raised the question as to my position on this bill and asked why I had not registered my position. If he were to read the transcript of the committee hearings, he would discover, as did his colleague from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), that I stated my position with respect to the amendment in committee and it is on the record. This amendment, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands knows, was introduced, not for the first time, at the report stage. Again we are going over the ground. The amendment of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was dealt with and voted down in committee. Similarly, the amendment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was introduced in the committee, considered by the members and voted down. But here again we are going over the same old ground. I made my position very clear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The House has a right to do that.


Alastair William Gillespie: I made my position very dear, that this amendment was not needed. I believe the hon. member for Calgary Centre quoted from some of my comments at the committee indicating why I did not believe this amendment is needed at this time. I believe that if hon. members would look at the record and consider the facts, they would realize that the government now has the power to use Petro-Canada in an importing way through the Petro-Canada Act, if it is needed.
I listened very carefully to the remarks of the New Democratic Party member to find out whether he was arguing that this particular amendment was essential to give government the power to have or cause Petro-Canada to move into an importing situation. That has not been the argument of the New Democratic Party. The argument of the proposer of the amendment was that this would feature or advertise an option, or words to that effect. We do not have to put into legislation words which would feature or advertise an option Canada has when we have already that power in existing legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) rises on a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising on a point of order. I am wondering whether the hon. minister would permit a question.
4290

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be pleased to answer the hon. member's question at the end of my remarks.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said that we already have the power. Under the legislation setting up Petro-Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the hon. minister has stated already that he will accept the question at the end of his remarks.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be very pleased to take questions at the end of my remarks, but I should like to deal with the issues raised in the debate on this particular amendment. I have indicated that the power already exists, and therefore I can see no reason why we should put into this bill a particular provision which does not provide any additional power. I think the proposer of the amendment would acknowledge that. That is what I took from his remarks, that it gives the government an option. The government has that option without putting this in.


Mr. Symes:: Not true.


Alastair William Gillespie: Yes, the government has that option. The events of the last few weeks indicate that the government has that power. It can exercise that option by causing Petro-Canada to enter into negotiations with Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela. Let it be understood that that is an initiative the government is taking, an initiative for which the official opposition criticized the government, specifically the energy critic, the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).


Mr. Lawrence:: You are right.


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said in his remarks a moment ago, the position of the Conservative party on the functions and place of Petro-Canada at this time are absolutely incredible. I think that is a generous remark; I think it is absolutely ludicrous. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham noted in this debate that the multinational oil companies probably had not always served Canada's best interests. I should like to quote from page 4256 of Hansard dated March 16. When the hon. member was referring to multinational corporations, he said the following:
On many occasions they certainly have not acted in Canada's best interest. They may not even be acting in Canada's best interest right now. They are obviously acting in their own best interest. That is what they are there for. There is no question about that, but I suggest that at times of shortage or impending shortage the one and only asset we can use in the national interest as far as multinationals are concerned is their knowledge and experience and their access to these international pools-
He went on to say:
The very time when there is an impending shortage in the international field is certainly not the best time to change horses.
That is an incredible position for a responsible opposition party to take at the very moment when we are faced with shortages, serious international shortages and additional shortages created by the actions of one of the multinational corpo-

rations. The official opposition argued that we can place more of our confidence in the multinational corporations, and that we should not use Petro-Canada, the national oil company of Canada, to protect and preserve Canadian interests. That is what the hon. member said-that this is not the time for Petro-Canada to act in Canada's interests. He is willing to accept the multinationals even though he may suspect that they are not behaving in Canada's interests.
Of course, this is the same view expressed by the Conservative party when we discussed the first amendment, the one which would place Petro-Canada as one of the representatives of the federal government on the standing group for emergency questions in the International Energy Agency. At that time in the debate they put on the record that, if they were the government, they would not see any reason to use Petro-Canada to protect and guard Canadian interests when the international allocation system will be implemented by multinational corporations. It is quite clear that the official opposition is consistent. It has been against Petro-Canada from the day it was created. Members of the Conservative party voted against it in the House. They have been consistent ever since in damning it, attacking it and arguing that, if they were to form the government, they would destroy it and get rid of it as a policy instrument.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham had more to say. At page 4256 he indicated that he would effectively let other countries get in ahead as far as Mexican supplies are concerned. He argued that this was the wrong time for Petro-Canada to be negotiating with Pemex, the national oil company of Mexico, because this would be against the Canadian national interest in some way. The hon. member does not seem to realize that most other countries are lined up trying to get a piece of the Mexican action. He does not seem to realize that Exxon Corporation, acting in its own interests and perhaps to some extent in the interests of the United States, has been lined up trying to get a piece of Mexican production. The hon. member does not seem to realize that the French government has sent over trade missions because it wants to get several hundreds of thousands of barrels a day of Mexican oil. The French government regards Mexican oil as a secure source. The hon. member does not seem to realize that the Spanish government, the German government, the Israeli government, or the Japanese government, are interested. The Japanese government is after 300,000 barrels a day. The negotiations between these other countries and Mexico would have taken place without a Canadian negotiator at the table if the Conservative party had had its way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: The Conservative party has not been following the international energy situation. It is without policies in this area; it is blinded by its pathological opposition to, even hate for, Petro-Canada. The Conservative party has yet to find a way of putting Canada first. If the official opposition had thought a little more about Canada, had relied less on others
March 19, 1979

and had not been prepared to take the lead of the province of Alberta, it might have developed its own energy policy. But it has not; it has no policy on price. Its policy respecting Petro-Canada, the national policy instrument, is to destroy it, to get rid of it, wind it up, sell it, carve it up in pieces and dish it out.
The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) gave an interview to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the weekend. I have the transcript in front of me. Once again it is quite clear that the Conservative party has never seen and does not now see Petro-Canada as a policy instrument, an instrument for energy policy in Canada.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes, you are right.


Alastair William Gillespie: Again the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham confirms that the Conservative party does not see and has not seen that Canada needs an instrument for energy policy.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No, no.


Alastair William Gillespie: The official opposition has failed to recognize that our industry is largely foreign-controlled, something in the order of 90 per cent or more; that the decisions respecting exploration and development are made by corporations with head offices outside of Canada, with priorities set by those outside of Canada, for very good reason but not always for Canadians.
I am not arguing that multinational corporations and foreign-controlled companies in Canada have never operated to the benefit of Canada, because I think quite clearly they have; and I think that as a result of the Foreign Investment Review Act they are doing so even more because they now have to meet the test of significant benefit to Canada. If more of them will recognize the importance of the principles of international business conduct, particularly those who are not screened by the Foreign Investment Review Agency but who are living in Canada seeking to be good Canadian corporate citizens, and will follow these particular guidelines, Canada will be better served.
However, we are not prepared to base our case just on those particular principles or the protestations of those companies who claim they are following them. We believe that in respect of an industry of this kind, with the degree of foreign control that exists, with an industry that is so strategic-and I emphasize that word "strategic"-in every sense of the word as the oil industry in Canada is, we need a significant policy instrument and a corporation which can give effect to Canadian priorities.
We believe Canada needs an instrument which can be used when a multinational corporation intervenes in an arbitrary way against the best interest of Canada, as the Exxon Corporation did the other day when it diverted oil destined for Canada. We believe we need an instrument of policy that will show that the heavy oils of western Canada represent a priority for Canada.
Energy Supplies
While we might be able to provide an incentive to the corporate sector, and indeed we have, we are not prepared to believe that tax incentives alone will do the things which are needed for Canada. We do not believe they alone will provide the degree of urgency attached to priorities in Canada. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has said tax policy is the key. He has made it quite clear that he would place all his emphasis on tax policy, and that he would be prepared to give more incentives to the oil companies.
Those are questions we will be debating in weeks to come, but clearly they divide the official opposition and the government party. As 1 go through statements by the Leader of the Opposition I find that he has said that "Petro-Canada has cost Canadians a great deal of money, and it has given us virtually no advantages that we would want that we did not have earlier". Those are words he has used and put on the public record-that "Petro-Canada has given us virtually no advantages that we would want that we did not have earlier".
What an incredible admission; what an incredible confession for a man who would be the leader of this country! He made that statement obviously out of ignorance. He is a man who comes from an energy-producing part of the country, yet he has so little interest himself in Canadian energy questions that he would make such a statement as "Petro-Canada has given us virtually no advantages that we would want that we did not have earlier."
Has the Leader of the Opposition or opposition members thought about the Exxon situation and how they would have dealt with it? Have they thought about what vehicle or policy instrument they would have used to work out arrangements with Venezuela? I have not heard from them on that, or on what policy instrument they would have used. I have heard very little from them on the way multinationals have established a particular priority in respect of the development of heavy oils in western Canada. That has been clear. At no time has the Leader of the Opposition indicated that heavy oils in western Canada are important, or that we need a policy instrument through which we can escalate their development for Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you must realize what my point of order is going to be. A little while ago the minister, who has just been speaking, gave notice of a closure motion, indicating that the government wants to get on with this legislation. We now have before us a very precise report stage amendment dealing with the proposal that Petro-Canada should be designated as the sole importer of petroleum and petroleum products in an emergency situation. Surely it is out of order for the minister to wander over the whole question, to revive the second reading debate or to anticipate the third reading debate. If he is anxious to get this debate finished, why does he not deal with that which is before us; in other words, why does he not speak to the motion?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have just about concluded my remarks. I think it is important that we discuss the role of

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies
Petro-Canada as that is the subject of the particular amendment before us. As the hon. member has noted, the amendment would make Petro-Canada the sole importer of foreign oil. 1 think anyone who has been following the debate would recognize that Petro-Can represents a very important policy instrument for any government. I believe that one of its functions should be the importation of foreign oil. That has been very clear in view of the actions we have already taken to ensure that Petro-Canada will in fact become a significant importer and, therefore, provide a greater degree of energy security for Canada.
It is important to recognize that we are dealing with a question of sovereignty here. The Leader of the Opposition has not recognized that. These two sovereign nations, Venezuela and Canada, have stated they want to do business together. We are prepared to provide a market for their oil and they are prepared to guarantee that oil to us. When an international company like the Exxon Corporation intervenes, that international company is interfering with the sovereign rights of, for example, Venezuela and Canada. I think that is important and that is why I have dealt with it.
I indicated at the beginning of my remarks that I felt I had made it clear before the committee why this particular amendment was not needed. We have powers in respect of importing, as I have already indicated, but I do not feel we should hold out the expectation that overnight-and I think this can be read into the amendment-Petro-Canada would take over all imports. Because this would mean arranging all the transportation, determining all the qualities and quantities, establishing contacts with all suppliers, and acquiring a degree of knowledge about the refining industry in this country; and that may not be possible overnight as some of the refiners themselves may want to keep that information to themselves, for good reason.
Others, let us face it, might wish to place Petro-Canada in a position in which it was not able to deliver, particularly in view of the complexity of the job that might be given to it if we were to go the sole importer route. That could have the effect of discrediting Petro-Canada at a very important time when Petro-Canada's competence and its achievements are becoming better known on a week by week basis. Petro-Canada has shown that it can attract management, that it can think imaginatively and well in advance, and that it can put Canadian priorities first. It has shown that it does not have to worry about the views and priorities of those who might make decisions for Canadian subsidiaries operating in Canada, putting their interest before Canadian national interests.
There is a suggestion at times-I think it has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition-that more Canadian companies-I presume that he means more Canadian controlled companies, although he has not said it because Imperial Oil itself is a Canadian company-


Walter David Baker: Yes, he has.


Alastair William Gillespie: I am reading from the text of the remarks he made on Sunday, and he does not make that point.


Walter David Baker: You can't read.


Alastair William Gillespie: Even if the industry were different in terms of Canadian control-and that is obviously some way off into the future, however one may wish that it was sooner rather than later-it does not necessarily follow that the decisions of those companies will always ensure that the risky, far off, and imaginative projects will be undertaken for Canada's good. I am referring to the high Arctic, and I am sure that hon. members realize that there will not be an immediate cash flow from the high Arctic. We know that the Panarctic people, those in the private sector and Canadian companies, have been-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, can he not
stay on the point?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am dealing with Petro-Canada's future and what this particular amendment would do to it. I think that that is an important point. I understand that the hon. member shares his leader's view, that he would dismantle Petro-Canada; or to quote his leader-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The view that I share with many Canadians is that this is the most incompetent minister that we have ever had in that important portfolio.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sometimes demonstrates the distinction in this House of being an able parliamentarian, but every so often when he finds himself on the defensive, unfortunately, he loses that distinctiveness and becomes very personal. He seems to feel that by becoming personal he can somehow blur the issue and divert people's attention. What he does not realize is that he somehow diminishes himself. I suggest that the hon. member and some of his colleagues think about what I have said.


Walter David Baker: How did we get on to this high level? What about the amendment?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the diminished leader of the Conservative party-


Walter David Baker: You are delaying the bill.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have noticed that the hon. member is very uncomfortable


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. 1 would suggest that the minister get back to the clause under discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you for your assistance, Mr. Speaker. I recognize, as we all have in this House, that when we deal with the really gut issues involving Petro-Canada the official opposition squirms and gets very uncomfortable. I suppose the
March 19, 1979

reason they heckle is that it takes their minds off their discomfort. We saw another example of that a moment ago when I accused the House leader for the opposition of sharing the view of the Leader of the Official Opposition. I can understand his discomfort because the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday that they were going to be moving out of Petro-Canada as an instrument.


Walter David Baker: That is right. He said that.


Alastair William Gillespie: That is clearly the position of the opposition party. They do not recognize the need for a policy instrument for Canadian energy security.


Walter David Baker: We do, though, Alastair.


Alastair William Gillespie: They would destroy the one significant policy instrument. I believe that Petro-Canada has a very important role to play from the point of view of importing foreign crude, whether it be Venezuelan, Mexican, or perhaps in the not too distant future, Norwegian. Petro-Canada has also been involved in discussions with Statoil, which is the Norwegian national oil company. This makes sense because Norway is a producing nation with a national oil company and is also a NATO ally of ours. My colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) has discussed this aspect, this dimension of security with the Norwegians.
I believe that a Canadian national oil company working with the Norwegian oil company can help to develop and preserve Canadian energy security. I believe that there are a number of other opportunities where the Canadian national oil company can become effective as an importer of crude for Canadian refiners in providing Canadian energy security. However, I do not believe that the particular amendment which has been placed on the table by the New Democratic Party will advance this particular important dimension of Petro-Canada, for the reasons which I have already stated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated his willingness to answer questions before he concluded his speech. 1 want to ask him about his statement that Petro-Canada has the power to do the things which have been proposed in the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. That proposal calls for Petro-Canada to be the sole importer of oil. In view of the fact that the national petroleum corporation act under which Petro-Canada was set up gives Petro-Canada the power to be an importer of oil but not the sole importer of oil, what is the basis for the minister's contention that the power to make Petro-Canada the sole importer of oil already exists on the statute books of this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the legislation creating Petro-Canada gives it the right, as the hon. member has said, to import foreign crude into Canada. I am not sure if we are talking about the same act, but the hon. member nods and I gather that he was referring to the same one. If the hon. member would read that act he would see that the powers are there to import foreign crude into Canada. I believe that those
Energy Supplies
powers may increasingly be used. It will depend a great deal on the international situation and the degree to which the refiners in Canada establish a direct buying relationship with western hemisphere crude sources.
I did make it quite clear in my remarks before the committee that I did not see at the present time that it would be particularly useful to contemplate Petro-Canada-


Reginald Cyril Symes: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: -negotiating for all the oil-and I made reference to that in my remarks a few moments ago-from, let us say, Middle Eastern sources, because I believe that there is an advantage in being able to pool and therefore to hedge our bets with respect to a very unstable part of the world. I am not sure whether we are on exactly the same point, but I think it is quite clear that Petro-Canada does have substantial powers, that it can be directed by the minister to enter into the importing of crude for use in Canada and by Canadian refineries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one more question. The minister has now conceded that Petro-Canada only has the authdrity, under the legislation which set it up, to import oil if the government so decides and, if the legislation which is now before the House passes, if the allocation board so decides. Could the minister tell the House where the authority to make Petro-Canada the sole importer of oil is contained in any legislation, if the minister insists on rejecting this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie?


Walter David Baker: It isn't; that is the point.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate the fine print with the hon. member. Perhaps this involves a legal opinion. I would draw his attention to the fact that under the heading "Objects, Powers and Duties," section 6(c) of the Petro-Canada Act reads as follows:
-(c) to import, produce, transport, distribute, refine and market hydrocarbons of all descriptions;-
I would underline the word "import". Section 7(1), which deals with powers, reads as follows:
The corporation may do such things as it deems expedient for or conducive to the furtherance of the objects of the corporation, within and outside Canada, and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the corporation may,-
Then I would draw the attention of hon. members specifically to subsection (/):
-(f) enter into any arrangements with any government or authority that seem conducive to the attainment of the objects of the corporation and obtain from any such government or authority any rights, privileges and concessions, and carry out, exercise and comply with any such arrangements, rights, privileges and concessions;-
I think it is clear that there are very substantial powers vested in the corporation, but I would want to seek a legal opinion on whether the fine legal point that the hon. member makes is a valid one.

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the last submission of the minister, I think he should indeed seek an opinion. He did not answer the question put by the hon. member. I think the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has a point here.
I want to deal with one matter raised by the minister, namely his view that our party is opposed to Petro-Can, which he called "a significant policy instrument in Canadian imports". What is the meaning of the word "significant"? How is this instrument, Petro-Can, more significant than any other instrument available to the Canadian government?
For years and years the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been available to the government for the purpose of acquiring-acquiring supplies of oil, acquiring this, acquiring that.


Donald W. Munro: Take supply and services for instance.


Walter David Baker: The Canadian Commercial Corporation has been in existence for years. I would ask hon. members to look at the objects of that corporation and see whether it does not allow it to do things that the government wishes done by Petro-Can. That power has existed for a long time. I would assume that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is a very "significant" corporation with respect to purchases.
In an aside, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) mentioned the action taken by Mr. Goyer when he was minister of supply and services. Without the benefit of a corporation he managed to import a large amount of oil. Of course, he suffered from a congenital inability to distinguish between good oil and bad oil, but that is not the issue. The issue is that he did without the benefit of a corporation like Petro-Can; Petro-Can did not even exist at that time, of course. The point is that the Government of Canada is the ultimate authority, or should be, not some Crown agency.
It occurs to us to wonder why it is necessary to put all the cards on the Petro-Can table when in fact the Government of Canada has the ultimate power. If it is important to Venezuela, if it is important to Mexico, if it is important to other countries in the world to deal on a government to government basis, why not deal on a government to government oil company basis with those countries? If the minister is trying to argue that the government of Venezuela will deal only with Petro-Can, I cannot accept that; I believe the government of Venezuela would be delighted to deal with the Government of Canada.
When the minister says that this is only an instrument but an instrument which we must have or the country suffers, then I say he has strayed far from the facts. This may be because he lacks the knowledge or sees a little politics in the issue.
There is another matter which I want to deal with very quickly. With or without Petro-Can, in the absence of a system that can lead us to self-sufficiency in this country, can the minister make any guarantees that we will be free from

break-up or interruption of importation? The answer is no. With or without Petro-Can, is the government prepared to say, as I asked in the course of the debate on Petro-Can, that those in this country who depend on imported oil can rely on an appropriate price? The government has not said that. The question was asked recently by the Leader of the Opposition but it was evaded. The minister cannot give that kind of assurance and, if he did, he would be misleading the House.
The situation is the same whether we are dealing with or without Petro-Can. From what I have heard in this House from the minister and others, competition for supply governs price. Who in this House, including the minister, is prepared to say that there will be a certain price or a certain supply with or without Petro-Can? Certainly not the minister; he knows that much.
It is important that we understand and that the minister understand that Petro-Can certainly can be an instrument to import, but to put it ahead, in terms of its resources, of the Government of Canada, to put it ahead of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or to put it ahead of the minister, is, I suggest, stretching credibility to the utmost.


Alastair William Gillespie: Are you dealing with the amendment?


Mr. Danson:: This is the worst House leader we have ever had.


Walter David Baker: As the minister knows, last Friday we were prepared to have this matter completed but the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) got into the act and extended the debate, much to the chagrin of the minister. I ask the minister to examine the course of the debate in order to ensure that he does not mislead himself, and therefore mislead the House, on the number of speakers. I think it is important that the House and the country know that this bill was held up in committee for two full days.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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 Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt)-Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission- Representation on commission; the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie)-Official Languages-Alleged improper designation of "bilingual"; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae)-Health and Welfare-Funding of medical care program.
March 19, 1979


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock, the Elouse will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
Shall notice of motion No. 7 stand?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispense with your reading at length the preceding notices of motions. I think there is unanimous consent to proceed now to motion No. 20 and that all preceding notices of motions be allowed to stand and retain their precedence.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest this would be an opportune time to put the first three items we are passing over as first call.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall notice of motion No. 7 stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Harold Thomas Herbert: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall notice of motion No. 9 stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Harold Thomas Herbert: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall notice of motion No. 19 stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Harold Thomas Herbert: No.


SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT
J. Michael Forrestall: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act so that former Canadian armed forces personnel who must accept a release date calculated by the department and who find they are one, two or three days short of a completed full year of service, and therefore ineligible for benefits under the SRBA for that year and also do not benefit from compounding of the indexing factor for subsequent years, could complete the year in question by being credited one extra day for every leap-year of service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has at one time or another been before all members of parliament who have
Pensions
Canadian armed forces bases in their ridings and who have a number of retired servicemen living in their constituencies.
When a member of the Canadian armed forces nears retirement, particularly when he is in his last year of service, he gives some thought to the date of his release. Frequently that date of release is calculated by the member in question in consultation with departmental officials on the basis of his having completed a full number of years; for instance, 25, 26, 27 and so on. However, there is a situation that occurs more often than is necessary. When a member of the Canadian armed forces retires and commences drawing his retirement allowance, both his pension and his entitlement with respect to indexing, if that is applicable, he can find that whereas he thought he had served 27 years, he has served only 26 years and 364 days. In other words, he is one day short of 27 years. I have eight or ten examples but there are two examples I wish to put on the record. By the department's own admission there are "numerous" incidents of this nature.
In the calculation of a member's entitlement, there is some conflict as to whether the Julian calendar count is the appropriate method. Where it is used, the actual number of days served is calculated. In the case of its being an unacceptable method of calculation, the years are counted as they appear normally, disregarding additional days picked up during leap years. There are not a lot of these situations but there are some. The cost of rectifying this situation would be negligible, but in terms of the moral injustice we do to members of the Canadian armed forces by causing them the loss of one full year because they have missed one day, the cost is great.
This injustice is difficult to understand, particularly when it is in the competence of this House to correct. What I suggest is a way to restore the benefit of a full year's service to these servicemen when they have 364, 363 or 362 days' service. One might even include service of 361 days, assuming that most members of the Canadian armed forces to whom this would be important served more than 24 years. Indeed, all cases that have come to my attention are matters in excess of 25 years.
In each case the individual has given me permission to cite his case. First is the case of R. C. Howell. He is a constituent of mine and lives in the city of Dartmouth. He retired from the Canadian armed forces in 1966, if my memory serves me correctly. To determine when he would retire, I quote from his certificate of service in the Royal Canadian Navy. This is form C.N.S. 1243. Mr. Howell's service is quite clear. He is a veteran. It shows the heading: "All engagements, including N.C.S., to be noted in these columns". The various columns read: "Date of actually volunteering; Commencement of time; Period volunteered for". Then I come to a column headed "Commencement of time" relating to his last year's service. It reads "6 May 1965"; under the heading "period volunteered for" it says "one year". In other words, to and including 6 May 1966. After having considered very carefully where he stood, and believing he had 27 years of service, Mr. Howell was advised on that date that he only had 26 years and 364 days.

March 19, 1979
Pensions
1 now quote from a letter written by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson):
As stated in previous correspondence there is no legal way whereby authority could be obtained to change the date of a person's release as to extend the duration of service in the regular force by one day.
When computing total years of service, partial years are calculated by days and each full year by year. Leap-years are not taken into consideration by providing extra days.
The letter goes on to deal with Chief Petty Officer Howell's leave and his entitlements. Before continuing to read from the letter, I remind hon. members that the "commencement of time" was May 6, 1965, "period of time" was one year, and "date of release" was May 6, 1966. Further on the minister's letter reads:
It is unfortunate that the release date of May 4, 1967 resulted in his total service being only 26 years 364 days. CPO Howell was aware of his release date and years of service but had no reason at that time to question it.
Of course he had no reason to question it. After consultation with the appropriate authorities, national defence, he believed that he had served a full 27 years. I again quote:
The requirement for full completed years of service could not be foreseen and the loss of one day's service at that time had no effect on his financial benefits.
Once a release date has been established, it cannot be adjusted within existing regulations. Any change would require legislation which particularly would not be acceptable in today's climate concerning escalation of pensions generally.
In view of this, unfortunately, your constituent's date of release will remain as May 4, 1967 and he will qualify for benefits under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act in 1980 on reaching age 59.
For the sake of one day, my constituent would have been receiving his supplementary benefits in 1979 at age 58. That was the basis of his calculations. The minister shot it down.
There is the very similar case of Chief Petty Officer (retired) S. J. King, another constituent of mine in Dartmouth. The circumstances are almost identical. He sought assurance with regard to a date which would have given him a full 27 years. He was given that assurance and on that basis made his plans to retire. He was subsequently advised, on having signed his release, that he did not have 27 years but 26 years, 364 days. He too was rejected by the ministry, this time for different reasons. As personalities change, you get different interpretations and approaches. The consequences were the same.
In both these cases and in other cases I have sought departmental opinions and other opinions as to whether retired members of the Canadian armed forces could elect to serve one, two or three days in the reserve forces, whatever was required for them to qualify for that one extra day. I was shot down on those grounds. I was also shot down on grounds of sheer compassion, understanding and good will.
I bring this matter before the House in the form of a notice of motion to seek guidance and assistance. Surely this fund can treat retired members of the Canadian armed forces with every advantage. In the case of Mr. Howell and Mr. King, they served with distinction during World War II and in the years following the war. Both had excellent careers yet this is the way they are being rewarded.

I can suggest a simple remedy. For the purpose of calculating pension entitlement we should use the Julian calendar, which I understand counts the extra day during leap year. When calculating both these careers with that method, you find they have served an extra four or five days. However, they are still being denied this benefit. 1 admit this is technically correct. I can find no way around it. Nevertheless, losing that one day which would entitle them to full benefits means they will not get their full entitlement one year earlier. It is as a result of this stumbling block.
This is not an earth shattering matter. However, it would give to the Canadian armed forces the perspective that we in this chamber are not callous or indifferent to individual needs. Sometimes with a little care, effort and concern for the welfare of members of the Canadian armed forces, a matter like this can be corrected.
I hope that in bringing this forward members who have had similar experiences will take up the cudgel, privately or otherwise, to the end that if present situations cannot be redressed to the satisfaction of individuals concerned, at least in the future we can devise a scheme that does not seem to be in conflict.
I have heard of sufficient cases to wonder whether the choice is not deliberate. Possibly someone on a Friday afternoon could unthinkingly decide that an effective date of release would be March 29, for example, because the Monday would be April 1, when in fact a March 30 release date was required in order to complete the full year. There are at least two or three documented cases like that. I sometimes wonder whether it is accidental, just a bit of laziness somewhere along the line, or whether in fact it is deliberate.
On examination, I find that this does not constitute a substantial saving to the fund, but it is a major irritant to those directly concerned. It undermines the confidence that members of the Canadian armed forces have in their departmental authorities, in government and in parliament when they consistently see situations like this with no corrective action being taken.
I hope hon. members will give serious consideration to this matter. I look forward to hearing the views not only of my colleague from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) but of those on the government side as to whether this or some other method of correcting this anomaly and injustice can be found.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a knotty problem before us this afternoon, one where a person lacks one, two or three days of service in order to qualify for a benefit.
This motion proposes that Canadian armed forces personnel who fall short by a few days of the minimum completed years of service required to permit them to receive pension indexing payments under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act at a date earlier than the normal age of 60, be permitted,
March 19, 1979

where necessary, to have included in their service extra days of service from previous leap years.
Before discussing the substance of the motion I would like to explain that under the present legislation, indexing payments for forces personnel normally begin at age 60; however, in the case of persons who have completed 30 years of service, indexing begins at age 55; for persons with 29 complete years of service, indexing commences at age 56; with 28 complete years at age 57, and so on until age 60.
An exception is made in the case of persons who can no longer serve because of disability; in these cases the indexing payments begin right away, and the age and service requirement just described is not applicable. There is also an exception, of course, for the pensions paid to the survivors of the members of the military. Here again the indexation is not governed by the age and service formula but begins right away.
Hon. members will recall that these provisions came into effect as a result of legislation enacted in the fall of 1973. At that time there was substantial agreement that similar contributions and similar benefits should apply for retired members of the forces, the RCMP, the public service and former members of the House of Commons.
The determination of the age at which payment of annuity increases would begin for retired members of the forces and RCMP who had reached 55 with 30 or more years of pensionable service was designed to remove the anomaly created by earlier amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, which permitted public servants to retire on unreduced annuities after reaching age 55 with 30 or more years of pensionable service. Because under the armed forces plan an individual can retire generally between age 44 and 55 and receive an unreduced annuity, it was considered equitable to begin payment of cost of living increases to the military, the RCMP and former members of the House of Commons at the same age as the public servant can receive an unreduced annuity.
It is my understanding that the members of the Canadian armed forces pay $1.80 into the Canadian forces superannuation fund for every dollar the government puts into the fund. This is done in order to finance the earlier retirement of a considerable number of armed forces personnel, for example; those who retire in their forties or early fifties. This was done several years ago in order to make the Canadian forces superannuation fund financially viable and capable of supporting pensions that start at this earlier date instead of at a later date, say, for people in the public service of Canada, the RCMP etc., and it has worked out to be a financially workable plan.
Turning to the motion itself, it is, of course, true that a statutory change would be necessary to allow the arrangement which is proposed. The Interpretation Act provides the instructions generally necessary to reckon periods of time. Under the existing terms of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, to permit the extra days which a person provided service during a number of previous leap-years to count as service for this purpose would be contrary to the act; rulings under the
Pensions
various federal pension statutes over the years have confirmed that the extra day in a leap-year is only countable when the person retires during a leap-year and has to his or her credit less than a complete year's service for that year. To permit the counting of a number of leap-year days for purposes of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act would be inconsistent with the methods for calculating total service under the various pension statutes for purposes of determining the amount of the individual's basic pension.
While such an amendment would have limited application to a particular group of individuals, it would really be establishing a new "qualifying" date for these people and a different group of individuals would undoubtedly be concerned that they had missed qualifying by two or three more days.
Finally, the effects of falling short of a complete year by a few days are not as severe as the motion indicates. As an example, an individual with 30 complete years of service would receive his or her first indexing adjustment on his fifty-fifth birthday and the amount payable would reflect the cumulative total of ail increases authorized since retirement. The individual with slightly less than 30 years would have to wait until his or her fifty-sixth birthday for the first adjustment, but it also would include all increases authorized since retirement, including the amount that would have been payable on the fifty-fifth birthday had the person had 30 years of service.
The foregoing, of course, relates only to the application of the present terms of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. I would point out that the day preceding the tabling of this motion the House gave first reading to Bill C-12, an act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Statute Law (Superannuation) Amendment Act, 1978 proposes amendments which defer the commencement of indexing payments to all retiring persons other than those retiring on grounds of disability, in the forces, RCMP or the public service to age 60. Therefore, if the proposals in Bill C-12 are enacted, the question of counting leap year days will be removed for future retirements.
Again, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act currently provides for indexing of the basic annuity based on the consumer price index. As I have said, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act applies not only to Canadian forces annuitants but also to former public service employees, the RCMP, MPs, etc. Currently, indexing commences when the annuitant's age, added to complete years of service, totals 85. All annuitants age 60 and over receive indexing. Bill C-12 amending the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act will defer indexing to age 60 for future retirees.
In view of the government's intention to defer indexing to age 60, the Department of National Defence feels that a special provision to give indexing a year early to a select few annuitants who will receive indexing prior to age 60 in any case cannot be supported.
4298

March 19, 1979
Pensions
The proposal of counting extra days for each leap year served is not without its problems. It would create complaints from people under other pension provisions. A calendar year includes the number of days in the period commencing January 1 and ending December 31. Everyone lives and works through the same number of days whether it happens to be 365 or 366. To make a special provision to count an extra day for those who did not complete the full calendar year would not be fair to those who did complete the full calendar year. Moreover, by implementing this scheme, all that would be achieved is removing one group that is now one, two or three days short of qualifying under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act and creating another group one, two or three days short.
There is no loss of the compounding of the indexing factor in any case. When a person becomes eligible for indexing, the indexing factor applied is the compounded indexing from the year of retirement. This can be illustrated quite easily. For example, take a person who retired in 1973 and who becomes eligible for indexing in 1978. The consumer price index which has been applied during the period is as follows: January 1, 1974, 6.7 per cent; January 1, 1975, 10.1 per cent; January 1, 1976, 11.3 per cent; January 1, 1977, 8.6 per cent, January 1, 1978, 7.2 per cent; for a simple total of 43.9 per cent. While the simple total of the indexing factor is 43.9 per cent, the indexing factor actually applied is the compounded indexing factor of 52.2 per cent.
The Department of National Defence contends that as the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act provided for benefits to those already retired, these annuitants received a benefit they could not have anticipated. There is no loss of withholding of a benefit involved in these cases. Rather, there is an entitlement to a new benefit within the provisions of the legislation passed by parliament.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to contribute to this debate because I too have a constituent who finds himself in this anomalous, difficult position of having served for 27 years and 364 days and finding therefore that the application for indexing to his pension has been delayed by the extra year, although he is in default by only one day. It does strike me as being more than strange that this should have occurred in such a large number of instances.
The particular person who brought this to my attention is a Major Lloyd Fox whose regimental number is 612104307, retired in 1971. Prior to his retirement, since there was a certain flexibility allowed to him which was made known to him under the DROs of February 5, 1969, published in routine orders at Cold Lake, Alberta, where he was then serving, in paragraph 19 on the whole business of terminal leave, people are asked to bring it to the attention of the orderly room with sufficient notice so that the calculations can be made.
It is not just a coincidence, it is a fortunate coincidence that Major Fox retained this particular order because on it he made the calculation which he and the orderly room clerk had

made to decide when he should go off on leave so as to determine the actual 28 years that he had planned, and was within his rights to plan, for his retirement. On that particular page of the routine orders of February 5, 1969, are the calculations that were made by Major Fox and the orderly room clerk of the day. They decided between them, having looked at the man's record, that there would be 149 days of rehabilitation leave, 30 days of annual leave, and 30 days of special leave, to which he would be entitled. Calculating back from that, it would mean that his leave should start on August 15, 1970, and the final date of his service, after having exhausted these leave entitlements, would be March 11, 1971.
Those figures appear quite clearly, not just August 15, 1970, but the final date of March 11, 1971, and it is ringed. All the little calculations that were made at the time by the member of the force, Major Fox, and the orderly room clerk, are here.
When the leave authorization was drawn up, two changes were made in the typing which are absolutely unaccountable, unless one were to look perhaps at the Saturdays and Sundays that might have intervened. But the calculations that Major Fox made on this form brought it to an exact figure of 28 years, which is a simple calculation and which would have entitled him, at the age of 57, because of the application of the 85 formula to members of the armed services, to receive the indexation. However, the change was made from March 11 as the final date to March 10. There was no explanation at all as to why that change was made, and while this leave authorization was approved by the captain-presumably he must have been the adjutant at the time-there was no indication that Major Fox himself had to sign the document. He must have seen it because he probably went off the base with it in his pocket, but there is no undertaking, so far as I can see, on the copy of the document I have that he went through it with a fine tooth comb and detected at the time these discrepancies between the calculations he made and the dates that were eventually used.
I notice that my friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), has suggested that we might be able to introduce that lost day or that gained day in leap-year into the calculations in order to make up that day for those who are short by one, two or three days but who have served either four, eight or 12 years and would therefore have gained an extra day because of the leap year. That is a device that might have been used, and the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) made quite a case for it being impossible to use this particular formula. But it is not that which worries me in this case; it is the fact that there were dates, presumably agreed upon on one day and then which appeared on the standard form of leave authorization granted to Major Fox a few days later. Those little errors, and they must have been errors, appear. The calculation was made that it would amount to exactly 28 years of service, but then it turns out to be one day short.
It was a couple of years later, so far as I know, that Major Fox raised this matter with the Department of National Defence because of the pension aspect. He exchanged several
March 19, 1979

letters between that time and now without getting any satisfaction at all, the department relying wholly on the leave authorization certificate and allowing no credence whatsoever to the calculations which were made on the routine orders, a copy of which, as I said, he managed to have kept where it can be seen how the calculations were made and where the actual dates appear which were used for leave starting on August 15, 1970 and the final date of the man's service on March 11, 1971. Yet those dates were not transferred to the leave form, with the result that the man is one day short. We might even look at this as a breach of trust. I do not know where to lay the blame, but it seems to me that it is more than just a coincidence this should have happened.
One should consider the facility available to public servants. They are still allowed to retire one day before the end of a calendar year. For example, their retirement date can be set on December 30, 1978, so that they are one day in retirement and may enjoy, two days later, the full indexing which would come on their pensions in 1979. When one considers that, one realizes it is playing with the intent and the letter of the law so that an advantage can be taken. I cannot see why that same one-day leniency should not be available to Major Fox and the CPO's we have heard about from the hon. member for Dart-mouth-FIalifax East.
Not only are members of the public service allowed to retire on December 30 so that they will be on retirement on December 31, and thereby two days later on January 1 have a pension which is indexed the following year, but there are some members who are deemed to have retired, for example on December 30, 1978, and continue as fully paid members of the public service on into 1979 because they are engaged in a particular work or study which should not be interrupted. This deeming to have retired aspect of the matter also is an argument in favour of allowing a certain amount of latitude, a greater amount of latitude, or even some latitude of one, two or three days in the calculations which have occurred in the case of Major Fox and these other instances. When it can be done for public servants, I fail to see why it should not be done for members of the armed forces.
One should consider the deliberate attempt made by members to find out what day they can go on leave or whether they have that even number. The 28-year service record makes life easier for every one all round. It enables members of the forces to draw their indexed pensions at the age of 57. At the present time, with only 27 years and 364 days of service, they must wait until they are 58 years of age. This is verging on cruel and unusual punishment. I wonder, as did the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, whether there is something deliberate here in recalculating so as to deprive some members of the entitlement. They would have been prepared to spend another day, two days or three days in service so as to be absolutely certain they would draw the entitlement to which they were due when the time came.
Pensions
I feel there is a case to be made. I have not done a calculation myself. Perhaps I should have done a little more homework on this, but I wonder, in the calculation of the rehabilitation, annual and special leave, whether due allowance was made for the Labour Day holiday, Thanksgiving in October, Christmas in December, New Year's in January, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had his way, there might have been even a February 15 holiday in there which should have been entered and might not have been calculated.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are glad to have your support.


Donald W. Munro: Just as an aside, I would have argued in favour of June 15 as Magna Carta Day, a day to celebrate a great occasion in the constitutional history of our country. However, Major Fox would not have been able to benefit from June 15 because he thought his term of service ended on March 11, yet the date on the papers turned out to be March 10. Matters which are that close in their calculations, particularly when deliberate and conscientious efforts were made by conscientious people to calculate things properly, and then to be done out of an entitlement which might have been regulated easily by another day or two of service on the base before setting off on leave, deserve much more attention than has been given by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) and his staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for his concern about these marginal cases. His proposal is one which certainly is imaginative. But whether or not that particular proposal is accepted, I hope a way can be found so that these cases of obvious injustice can be corrected.
I hope the House will not mind it if I say that this reference to counting leap year days reminds me of something which happened here some years ago. I do not want to rob the member of being the originator of the use of leap year days, but I recall an incident back in 1947 when Mr. King was still prime minister. He was a great person for celebrating anniversaries and getting everything noted about his place in history.
It was announced one day that there would be an occasion to celebrate his having been prime minister for 20 years. It occurred in 1947. Just by chance, President Truman was here that day. We gathered out in the rotunda, and the portraits of Mr. Borden and Mr. King, which now hang on either side of the front door of this chamber, were hung that day in the rotunda. But some of us were curious as to how Mr. King could determine that that was the twentieth anniversary of his becoming prime minister, since he had been in and out of office. Of course we got from the prime minister's office the answer that he had counted the days. He had counted 20 times 365 which was 7,300, but he added five days for the five leap years which would occur in the 20-year period. So, on that day he had been prime minister for 7,305 days. I am sure the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East will be pleased to know

March 19, 1979
Pensions
that he has an idea which was used in the first place by Mr. Mackenzie King.
The other thought which occurred to me as a way to get extra days of service would be to send some of these people around the world, but make sure they go from west to east all the time, and every time they cross the international date-line they will get in an extra day. Maybe that would do it. The levity with which I suggested that is not to be charged against my support of the proposition that a way should be found to correct these cases, and I am with the hon. member in that respect. Elowever, time is going on and 1 must not use it up.
I rise mainly to say, as the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) know, since we are all members of the same committee, we are now dealing with Bill C-12 in which something far more serious faces us, namely, the loss of indexing of pensions for anyone between the ages of 55 and 60. The case has been made very well before us in the committee by representatives of the armed forces, of the RCMP, of the air traffic controllers and so on, that people who are forced to retire by the nature of their contracts or for health reasons, should not be denied the right of the early indexing of their pensions.
It has also been drawn to our attention, or we got this by asking questions, that the amount of money to be saved by cutting out this indexation is very small compared with the amount of money to be saved, for example, by cutting out the indexing that is possible on January 1 for persons who retire late in the year.
However, I am stretching the rule a bit by discussing here what we were discussing out in the committee, but it is relevant, and I think this is an opportunity for us to show to those who are concerned about this that some of us believe the whole question of denying indexing to persons who have to leave their employment because of the nature of a contract is unfair and should be reviewed. Even if it is difficult for the hon. member to sell his precise formula I hope he is winning support, and 1 hope the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is winning support for the reconsideration of this bill in respect of unfair cases. I hope that among all of us we can do something to save this principle for those who are called upon to leave their positions early.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief as I do not want to be the one to talk out this motion, and I certainly hope the government gives it serious consideration. I have noticed lately that there has been a downgrading of veterans' and servicemen's rights under this government. There have been many examples lately of delays in respect of veterans' appeals and applications for disability pension increases, many of which have to wait for six months to a year to be heard. In addition there has been an easing out of veterans from the civil service at age 55. There have been many sad cases of paraplegics, amputee veterans, being eased

out of their jobs. This is an indication of the double standard of this government in dealing with veterans and servicemen.
If you are a retired general you will likely be given an exhaulted position in the government. The chief of staff who retired recently has been made the chairman of the CNR. He is probably drawing a $35,000 a year pension and has now been given a $75,000 a year job. I know of a lieutenant-general who retired recently and was given an executive position with Canada Air. I know of many colonels, generals and so forth, who are being taken back after retirement, as consultants. On the other hand the government is easing out paraplegics and fooling around with a couple of days when looking at some servicemen's pensions. This government very definitely has a double standard when dealing with veterans and servicemen. I hope it will give this motion very serious consideration. Let us get it to the committee, or wherever it has to go. Let the government give some evidence here that it is not out to downgrade veterans' and servicemen's rights.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join with those who have congratulated the mover of the motion on his general intent in focusing on some difficult cases under the administrative and escalation provisions of military pensions.
I want to make one fundamental point that has not been made. In reading the motion of the hon. member I find one part to be incomprehensible, and I question whether it is factually correct. The motion states in part:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act so that former Canadian armed forces personnel who must accept a release date calculated by the department and who find they are one, two or three days short of a completed full year of service, and therefore ineligible for benefits under the S.R.B.A. for that year and also do not benefit from compounding of the indexing factor for subsequent years-
That is the point on which I am in fundamental disagreement with the hon. member. As I understand it, if his provision were adopted, exactly the same amount would be paid one year later on the man's birthday, and what is at stake is the timing of the initial payment; whether it should be made in advance or later. I have conferred with people responsible for administering the act and I understand there is no loss in escalation over a period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the compounding makes a difference.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With all due respect to the hon. member, I understand it is exactly the same amount. If a man were to retire on his 55th birthday with 30 years' service short of one day, under the hon. member's proposition it would be granted to him, whereas under the existing legislation on his 56th birthday exactly the same amount would be paid. In other words, the same amount would be paid in the two cases.


An hon. Member:: No.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: With all respect to the hon. member, I have talked with administrators of the plan and this is what I am
March 19, 1979

Energy Supplies



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
told. Nevertheless, whether I am right or the hon. member is right really does not make a difference. There are inequities which always result from an application of a rule. If we adopt a rule now to take care of a man with 364 days' service, then what about the man with 363 days? If we adopt a rule to protect a man with 363 days, or 362 days, what about the man with 361 days? There is always a problem.
['The energy bill will be dealt with tomorrow at report stage. When amendments are dealt with, rule 74(13) indicates that the third reading stage would be taken at the next sitting of the House if there were not unanimous consent.\nAdjournment Debate']
An hon. Member:: It's incredible the way hon. members talk these bills out.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member did a fair amount of talking. He talked for a little over 20 minutes. He seems to have some difficulty in accepting the idea that I should express my thoughts in the two and a half minutes which remain to me.


An hon. Member:: You people are incredible.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I would welcome the hon. member's participation at the committee. I know he has attended, but we are now looking at Bill C-12. We looked at indexing in the bill before us at the committee.
If the motion in its present form were passed it would, by the year 1983, make the entire provision that is the subject of this motion irrelevant, because age, and age alone, would be the consideration. Years of service would not be a consideration in eligibility for escalation. We do have a problem as pointed out by those who testified before the committee. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has pointed this out very well, particularly in respect of members of the RCMP or air traffic controllers who are compulsorily retired prior to age 60. The representations made before the committee for continuation of indexing were strong, and I believe we will have to look hard at this aspect of the problem.
The fact remains that what is before us is a provision dealing with indexing as a general principle, and a means of financing it. The problem of particular groups who are compulsorily retired before age 60 is only in part answered by a pension. What really is involved is a program by the Government of Canada to provide alternative employment, and to make sure that employment in the public service of Canada, as an example, is available to such persons on equal terms, which is not always the case in present circumstances. The problem-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
MEASURE TO CONSERVE STOCKS 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. 5 (Mr. Symes).
Walter David Baker: Just before the dinner hour, Mr. Speaker, the House was dealing with this amendment following a speech by the minister which seemed to imply that, in his view, the only way the Government of Canada could appropriately deal with foreign governments involving the supply of imported petroleum into our country was through the instrument of Petro-Canada, Petro-Can, or whatever it is called.
In the course of his remarks the minister attempted to leave the impression with the House of Commons that he, as minister, the Government of Canada, and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) as part of the apparatus of the government, on the one hand was unable to deal effectively with foreign countries, and that there was no agency other than Petro-Canada by which Canada could assure itself of a supply of imported petroleum products, aside from exploration, drilling, and all the other things outlined in the statute dealing with Petro-Canada.
I advanced the theory as respectfully as I could, in the face of the opinion advanced by the minister, that the minister was wrong. During the dinner hour I went to the library to assure myself that indeed he was wrong. Had the minister been right, then I would have had some information upon which I could withdraw my submission. This followed an interesting conversation in the lobby with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chin-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in which we discussed this problem. I did not want to accuse the minister of being wrong if he is right.
I looked into the statute books and found the statute which established the Canadian Commercial Corporation a considerable time ago. For the information of the House, this is in the Revised Statutes of Canada, Chapter 35. This parliament established a corporation, an acquisition corporation because that is its basic thrust, which has the power to import and export goods and services. The statute indicates how broad and powerful the corporation is in terms of importing everything, including petroleum. Section 3(3) of the bill reads as follows:
The corporation is for all its purposes an agent of Her Majesty and its powers may be exercised only as an agent of Her Majesty.
That is not for any commercial purpose but as an agent of Her Majesty. The board of directors is appointed by the

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies
governor in council and the purposes for which the corporation was established are set out, one of which is to obtain goods and commodities outside Canada. I do not see how that can exclude petroleum.
Section 4(1 )(c) reads as follows:
-to exercise on behalf and under the direction of the minister any powers or functions vested in the minister by any other act that authorizes the minister to employ the corporation to exercise them;
In Section 3(2) it states:
The corporation shall comply with any general or special direction given by the governor in council-
An order in council issued by the minister can cause the corporation to do things on behalf of the government with reference to carrying out its purposes. I realize that since the terms and conditions of the act which established Petro-Canada have escaped the minister, this may also have escaped his attention. The point is that for the purpose of securing a supply of imported petroleum from Venezuela, Mexico or wherever, the government has had for a considerable time an ample source of power in the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
The minister comes close to misleading this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker.


Alastair William Gillespie: Oh, no. What a long bow!


Walter David Baker: He did not quite mislead the House but he comes close when he advances the theory that it is only through or under the auspices of this corporation that security of supply of imported petroleum can be achieved. If that is the position of the government, then I say the minister is misleading the House because there is ample authority and ample power elsewhere.
The question that Canadians are asking themselves-aside from the existence of an acquisition company of the government-the issue is how, for ten or 12 years, and in the face of an emergency which occurred in 1973, this government has failed to act, so that just prior to a time when we are going to be facing the people of the country they ask for these extraordinary powers to face an emergency which even its most constructive critics indicate does not exist. I would call the attention of the minister to the column in the Ottawa Journal this evening by Mr. W. A. Wilson.
We do not deny the government the right to power to allocate in emergencies. We have indicated our position in relation to this bill. We do not like what the government is attempting to do. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to be sure that I was not in any way misinterpreting the thrust of the minister's remarks. If I do, I apologize to him. The minister has come awfully close to misleading the House with reference to these powers to ensure that the oil is there.
Given that situation, where there is authority in the Canadian Commercial Corporation to do this kind of importing, what ought parliament to do about the amendment of the New Democratic Party, which they advanced in accordance with their principles, that Petro-Canada ought to become the sole

implement for dealing with the situation. That is the purport of the amendment. I suggest a good case has to be advanced, and it has not been advanced thus far, on the question of why the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which has power to act, should be stripped of its power in favour of another corporation. That is a very simple proposition.
The minister dealt with the question of delay. He has an unusually short memory, but it is shorter in regard to this bill than it has ever been before. I think he has forgotten that it was he who called a vote last week on Tuesday, on the first amendment. Had he not done so, he would have paved the way for the consideration of this bill by the end of the week. The minister will recall that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) spoke on this amendment on Friday, continuing the debate. I am advised that, in committee, members of the government wasted two days of the proceedings. I have the feeling that there is something about this bill that they want to keep before the House. I would be the last to suggest that it had anything to do with a general election.
The minister said the amendments had been dealt with in committee. He was quite right. I am sure he knows that while a small group of members deal with amendments in committee, under the rules it has always been the right of the House to deal with amendments here, so that members not on the committee can speak to them.
We have the sorry spectacle of a minister at the end of the reign of this government, a government that has neglected the problems of supplying this country with its own fuel, now crying out for help from sources which the minister knows-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) in view of the fact that we are going to face difficulties in the oil industry. We cannot anticipate what those difficulties will be, but they will come about.
It is appropriate that in this bill Petro-Canada be given the powers for allocation that are suggested. In the interests of the Canadian public, I see no reason for the minister not to agree that Petro-Canada should be given the power to be the sole importer if conditions demand.
This bill has been asked for, in the event of an emergency. The general pattern of our importations should also be considered. There are seven major oil companies that operate in this country.
We have seen Exxon telling Canadian branch plants that because the need in the United States is greater, there will be a shortage of oil for Imperial's customers in Canada. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark)
March 19, 1979

defending Exxon's position against Imperial Oil. To defend Exxon against the Canadian company which is diverting some of the oil to the United States which was allocated to Canada, and for Canadians to support that position is simply beyond me. I am sure all of us can see the difficulties ahead. We can all see that it will be absolutely necessary for the government to have the power to designate Petro-Canada as its sole importer.
In Canada we have been fairly well treated with regard to prices in recent years. In many ways Canadians have been treated more fairly than citizens south of the border.
A week or so ago I was in Georgia, and I learned that 23 flights were cancelled. It was not because companies wanted to drop flights, as has been suggested, it was because there was a shortage of gasoline. Eastern Airlines, American Airlines and National Airlines cancelled numerous flights, and Delta followed suit shortly after. That situation has not happened in Canada.
In 1973 when there was a shortage of gasoline in the United States, cars were lined up everywhere. That problem did not exist in Canada. We did not have that situation because we have a number of shyster companies, independent companies, and companies not directly connected to the big seven. In looking at world prices we see that we have enjoyed some reasonable prices in this part of the country because of that fact. Independent companies, such as the Golden Eagle company, were buying on the spot market when there was a surplus. They had obtained sizeable amounts of gasoline which they made available to the public in competition with the major oil companies.
During a taxi ride which I took in Georgia the taxi driver informed me that the price of gasoline had gone up 17 cents that day. Even if one looks at the price of a U.S. gallon in comparison to the price of a Canadian gallon, we are not that badly off. I suggest we are not that badly off because of competition from some independent operators. There are cut rate gas stations which have only a pump and a little shack, and there are the Seven Sisters service stations where there are more extensive facilities. There is no competition in effect among the major oil companies in this country.
As I drive to work there are self service stations on one side of the street selling gasoline one cent less than the station on the other side of the street where you can get your windshield cleaned, tires pumped up, and other services such as checking the oil, battery, and other things. There is no competition, but the minister will find one of these days that those small service stations will not be serviced because there will not be any gasoline available to them. This will result in an immediate increase in price. These oil companies are very close to a cartel operation.
If Petro-Canada were in a position of being declared the sole importer of crude oil to Canada, the argument which the Conservatives have made in this debate that there may be an undercapacity of refineries, obviously will be a factor. It will not be too difficult for Shell to say that their refineries are working to capacity, that they cannot take in any more crude
Energy Supplies
oil than they are using for their own operations, and every company will be able to say the same thing. It is not hard to imagine if Petro-Canada wished it could take over Come-By-Chance, that white elephant on the east coast, and put it into operation so that gas would be distributed uniformly to customers, on the basis of the sunset arrangements. These things will happen.
Undoubtedly there will be difficulties in other oil producing countries. There may be trouble in Venezuela. There may be trouble in the Persian Gulf. In fact there may be trouble in any country supplying oil to the major countries of the world. This government has not thought the problem through. It has only reached the stage of protecting the oil company, the customer has been forgotten. The government is more interested in getting the 9,000 barrels of crude oil for Imperial Oil. Some customers will be left out. It is my guess that it will not be the regular Esso pumps on the street that will be left out. It will be some of the cut-rate gas stations that have kept my price and your price down and have protected the price to customers in eastern Canada. If it had not been for the cut-rate service stations, prices would have risen a long time ago.
The people at the Shell stations, Texaco stations or Imperial Oil stations have always been offended when their company sells to other operators who are buying in bulk on a first come first serve basis on surplus stocks. They have objected to not being given an opportunity to integrate prices so that the advantage will flow not only to the cut-rate operators but to themselves. The government will have to ensure that gas will be made available to those companies if they are to operate on behalf of the Canadian public, and maintain some competition in the industry.
I am not sure how the minister thinks he can go to Venezuela and compete on the market via Petro-Canada or through any agency we may send there. It is true that if the government wishes to make deals directly with those countries, it may be able to do so. However, I am surprised at what I hear from the minister concerning his arrangements with Mexico. A week or so ago I talked with some of the top officials in Mexico. My impression was that Mexico did not want to sell oil to us or to the United States. In fact it just did not want to sell oil. What they were interested in doing was making deals with other countries, Canada in particular, for services rather than cash.
In talking with some of their officials, my impression was that they were interested in an exchange program with Canada whereby we would provide them with agricultural know-how, implements and equipment. In return, they would give us oil on a barter basis. If that is to be the case, it is necessary that we look at oil arrangements with other oil companies.
It would be far better if Petro-Canada were the sole importer of oil into Canada rather than taking the word of the international corporations as to what they are paying in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or wherever they may do their buying. If we are going to work on a trade arrangement with countries

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies
interested in going into the open market to sell their oil, we must know the latest arrangements of the various companies involved in the purchase of oil.
The minister said that we are protected with FIRA. I would like him to indicate one company we have been protected against by FIRA. That has not worked very well. It is almost like giving a permit to bootleggers to bootleg on a temporary basis in every outlet in town, and refusing to give them a permanent licence.
There is no question but that we must establish Petro-Can as the sole distributor of oil in eastern Canada. As has been pointed out already, it may be necessary to integrate western oil. Money should be poured into developing alternate sources within Canada. That is where the expenditures should be made. We may have to pool our resources both offshore and domestic, and have a price for this blend that will be set in the interests of consumers.
Earlier someone talked about shirts. A good shirt today costs $22. We still import shirts from Taiwan, Korea and Japan. These have a relatively low labour cost. Even with the increase in the value of their money against the Canadian dollar, they can still sell their shirts to Canadian distributors for $5 or $6. We have suggested that the tariff should be removed on shirts.
Any relationship to the price the consumer pays for a shirt and the cost of importing it is purely accidental. We have no knowledge of that as we are not able to supervise it in any way. The same is true of oil. In many cases the companies not only market the oil, but haul it in their own ships. If they increase the shipping cost, obviously that affects the end price. Any such arrangement is detrimental to Canadian consumers.
In the United States there is rationing as far as many of the industrial producers are concerned. Aeroplane gas is rationed. It is likely that on the eastern seaboard, gas for automobiles will be rationed. This does not mean there is a real scarcity, only a contrived scarcity. The free enterprise system in the United States allows the corporations to skin everyone as long as they get away with it. As Mr. McLean used to say, pay as little as possible, get as much as you can, and that is free enterprise. That is what the oil companies do. Over the years the Seven Sisters have grown fat and incompetent because of the way they skinned the public.
Our energy minister is going to expose us to these problems unless he is willing to get into the oil business, not only on an emergency basis, and do this through the aegis of Petro-Canada.
There could be a shortage. Anything is apt to happen with the major producers of oil. If it does, it will reflect on those multinational corporations in the oil business. It was pointed out earlier that, if you are incorporated in the United States, you have an obligation to that country because they might take away your incorporation or do something else that is nasty, such as increase your taxes. The same could happen to a branch plant operating in Canada.

What happened with Imperial Oil was not because it did not want to import 100 per cent of its commitment from Exxon. It had a market for that oil in Canada. They could not tell Exxon, the parent corporation, to supply them with this or that amount. Originally the amount was to be reduced by 25,000 barrels a day and this has now been cut to 9,000 barrels a day. Someone will have to suffer. If Canada wishes to take on the multinational corporations, it can do it in no better way than through Petro-Can. No other agency has the same clout. They can do no better than assure eastern Canada that the shortfall can be made up by imported oil which will be equitably distributed to all outlets in Canada.
As far as refining capacity is concerned, let us look at Come-By-Chance. In that installation Canada will have a ready-made refinery with a large capacity which could be used to ensure that Canadians no longer get hosed by the multinational corporations. There would be competitive enterprise in the oil industry-


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


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points I should like to make. The amendment before us is designed so that when there is an emergency oil allocation situation, Petro-Canada could move in and become the sole purchaser of oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: It seems to me the value of Petro-Canada lies, really, in doing exactly what it is presently doing in the case of Mexico and what is proposed in the case of Venezuela. This was one of the purposes of the corporation when the bill was put through the House some years ago, that is, to allow Petro-Canada to deal state by state with oil supplies. At the time we did not know these provisions would be needed so soon but at present they are greatly to our advantage. Oil requirements from abroad have been drawn down from about 800,000 barrels a day to about 500,000. During the Christmas recess the minister negotiated with Mexico for the purchase of
100.000	barrels a day to come on stream, and recently the decision was taken to instruct the corporation to go ahead and negotiate with Venezuela for a direct contract to provide
100.000	barrels a day from that source. It seems to me this is the best way in which Petro-Canada could function.
The amendment proposes that the governor in council should empower Petro-Canada to become the sole purchasing agency. In my view, if we were in an emergency situation we would want all available supplies to come on stream from offshore. Further paper transactions would only complicate the
March 19, 1979

process. Rather than follow such a course, I believe we should be setting up long-term arrangements along the lines of those with Mexico and contemplated with Venezuela. If we look around the world we find that most of the OPEC countries operate through state-controlled oil companies. Rather than inject Petro-Canada into a situation of shortage, which would only cause confusion, we should be using the corporation along the lines already envisaged, that is, to negotiate for long-term supply contracts. If the multinationals want to enter into back-to-back contracts for transporting the oil, that is perhaps acceptable as long as we have the long-term contracts, state by state, to ensure supplies to Canada.
In the circumstances, I do not see the advantage of this amendment. It would be bringing in confusing factors at a time when supplies were already threatened.
The Conservative party, as we know, has stated its intention to destroy Petro-Canada and utilize the services of the Canadian Commercial Corporation or some similar agency to arrange supplies of oil. Such a system would have at least one obvious disadvantage inasmuch as the Canadian Commercial Corporation has no expertise in the field of transportation of oil or, indeed, for the negotiation of long-term supplies. On the other hand, Petro-Canada has already entered into arrangements with Petro-Ven, the Venezuelan national petroleum company, with regard to the supply of oil, and will be putting together long-term supply contracts.
If this were strictly a question of putting out tenders for supplies, the Department of Supply and Services could do the job, but there is obviously a great deal more involved. At this point, Petro-Canada, even though it is a new corporation, is building up expertise in negotiating these long-term contracts and it would obviously be to our disadvantage to place the Canadian Commercial Corporation in the position of trying to deal with a commodity with which they had no experience. On the other hand, as I say, Petro-Canada would have a representative on the energy supply allocation board and on the standing committee set up under the International Energy Agency. Canada would have good representation on these agencies and international bodies, placing it in a good position to know what action should be taken in the event of an emergency. So we have these two points to consider.
We are, of course, aware of the naive and lackadaisical attitude taken by the government of Ontario. A few nights ago in the committee they were saying there was no real need for this bill. They never complained while the former bill was in position during the past several years; they never complained about the preparations which were going on during those years. They certainly put before the committee a very naive suggestion that the bill was not needed and that we could carry out exchanges with the United States. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the situation in the United States we find they are importing about half of their crude oil requirement, something like eight million barrels a day out of the 16 million barrels they use. It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which U.S. stocks would be run down very quickly and none would be available for swaps with Canada.
Energy Supplies
The policy advocated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is to build a larger pipeline without ensuring supplies from the tar sands deposits or elsewhere so that adequate use might be made of the line.
I see the official opposition are suggesting they are ready, now, to vote on this amendment. I would not want to delay our progress by any further remarks so I shall be pleased to sit down and allow the amendment to come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sault Ste. Marie is beautiful but Yorkton is more beautiful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was certainly referring to the town, not the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, after that enthusiastic speech by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) I just want to make one or two comments.


Mr. Benjamin:: It was a real barnstormer.


An hon. Member:: A funeral dirge!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Anyway, I am very surprised at the minister, at his parliamentary secretary, and at the government opposite. One would think from their rhetoric in the House that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has moved a motion that is radical and revolutionary and that will turn the world upside down, but I remind them that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has moved a motion which just adds another option to what the government can do. It says that Petro-Can can be the sole purchaser of oil in an emergency. There is nothing obligatory about that, it just says they can be. Judging from some of the comments that were made by the hon. member for Algoma one would think that this motion is a radical motion which would tie the hands of the government.
I would like to make one or two other comments about what the minister himself said. He criticized members on this side of the House for moving a motion which had already been put forward in committee, and he said it is repetitive. If all we did in the House was original and new, perhaps the House would be a lot further ahead, but that is not the case. There are many things we discuss in the House which are repetitive. I think the point made by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is a damn good point which should be repeated over and over again until the government finally accepts it.
The minister hangs his hat on the word "may". He said that Petro-Can under the Petro-Canada Act may go into negotiations with other countries to purchase oil and crude directly

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies
from offshore, and he said that was good enough. I do not think "may" is good enough. I think Petro-Can needs the power in an emergency to be the sole purchaser for this country because other companies have contracts. This time we are in trouble with Exxon, but next time we might have trouble with one of the other seven Big Sisters, and if the government does not have the power under this emergency act to make Petro-Can the sole purchaser of oil from offshore, we may have the same problem with some of the other companies that we are having with Exxon this time around. I think that is why the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was very wise and had a lot of foresight when he moved this amendment to the bill.
The other thing I find passing strange is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who has spent a great deal of time talking about these multinational companies, about what great things Petro-Can will do, about the very progressive policy of the government, will not accept the reasonable and moderate amendment put to the House by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. I wonder whether or not the Liberal party is just interested in appearing to be the great nationalist party, just appearing to be a party that is fighting multinational oil companies, just trying to appear as the great progressive party. I can see one of the members opposite nodding his head in the affirmative, a member from the back benches opposite. I suspect that they are doing this because the election is coming in a few weeks time and they want to appear to be the party that is interested in protecting the Canadian people against the multinational corporations.
Then, of course, we have the Conservative party. The House leader of that party said that the Canadian Commercial Corporation can purchase the oil in case of an emergency. I ask him: if we have an emergency, why should we not give Petro-Can the power to do the purchasing? Because it is Petro-Can that will have the expertise and the people who know the energy and oil business, not the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and it is Petro-Can which will be in a position to move fast. So if they grant the possibility that this might have to be done, why do they not concede the point that the best agency to do it is Petro-Can? The thinking of the Conservative party does not make sense.
The other point I want to make about the Progressive Conservative party is that they seem to have fits any time you mention Petro-Can. They are on the record as wanting to get rid of Petro-Can. That is the only little tool we have to fight for Canada as a country in the world scene when it comes to oil, but they want to get rid of it. They want to kill the baby before it is properly matured. I see that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) said the following last Friday when criticizing Petro-Can. He said he is against it:
-solely and simply because Petro-Canada people have no experience and no negotiating expertise in this field whatsoever.
What kind of faith do they have in our country? Do they not have any faith in Canada or in Canadians?

I remember when the provincial government in Saskatchewan decided three years ago to nationalize the major part of the potash industry. The Conservative and Liberal parties in my province said we do not have the expertise, we do not know how to do it. They said that if you tried to nationalize potash, the purchaser of potash would go elsewhere to buy the product. They did not recognize, of course, that the other biggest source of potash is Soviet Russia.
1 tell you, Mr. Speaker, that over 40 per cent of the potash in Saskatchewan is now publicly owned, and it is not someone in the United States who is president of the company. It is a farm boy from south Regina who is president of that company. The headquarters of the company are in Saskatoon. The vice-president is also from Saskatchewan. The management is from our own province, the profits we are making are staying in our province, and the head office jobs are in our province. That company is already, after less than three years, the largest potash company in the world, with the exception of Soviet Russia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: So I say to the Conservatives: do you not have any faith in Canada? Do you not have any faith in Canadians? You only seem to have faith in Exxon and in the seven Big Sisters in the oil world. I know that is the answer of the Conservatives from Alberta and I am afraid it is the answer of the Conservative party from one part of this country to the other.
I want to say in conclusion that I hope the tame, small pussycat sitting across the way with the big Cheshire cat grin will sharpen his teeth, turn into a tiger and start practising the things he is talking about. I hope he will move to strengthen Petro-Can so as to make Petro-Can into the largest oil company in this country. 1 hope that, in co-operation with the provinces, he will make sure that the oil and gas industries in Canada are taken under public ownership where they belong.
For the life of me I do not see why non-renewable resources should be in the hands of private interests, particularly of companies which are not even Canadian. But I do not think it is much use substituting the decisions made in a foreign corporate boardroom and placing them in a Canadian corporate boardroom. If the minister wants to show real leadership, he should negotiate with the provinces with the objective of making sure that the majority of gas and oil in this country is taken under public ownership. I assure him that at least one province in this country, namely, Saskatchewan, would be only too happy to join him in ensuring that gas and oil are owned by Canadians and are owned collectively by society as a whole.
For these reasons I urge the government to accept the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. It is moderate and reasonable, and in time of emergency Petro-Can would be the sole purchasing agency for gas and oil in this country.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this amendment. I think perhaps we
March 19, 1979

have not looked at all at the problems that are associated with the shortage of oil and with the problems in Iran. We have to remember that Iran, which most western countries had considered to be a stable country, turned out not to be very stable but a real pushover. There are those who consider Iran is in for much more turmoil down the road before things settle there. The facts are that Imperial Oil, which was buying oil directly from Venezuela, had lost its share to its parent company, Exxon, and the force majeure applied by Exxon was against Canadian interests. But we benefited from other aspects, and this is not something that Petro-Can would be able to do.
There were a number of Canadian subsidiaries of international oil companies which were dependent on Iranian oil, and curtailment of crude supplies since the Khomeini revolt began has caused most of them serious dislocations and logistical problems. British Petroleum Ltd., which got about 30 per cent of its crude supplies from Iran, was forced to impose force majeure, rationing on deliveries to affiliates, including BP Canada Ltd. Petrofina Canada Ltd., thought to use 100 per cent Iranian crude for its refinery feedstock, also has had a problem in obtaining crude supplies because its parent, Petrofina Belgium, buys 25 per cent of its crude supplies from British Petroleum. Gulf Canada, Ltd. depended entirely on Iranian oil for its Point Tupper, Nova Scotia, refinery. But once production slowed in Iran, Gulf, through its parent, Gulf Oil Corporation, managed to load an ultra large crude carrier in Kuwait with 2.3 million barrels of crude, enough to keep Point Tupper going for six weeks. Last week another half-loaded ultra large carrier left Kuwait also headed for Point Tupper. Had we had direct-to-direct dealings, this oil would not have been available for Canadian use and certainly we would have lost. Presumably the minister is intending to make all or nearly all deals directly with Venezuela. All the indications are that Mexico will not be a major producer of oil for some years down the road.
When President Carter went looking for oil and gas on his visit to Mexico, he pretty well got the cold shoulder. The Mexicans said that they were not likely to give much oil to the United States, and in fact they berated the Americans for not taking their overflow in surplus population which they have in much greater quantity than oil.
What about the value of oil swaps directly or direct contracts from one government company to another? Should we take and put our eggs in the Venezuelan basket? We must remember that Venezuela has cut back its oil production 50 per cent since 1970. So the question arises as to whether there will be further cuts in Venezuelan oil because Venezuelans are worried about their supplies. Is Venezuela any more of a stable country than Iran was? On the surface it is not nearly as stable.
I should like to refer to the Euromoney Currency Report wherein it refers to Venezuela. It reads as follows:
President Carlos Andreas Perez, elected in 1973 to preside over the OPEC bonanza, leaves office on March 12. He is succeeded by the Christian Democrats of Luis Herrara Campins. Retrenchment and austerity are certain. Exchange
Energy Supplies
controls and import restrictions will be the first line of defence for the bolivar but no Venezuelan expects them to work. Devaluation is necessary to cut the import bill. Political necessity dictates it should be soon, while the blame can be put on Perez. Expect a significant depreciation, say 15 per cent, perhaps in March. Where possible, local borrowing should be increased.
The ambitious industrial plans are running late and massively over budget. The trade account was in the red by almost $3 billion last year-the first deficit for 50 years.
It is relatively greater than ours. This is with all the Venezuelan oil to sell. It continues:
The Central Bank estimates the current account shortfall was $6 billion, and foreign exchange reserves have fallen despite an orgy of foreign borrowing. Import growth remains around 25 per cent. Inflation is widely reckoned at 20 per cent although officially suppressed by price controls and subsidies, which Herrera is pledged to reduce. The money supply is only just being brought under control, decelerating to a 15 per cent growth rate. The largest commercial bank, BND, has become a spectacular casualty, nationalized to prevent a liquidity crisis turning into a widespread banking collapse.
That is the state of Venezuela. It does not have a particularly strong economy. As we realize, in South American countries there are frequent changes in government of a military type. To load on Petro-Canada all of the responsibilities of buying oil offshore seems to be putting all our eggs in one basket. It is not necessarily the best way out. That is all I should like to say about this amendment before the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have no objection to a vote being held tonight if it is the wish of the House that we should. Quite frankly it was not our wish in the first place that we have recorded votes or that the whole question of this be delayed. This was the insistence of the minister that this matter be delayed by recorded votes. As far as we are concerned, I see no difficulty if the House wishes to move the matter along. Certainly this is in accordance with our wishes. We have no desire to see the matter delayed. This has been more the machinations of the minister which have delayed the matter to this point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), may I say there was an understanding reached today among the House leaders

March 19, 1979
Energy Supplies
or representatives of the House leaders that at this point which we have now reached we would defer the votes until three o'clock tomorrow. I do not make anything out of it, but the person who was there representing the House leader of the official opposition was party to that agreement. I realize it was not made into a House order, but it was discussed. There was a discussion as to whether the vote would be at eight o'clock tomorrow night or at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. We agreed among the four of us to support the holding of votes at three o'clock tomorrow. Unless there is an awfully good reason for altering that understanding, I believe we should stay with it.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, although I was not personally party to the earlier discussion among the House leaders, it is my understanding that this matter of a deferred vote was discussed. We on the government side are quite prepared to vote after orders of the day are called tomorrow if it is agreed by members of the House. If in fact the House would prefer to have the vote now, we are prepared to do that. However, we do not want to be accused of not living up to the agreement reached by the party leaders. It is a difficult position for us to be in. We are extremely anxious to deal with this bill and to have the vote as soon as possible. But it was discussed by the House leaders earlier, and we think, in order to keep the integrity of those discussions intact, that it may be better to have the vote tomorrow after orders of the day are called.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, certainly if the government, in line with what it has been doing with this bill, wants the matter delayed until tomorrow, and if the New Democratic Party wants it delayed until tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -we would be very happy to accede, but I think it should go on the record that it has not been the opposition which has been delaying passage of this bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that all of us are ready for the vote tonight, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has indicated there were some discussions at a House leaders' meeting which I did not attend. All of us are ready, as we have been since Tuesday of last week to complete the report stage of this bill. However, with this understanding of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think it might be appropriate, given the readiness of all of us, to leave the matter until tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I too attended the meeting of House leaders and can confirm that indeed all the House leaders of every party, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative party and the government, agreed that should this situation occur the votes should be deferred and be made the first item on the order of the day tomorrow.

However, I want to remind the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that the report stage was not completed last Tuesday, in fact, last Friday afternoon we heard only the speakers of the Progressive Conservative party and the New Democratic Party so that, if we are still at the report stage this evening, that is today and not last Tuesday as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton maintains, it certainly is not the fault of the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to just say another word, and I shall do so in the lowest key I can. I did not like the suggestion of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) that the Liberals or the NDP were trying to put this vote off. The suggestion was made at a House leaders' meeting today that the vote be at eight o'clock tomorrow night, and it was not made by me. I suggest that we reached an agreement that it be at three, and some members have made their plans accordingly. I just think that the agreement that was reached should stand.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In light of the discussion that has taken place, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it would be agreeable to all parties that the vote be deferred until tomorrow after orders of the day have been called, and that it will be the first item of business after that. I think we can proceed to other items presently before the House.


An hon. Member:: Call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will understand that whatever negotiations or agreements are reached among House leaders, unless they are made orders of the House they are not binding on all members. At this time I would have to inquire whether there is unanimous consent in respect of deferring the vote until tomorrow at three o'clock. If there is unanimous consent we can make that an order. The best way to do this, if there is a consensus, is to defer the vote on motion No. 5.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had indicated that from the point of view of this party that was agreeable to us. From the statements that have been made it is apparent that we are all prepared to vote tonight, but we are agreeable to deferring the vote until tomorrow. I hope that helps you in respect of what you have to do, Mr. Speaker. I just want to indicate that I understand that the next piece of legislation the government intends to bring forward is the excise tax legislation. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is here and prepared to proceed with that bill when it is called.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), that a recorded division on motion No. 5 be deferred, and that the recorded division on report stage amendments to Bill C-42 be taken after the calling of orders of the day tomorrow?
March 19, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Alastair William Gillespie: that Bill C-38, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains the necessary legislative amendments to implement the excise tax changes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) proposed in his budget of November 16, 1978, and in the ways and means motion of January 25, 1979. The most important of these is the proposal to reduce the present 12 per cent federal sales tax to 9 per cent. The new rate will apply to all goods now taxable at the 12 per cent rate, other than alcohol and tobacco products. The 5 per cent rate on building materials and the specific taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will not be affected by the reduction in the general rate. This measure will reduce federal sales taxes by approximately SI billion in fiscal year 1979-80.
It is estimated that the cut in the federal sales tax rate will reduce the increase in the consumer price index by one half of 1 per cent. This measure, along with other federal initiatives, will have a direct impact on wage costs through cost of living clauses, and a moderating effect on new settlements. The reduction in the sales tax rate from 12 per cent to 9 per cent will increase the real purchasing power of Canadians by about $1 billion. It will do this in a way that will lead to reduced inflation.
A number of measures contained in this bill are technical provisions which are intended to aid administration or to correct minor anomalies. These include a provision which requires manufacturers of petroleum products to pay taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel at the time of delivery to retail outlets and the conversion of these taxes to metric units.
I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that one of the technical provisions pertains to the time of payment of the sales tax on goods produced by a taxpayer for his own use. Traditionally, the tax on such goods has been paid at the time when the goods were appropriated for his own use. In a recent Federal Court case at the trial division it became apparent that there is a technical deficiency in the law in that it does not specify the time when the tax becomes payable. This particular provision will codify what the government and the business community have believed to be the law for the past 55 years.
Hon. members will recall the comments made by the Minister of Finance during his budget address on the need to modify tax measures which have failed to achieve their objective.
Excise Tax Act
Certain of the energy conservation measures introduced in the Excise Tax Act have not achieved the desired effect. Others have caused unacceptable competitive distortions. In particular, the special levies on marine engines, motorcycles, and aircraft have had a minimal impact on energy conservation, but have weighed heavily upon persons who market these goods in Canada.
On the other side, the exemption from the 5 per cent sales tax for storm doors and windows has exempted most glass used in new construction even though glass is less energy efficient than materials used in solid wall construction, which are taxable. The amendments proposed in Bill C-38 will rationalize the application of the tax to all of these goods.
There are other energy conservation measures in this bill. The exemption for thermal insulation is clarified by specifying a minimum thermal resistance or "R" value. Solar water heaters are added to the list of goods which qualify for exemption from federal sales tax. The government supports the general view that the use of solar heat is one of the more promising areas of energy conservation. It is hoped that this exemption will stimulate the sale and development of this product. Finally, the seven cents per gallon special excise tax on gasoline is being extended to apply to aviation gasoline.
In his budget speech the Minister of Finance also announced changes in the air transportation tax imposed on the transportation of persons by air. The proceeds from this tax are allocated to the Department of Transport for financing the air transportation program. The present tax on transportation of a person by air within the taxation area, that is, Canada, the United States and the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, will be increased from 8 per cent with a maximum of $8, to 15 per cent with a maximum of $15. For international flights, the tax will be increased from $8 to $12, with provision in the legislation for a maximum tax of $15.
The proposed increases in the air transportation tax rates will be effective on April 1, 1979, for tickets purchased in Canada, and on July 1, 1979, for tickets purchased outside of Canada. These increases will reduce the public costs of financing the air transportation program by an estimated $72 million in fiscal year 1979-80. This change is a major step in the program to shift the cost of financing the air program from all taxpayers to users of the air system.
It is proposed that the air transportation tax be converted to a user charge levied on the carriers under the Aeronautics Act at some future time. The date of conversion and the structure of the user charge will be determined by consultation between the Department of Transport and the air industry. In order to facilitate that conversion, Bill C-38 will amend the Excise Tax Act to provide authority to repeal the air transportation tax on a date to be fixed by order of the governor in council, subject to negative resolution of parliament.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a significant reduction in the general rate of manufacturers' sales tax. It reaffirms the government's commitment to energy conserva-

March 19, 1979
Excise Tax Act
tion, and it provides for increased cost recovery in the provision of services to the air transportation industry. In addition, the bill includes a number of technical amendments which will eliminate anomalies and facilitate administration.
The proposals contained in this bill have received a wide degree of support from the general public as well as the professional community. Since most of the proposed changes are effective as of the budget night, they have already been fully incorporated in the administration of the Excise Tax Act by Revenue Canada. Individual Canadians have seen the prices of many of their household products and automobiles reduced as a result of the general sales tax cut. In order to give these changes the force of law, and in order to remove any public uncertainty about their continuation, I urge hon. members to approve this bill as soon as possible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1978, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the government, backed by row upon serried row of government supporters, were applauding themselves, but to me it sounded more like two or three boys whistling their way past the graveyard at midnight. After all, it was one month after the byelections across Canada when the government got thoroughly whipped. Then we saw changes in the budget. We will get to the income tax in Bill C-37 in due course, but we are going to talk about Bill C-38 now.
Here, we saw in a half-hearted way the government engaging in a tax cut through a 3 per cent rebate in the manufacturers' sales tax on a certain number of items. These items did not include building materials which are kept at 5 per cent. I must say that if the government had been in any way interested in stimulating industry and employment in this country, it would have gone after a tax cut of 5 per cent on building materials. We all know that outside of a limited number of centres in Canada, house building and residential construction have taken a nose dive.
House building is at an absolute standstill except for places like Edmonton and Calgary in Alberta, and perhaps some expansion in Saskatchewan and some in Toronto, but not a great deal. The industry is ill, and this should have provided an incentive to the government to take away the 5 per cent sales tax on building materials. However, it chose not to do that.
Let us go through the ways and means motion and see just what is provided. First of all, it imposes 12 per cent on alcohol and wines, even including wines produced in Canada. Considering what the government of Ontario has done to wine and spirit prices right now, I think that it is absolutely scandalous the way our governments are performing, particularly with regard to wine. And, incidentally, the provincial governments are doing this without the sanction of their Houses.
I am not saying anything new as far as I am concerned. I think that it has been a monstrous performance by the provincial governments for 50 years in so far as they impose the increases in prices on products which are essentially being taxed without a word of consent or otherwise by the consumers and the people of the country. Never has there been such a

flagrant example of the principle of taxation without representation as in the case of alcoholic spirits and wines in this country.
Then there is a confession. Item No. 2 in the ways and means motion is an abject confession of failure. However, the hon. gentleman who is responsible for this particular tax is no longer here. He sits in the wings in Toronto and is known as that "blue eyed" man. I think that this is a legacy of the 1973-1974 era when there was a 5 per cent special excise tax on large motorcycles and 10 per cent special excise tax on boat motors exceeding 20 horsepower. I believe that there is one new government minister who, I am sure, would remember that incident very much, because at that time there was a question of a leak when there was a change in the budgetary proposal with regard to the size of the motors.
At the time it was ecologically right to impose these taxes because we were facing an energy crisis, and the object was to cut down on the consumption of gasoline. Therefore it was decided that the government would cut out large motorcycles, outboard motors in excess of 20 horsepower, and all but the smallest of aircraft used perhaps in the north where there was a special circumstance. The then minister of finance had to be kicked all around this House by members on both sides in order to amend this proposal. Now, according to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) with regard to Bill C-42, we face an even greater shortage of energy. But the government proposes to repeal this tax, thereby confessing that it had nothing to do with the conservation of energy outside of the fact that it was a special tax which raised incidental revenue. It was a worthless exercise, but now it enables the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to claim that he is a jolly good fellow for removing it. It was an empty gesture, ill-conceived, and now is quite readily being removed.
The third item of the ways and means motion deals with the metrification of gasoline and it delimits the tax per litre. That is nothing new and is simply a technical amendment. We now know that gasoline shall be sold as "gasoline, premium, no lead", "gasoline, grade 1", "gasoline, grade 2" and "gasoline, no lead" and "diesel fuel". Then we have the metrification of aviation gasoline which I do not think should concern us too much.
Section 5 delimits specifically the authority to impose a penalty on default of payment of tax due within the time limit specified in the regulations. A person who files a false or defective tax refund claim in regard to gasoline will be liable to a jail sentence. I have not read what the penalty will be but I am sure there will be a provision for a jail sentence. This government loves to put people in jail.
Next we have the technical amendments. The most interesting is paragraph 10 of the ways and means motion which is an amendment to part XVIII or schedule III, dealing with building materials. I remember when a former minister of finance, Mr. Turner, brought in an amendment with regard to thermal insulation materials designed exclusively for the insu-
March 19, 1979

lation of buildings. That is what was inserted in the act, but we had trouble with the definition. It took two years to convince the government, on behalf of a manufacturer in Edmonton and one elsewhere, that wheat straw compressed under high pressure steam, a form of insulation board manufactured for the last 30 years, was in fact an insulating material. Because it stood up and could be used between the joists in steel buildings and in roofs as purely an insulating material, the department decided that while it was originally an insulating product, it was also designed to give strength to the building. It therefore did not qualify.
I made two direct appeals, going up the scale through officials in the department, through the deputy minister, to the minister. I provided samples of the material and descriptive literature and won a part concession, but the final answer was no. My constituents had to pay thousands and thousands of dollars which, of course, they in turn collected from their customers. Eventually, someone in the province of Quebec took a case to court. The court agreed with us, and then the department had to refund to my client and a number of other manufacturers of the same type of materials, the tax they had paid.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to find any record of how much the department had to refund as a result of that errant interpretation, nor under what item the tax was refunded. When we reach this particular point in committee of the whole I trust that the parliamentary secretary will alert the minister and see that he is provided with the information I want.
We now have a much more precise definition. It may make sense. It would be interesting to know what types of insulating materials will now be excluded from this definition as it is worded.
There is one measure that is to the advantage of everybody. I do not suppose anyone had thought about how high the excise tax was on trailers that are used as homes. We have a very mobile population today, Mr. Speaker. People working in the oil fields, and on construction sites removed from major urban centres, live in these trailers year round. I suppose at one time they were deemed to be pleasure vehicles-something you took to the lake in summer. They were deemed to be a luxury item and as such attracted a 25 per cent tax on the sale or duty paid value.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) will speak about the increase in the user tax and sales tax for people using Department of Transport installations. The parliamentary secretary had a lot to say at the beginning. I think he said there was going to be a cut of half of 1 per cent in the cost of living as a result of the reduction from 12 per cent to 9 per cent in the manufacturers sale tax. He then did not say how much the increase in the user tax at the airports will increase the cost of living by the increase in the cost of travel. Considering that the majority of travel in this country is by air, how much does he think the Ministry of Transport will collect as a result of that
Excise Tax Act
increase in tax? That is rather a substantial amount. Let us read paragraph 17:
The ad valorem tax imposed on the amount paid or payable for transportation of a person by air within the taxation area,-
That is Canada. The paragraph continues:
-as defined for purposes of part II of the said act, be increased to the lesser of 15 per cent and such amount as may be prescribed by order of the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport.
Paragraph 18 of the ways and means motion reads:
The specific tax imposed on the amount paid or payable for transportation of a person by air from a point within the taxation area, as defined for purposes of part II of the said act, to a point outside of the taxation area-
That is from Canada to the United States. The paragraph continues:
-be increased to the lesser of $15.00 and such amount as may be prescribed by order of the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport.
That is a substantial increase. In some of our airports in Canada this is downright taxation. It is not a user fee, it is downright confiscation. Take the Edmonton International Airport, for example. The daily passenger use of that terminal is far in excess of anything even estimated for 1985. Incoming passengers from abroad going through customs, for over a year and a half, until last June when some minor amendments were made, were handled just like cattle. We unload hogs and beef cattle at packing plants with greater respect than we handle passengers coming off planes late at night. We are told that people will have to put up with this situation until 1982 when the new facilities are expected to be in place. The traffic is increasing all the time and the conditions get worse. But what is happening? It is just like the Post Office, the service goes down but the fees go up.
If I say this applies in Edmonton, I say it applies in other air terminals as well. For example, the situation in Ottawa is terrible. For a national capital to have an air terminal with such poor facilities is ludicrous. There is insufficient parking for the public. In so far as the passengers are concerned they do not have proper facilities. Checking in is a mad scramble, and yet we are all to pay the same fees.
It is a pleasure to go into the Mirabel of the west at Calgary. This air terminal was supposed to cost something between $30 million and $40 million and came in at $138 million or $148 million. A good part of that was sheer incompetence and procrastination on the part of the Ministry of Transport because it took so long to build. With escalating costs, this business of stretch-out is a losing game in so far as government is concerned.
The government thinks it can stretch projects. This is what it has done in the city of Edmonton. The government says, "Defer for a year, stretch it out." But by doing this, in the end it costs maybe twice or three times as much. This is the shortsightedness of some government policies. This short sightedness not only applies to the federal government, it also applies to municipalities where some city councils have decid-

March 19, 1979
Excise Tax Act
ed, for one reason or another, that they will push off certain needed improvements by reason of the fact that they say, "We will save a few mills", or they may think they can save half a mill on the municipal tax for the year in question. The only thing is that it will cost a mill or a mill and a half the following year, or two years later. This is total false economy. That is one of the worst practices that government at all levels in this country inflicts upon Canadian citizens. It is a shortsighted view, and in my opinion should not apply.
I come now to another area that has been drawn to my attention. It is unfortunate the government has not brought forward the appropriate measure for the finance committee to consider, the commodities tax, the whole of the manufacturers sales tax, not only the philosophy of it but its definition; the rigidity with which rulings are applied, and the horse and buggy age for which the Sales Tax Act schedules are usually applicable.
In another context, dealing with the Bank Act, I have always felt that we were not legislating for the future but were trying to legislate for the year of the quill pen. It is precisely that which we are doing with this particular act. As a matter of administration, under sales tax, clauses are split. One gets the most fantastic interpretations of the English language with the actual position of the words. If the Department of Finance drafters and the Department of Justice people who put together the legislative amendments to the schedules of the act do not carry out precisely with the language the intention of the Minister of Finance, then the whole purpose of any tax change proposed by the Minister of Finance, accepted, amended or rejected by this House, or part of it, still gets a different interpretation and a different application than that given by the Minister of Finance. Once we have interpretation bulletins filling the books, like the one I have here for the Department of National Revenue, Excise Department, nothing short of dynamite, total repeal of the act or anything based on it will change those interpretations.
I was given a classic example this afternoon by a dentist who now runs a dental supply firm. I have not been able to find the example in the myriads of definitions of the act, but if we go to dental materials it says: "impression materials". In other words, anything used to take an impression of a tooth, gums or of the mouth for the purpose of dentures or various tooth repairs, are exempt. They come under the general exemptions for health items. At page 390 of whatever book it was in-I have not found it yet-is what is called dental materials extension. These items are precisely the same as the impression materials. They are subject to tax. One classification is coe-flex, a material for taking an impression in the mouth. That is deemed to be taxable. Another is jel-cone, a silicone based rubber type material. It is taxable. Another item is called jel-trate, made of sodium alginate. It is taxable. Another is methyl-methacycrilate which is taxable. Another item, ortho-cryl, is taxable, while microlon is non-taxable. The chemical base and composition of both of them are the same. One is taxable, the other is not. Both are used for the same purpose, but there is a difference in treatment.
I cite this as rather a minor item, but it shows the jungle that small businessmen have to go through and the sheer frustration they suffer. When they look through the schedules and the excise bulletins, as do the officials who have to explain them, these people suffer utter frustration. They see one item that is composed of certain materials and is of a particular use which is taxable, and another item composed of the same materials for basically the same purpose which is non-taxable.
The last item I want to draw to the attention of the House is another incident which applies in Bill C-42. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others have protested against making rules for this House by statute. The provision for closure in C-42 is totally unacceptable to this House. It should be. By statute we are getting different modes of closure and different modes of procedure.
Let us look at what happens in this bill. Clause 16 deals with an order made under clause 15. Subclause (3) of clause 16 determines how the motion shall be dealt with by a parliament. Clause 16(1) and (2) reads:
(1)	An order under section 15 shall be laid before parliament not later than the fifteenth sitting day of parliament after it is issued.
(2)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the thirtieth sitting day of parliament after it has been laid before parliament pursuant to that subsection unless before the twentieth sitting day of parliament after the order has been laid before parliament a motion for the consideration of either House, to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than fifty members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House and by not less than twenty members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
Then it determines how those motions shall be debated and for how long. There will be a five hour debate. I quote from subclause (4):
-on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiry of the fifth such hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposal of the motion.
Here is another closure motion. Are we going to get this as a regular practice in every bill, that it will be provided that there shall be a motion for some consideration by parliament, that parliament will be able to debate that motion for three, five, ten or 20 hours, and then it will be brought to an end? What an easy way out for a government to take. We will be told ahead of time, by statute, how long parliament shall debate any question.
After the next election parliament will be composed of 280 members. Following the next census, it may be over 300 if the stupid act we have on the record continues to prevail and we simply expand the numbers in this House beyond reason. The hours of debate will remain the same and the closure will be even tighter. This is one provision of which we do not approve.
We will not approve closure by statute. If it was wrong in Bill C-42, the petroleum application bill, it is wrong in this bill and will be wrong in any other bill, if we are going to be

March 19, 1979

consistent. I recommend to my colleagues that we be consistent in that regard. There is nothing worse than saying at this time when there is no question before the House that in three, four or five years we will have a debate that will take five hours and no more. The time of the House cannot be extended merely by unanimous consent. The House is powerless because it is a statute that is binding on this House. The Chair has absolutely no discretion. It cannot even ask whether the debate will be extended or not, even though the House be desirous of it.
I am amazed that government leadership would attempt to put such features into statutes. They are going to be sitting over here too. What is healthy for parliament is the ability to discuss, not under a statutory limitation of debate. That is not good for democracy. It is not good for parliament. That is the jackboot of the temporary majority. Temporary majorities have been wrong more than they have been right, and they have imposed more abuses than they have cured.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the acting House leader to tell us what the business is to be for tomorrow and Wednesday if at all possible-we do not want to get into more confusion as we did today. Perhaps the hon. member might give some direction to the minister and to the House.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any need to give directions to any of my colleagues in the cabinet, but it might be useful to give some to the hon. member. In any event, in response to his question, the energy bill, C-42, will be voted on tomorrow at report stage and, if there is unanimous agreement, we would proceed to third reading. Following that it is the intention to call the Bank Act extension bill for third reading. That is an urgent priority and I presume it could be dealt with rather quickly-it is a very short bill. We could then continue with Bill C-38, presently under consideration, and after its rapid passage I presume we could deal with Bill C-37, the income tax bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, will the energy bill be called?


Norman Augustine Cafik: The energy bill will be dealt with tomorrow at report stage. When amendments are dealt with, rule 74(13) indicates that the third reading stage would be taken at the next sitting of the House if there were not unanimous consent.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on March 6, I questioned the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) with regard to a published admission by her departmental officials that six of the nine members of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission came from Quebec, two from the prairies, and one from Belfast, Ireland. I asked her whether she would replace this member from overseas with one from the Canadian province of British Columbia which has no representation. The minister's answer was no answer. She said:
The Commissioners of the CRTC are not nominated to represent regions. They are nominated for their knowledge of the matters with which they have to deal.
A remarkable answer, Mr. Speaker. British Columbians, who have watched the insensitive, if not vindictive actions of the CRTC in British Columbia, did not need to be told the CRTC is not only unrepresentative of the region but it imposes its narrow nationalism, its own preferences, on our province. Seven times they have improvised vindictive policies, virtually bullying lower mainland citizens and totally ignoring their wishes.
Every Canadian, especially one who, like myself, has worked in the journalistic, creative and broadcasting professions, wants to nurture Canadian stations, Canadian content, and Canadian culture. So concerned was I with helping western Canadian talent grow that shortly before I came here I created a registered B.C. company with two divisions called "Contemporary Content" and "Canadian Content". But no good creative person wants to wallow in the mediocrity that follows when competition is shut out and we are so protected that we work in sheltered cultural workshops.
In Vancouver and the lower mainland we have six Canadian stations on the primary dial-three Canadian network stations, one joint network, one private station, and the community station. We have four American stations including two unimpaired channels and one engaged in "public broadcasting". Now the CRTC has authorized an expenditure of $6 million 20 miles away in Victoria for a second, redundant, CBC station and a second, redundant, CTV outlet, CHEK TV, which carries both CBC and CTV, Victoria.
The minister admits the CRTC commissioners do not represent the region. One has to ask if the "expertise" and knowledge she discusses, from Belfast, Ireland, is better for Canadians and Canadiana than would be the case if the commissioners came from nine regions of Canada rather than two-thirds from one province and one from Ireland.

March 19, 1979
Adjournment Debate
One must also ask if the commissioner, who said her original home was Ireland-no one asked for her birthplace-was seeking the same thing as a member of parliament in the late nineteenth century, that is, General Laurie, the member for Shelbourne, Nova Scotia, from 1888 to 1891, who returned to the Isle of Wight upon retirement but demanded that his passage between the British Isles and Ottawa be paid by the Government of Canada. When one looks at these expenses of the CRTC, one wonders whether she, the commissioner, got her travel expenses. I do not think she did, but it is a good question, one that I have not asked yet.
Whether the designation of original home as Belfast, Ireland, was the actual home before she came to Ottawa, or whether this was an attempt to be cute, this response to a question from a member of parliament is good reason why she should be replaced by someone from British Columbia, or even from the maritimes which have no representation. No doubt the replacement of her colleague, Roy Faibish, whose record is well known in the House and was reported by me on October 31, would enhance rather than diminish the CRTC.
Both the east and west coast regions have an absolute right to membership in this exclusive club, a club which, in the past two and a half years, has spent more than $350,000 in tax dollars that we can trace on travel to B.C. hotels and that does not include the salaries which range from a minimum of $35,000 to $67,700, also paid by the taxpayers who earn one sixth of the salary for which they pay.
Members of the regulatory board of communications should be broad in intellectual and communication experience, should have competence, a sense of justice and wisdom to serve the diverse and complex needs of this great land. They must possess the highest level of experience and a reputation for success in communication and contemporary technology. They should not be disabled intellectually, or warped to the extent of the male member who demonstrated his great prowess in Vancouver on October 24 in a rather perverse way, with an expertise which seemed to concentrate on the nether regions of the human anatomy.
There is an intellectual disability which has manifested itself, in at least the lower mainland of British Columbia, in the form of a nationalistic bigotry, a bigotry and narrowness which would impose their centre-Canada ego and consequent mediocrity on the rest of this nation, which demands and yearns for richness and understanding of the whole colour and pageantry of the real Canada. Lower mainland British Columbia has had to accept-for too long-the output of cliques in Toronto and Montreal.
In saying that the commissioners are not nominated to represent regions but are nominated for their knowledge, the minister begs the question: What knowledge? What were the criteria on which these people were selected, if not on a representative basis? The chairman is a geographer from Montreal who earns between $51,900 and $67,700. The deputy chairman is a lawyer from Montreal. That is hardly a necessary qualification for communications. The other deputy

chairman is a mathematician. Mr. Faibish, to whom reference has been made, was a broadcasting executive. There are lawyers, law professors and engineers. These are hardly qualifications that enhance this important assignment.
In conclusion I would just like to paraphrase Arnold Toynbee, in reference to the non-reply by the minister to my question, when the former said before the UN in 1979, "We will not accept annihilation of freedom of choice without representation."


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to direct my comments to my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). Many times I find I agree with what she says in this venerable House, and there are times I do not. This happens to be one of the times that I do not, but I do not think the hon. member will hold me in any less esteem for that particular expression this evening.
Apparently the hon. member suggested that the CRTC has neglected or is not fully capable of understanding the concerns of the citizens of British Columbia because none of the commissioners was born in British Columbia. There are several points to be made in response to this suggestion. As the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) said in the House, and I tend to agree with her, CRTC commissioners are chosen primarily because of their knowledge and experience, not because of their birthplaces and not as representatives of regions.
It is appropriate that it is just after St. Patrick's Day because sometimes I have called the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway a bit of a leprechaun. Perhaps we can look upon the hon. member this evening as being somewhat impish in her presentation to us and in making suggestions. Of course impish is not the same as being leprechaunish. Impish because, as I am sure the hon. member was aware when she made her suggestion, the CRTC commissioner in question indicated some time ago that she intended to retire from the CRTC in April. Impish also because, as I suspect the hon. member is aware, a CRTC commissioner can be removed only for cause.
I would hope the hon. member does not mean to suggest that being born in Ireland is just or sufficient cause to disqualify a person from serving in the Canadian government as an elected or appointed official. If this were the case, I can think of at least one member of the House of Commons who certainly would not qualify. In fact there are quite a few of our colleagues who certainly would not qualify. I am thinking of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), and the hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert). Certainly they were not born in this country, but they are fine, upstanding, and very capable members of the House of Commons.
It is the duty of CRTC commissioners to ensure that the policies made by the House of Commons are applied equally in all provinces. For example, this means that the French service
March 19, 1979

of the CBC must be carried on cable television in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, just as it must be in Vancouver. If parliament no longer wishes its national policies to apply nationally, then it will be up to parliament to change those policies for the CRTC and for the country. If it wants to make exceptions for certain provinces, then parliament must do so. But the hon. member should be under no illusion that parliament's will can be evaded simply by adding or subtracting members from regulatory bodies such as the CRTC.
Perhaps the hon. member is being somewhat impish tonight. This theory may have merits and may have a certain logic which is being expounded tonight. However, I find it somewhat strange that the hon. member should espouse this theory since, if the parliamentary guide is correct, she was born in Alberta, educated in Manitoba, and also appears to be a late arrival in British Columbia.


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


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-ALLEGED IMPROPER DESIGNATION OF &quot;BILINGUAL&quot;
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, on December 22 I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) a question regarding Mr. Yalden's report. The question arises over an item in which Mr. Yalden stated that there are many people who are classified officially bilingual but who are not in fact. We have heard a great deal about this problem, and the debate on bilingualism increases. I do not think that this increase in the level of discussion is meant with any malice, but it is a very serious matter, is very divisive, at least in the eyes of most, and it is not getting at the real cause of the problem.
The Commissioner of Official Languages in his statement was critical especially of English-speaking public servants who were declared bilingual and who were receiving salaries commensurate with this classification. It was suggested that some of these people could not discuss last night's hockey game in the second official language.
The news item implied that most offenders were something that they really were not, and they were English-speaking public servants. In fact, anyone who deals with government realizes that many French-speaking civil servants are unable to perform adequately in the second official language. This is not meant on my part as an indictment of any particular person. It is always difficult to work in a second language without long practice and repeated use of that second language. This is perhaps only an illustration of the emotion with which this problem is posed to Canadians.
It is perhaps easy for national politicians to come forward with some solutions, and it is easy to say that if only certain concessions are made to the citizens of Quebec all would be well. The fundamental problem is not one of bilingualism, but what the relationship of Quebec with the rest of Canada might
Adjournment Debate
be. When one observes what has happened in the last ten to 12 years in Quebec I think one can get some indication of how the people in that province feel. Whether they were Union Nationale, Liberals, or now of the Parti Quebecois, in the last dozen years they have wanted to preserve their own cultural identity, their customs and language, and to make what they consider is a better place for themselves in their own province.
I would not want to disregard their aspirations, but all of these efforts are at the expense of Canada. There is little difference between Bill 22 and Bill 101. While Quebeckers wished to have a uniquely French language and culture, they have complained that in the rest of Canada the French language and culture should be maintained for their benefit.
A prominent person on the Ontario educational TV network made it clear that he was talking about language and culture. He wanted to have a language and culture that was French in nature wherever he went in the rest of Canada. For him this was not wrong in itself, and it is understandable, but it creates problems for the rest of Canada which may never be resolved. Indeed, to accede to this person's point of view would mean that other languages and cultures would take a back seat-in effect, a type of melting pot culture.
We have borrowed much from Britain which, over the centuries, has absorbed waves of refugees from Europe. In fact this makes the present British culture. In the last two centuries we have had the American tradition, which again has meant the assimilation of many peoples of different languages and cultures, with a type of English language with its own distinctive Americanism. I think this is an important facet of Canadi-anism outside the province of Quebec, where the melting-pot function is at work with the fusion of many peoples into one Canadian identity.
Therefore, the aspirations of the people of Quebec in the language and culture idea are diametrically opposed to the assimilation and melding of various peoples. Few of the various races that make up the Canadian mosaic outside the province of Quebec are interested in maintaining their own language and culture to the exclusion of the Canadian identity. Looked at in this light, it seems hardly likely that the present system of bilingualism, which was of necessity present in the civil service long before this legislation was conceived, is the best basis on which the Quebecois and the rest of Canada can continue and have a lasting arrangement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's first original question, let me say that I think the use of the term "bilingual" by him is as unfortunate as the use of the word "phony" by the Commissioner of Official Languages when describing public servants occupying positions requiring the use of both official languages. Some public servants are very fluent in both languages, others are not. The point is that no definition exists as to what is a true bilingual and what is not.
Official languages policies speak of languages proficiency requirements, but these are not so universal as to represent a

March 19, 1979
Adjournment Debate
definition of what is bilingual. Employees occupying "bilingual positions" must, unless otherwise exempted, meet the specific proficiency requirements of a given position. If they so meet those requirements, they are referred to as being bilingual when, in fact, it really means that they are proficient to the level required for that particular position. When the commissioner speaks of "phony bilinguals", he is basing his assumptions on his own personal definition of the term "bilingual": one which, however, does not exist in the public service.
In 1972 the then president of the treasury board explained that "bilingualism" means different things in different jobs. In some positions it means only the ability to deal with simple and straightforward questions in the two languages. In others, it means an ability to understand the other language well, but to speak it only passably well. Again in others it means an ability to speak and understand both languages as commonly used, whereas in still other positions it means a greater capacity to speak and understand both common and technical language.
Take for example two hypothetical positions requiring the use of both official languages: an elevator operator and a government negotiator. Obviously the language proficiency requirements for these two jobs will be different. If the occupants meet the language requirements they are said to be bilingual, according to the public service use of the word. According to Mr. Yalden's definition, however, the elevator operator whose job requires a very limited vocabulary to perform his duties could be a phony bilingual, although he or she meets the criteria for the job.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-FUNDING OF MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have raised several questions in this House concerning the medicare program, and I want to ask certain further questions with respect to that program. The fact of the matter is that the medicare program is one of the critical foundations and keystones of Canadian society at the present time. When it was introduced in 1966 it quickly became clear that it was something which the Canadian people not only wanted but expected.
We ought to look very carefully at the assumptions which underlie the Medical Care Act. There is the assumption that there would be universal medical insurance and that medical care and hospital care would no longer be dependent on one's economic strength in order to be able to survive and to have access to decent medical care. Since that time there has not been a clear commitment from either the provincial or federal governments or, I am sad to say, from parts of the medical community itself, to the principles that were established in the 1960s and that, indeed, go back to the experiences of the CCF in Saskatchewan in the 1940s and the 1950s.
The first watering down of this program came from the federal government. It is one of the ironies that the federal government convinced the provinces to go into the plan on the

basis that there would be 50-50 funding, and then it turned around, when it became apparent to them that this was not going to be a free proposition and that it would cost certain amounts of money, and reduced their long-term financial commitment by passing the Established Programs Financing Act in 1977.
I might point out that we were the only party to warn the government at that time that the effect of introducing this program would be to reduce in the long run the commitment of our federal government to maintain the principles of universality and accessibility, which are the principles behind the plan. The federal government abandoned its role of being responsible in some way for the administration of the program and left that to the provinces.
In the course of the debate in 1976 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he was taking a gamble, and the then minister of national health and welfare said at that time that it would be unthinkable for the provinces or for the federal government to move away from the principle of universal medical care. As I said earlier today, however, the unthinkable has happened and is happening, and the gamble has not paid off. The government now finds itself in the position of being faced with the erosion of a plan-and I am using the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin)- and of not having the means and the capacity to deal with the problems in the plan.
The fact of the matter is that there are several problems in the plan at the present time. There are doctors leaving the plan and charging a surcharge of up to and over 30 per cent. People were coming into members' offices and showing us doctors' bills, wanting to know if they were forced to pay them. They wanted to know why their doctors were not in the plan. Those were reasonable questions and gave rise to very real fears for people who cannot afford high medical fees.
The second practice which concerns us is double billing and the provinces that allow it. In this case doctors are not only billing the medical insurance plan but are also billing the patients individually. This gets away from the principle which should have been protected by the federal government, that medical care does not depend on income. Citizens are insured either by the provincial program without premiums or the provincial program with premiums.
Finally, there is the question of deterrent fees. Some provinces have introduced fees for long term stays in hospital. In September, 1976, in Vancouver, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said:
Health insurance today encourages people to abuse the system by making unnecessary trips to doctors-
He suggested that all or a portion of the cost of a doctor's visit should be shown as taxable income for the patient, and that something like a T-4 form could be issued. His solution was to make the patient pay for the visit in another way. It is just a deterrent fee by the backdoor and moves away from the principle of universality. It puts fear into the hearts and minds
March 19, 1979

of people who feel their medical care system belongs to them. They do not want it taken away.
The basic problem is the illusion adopted by the government and by many of the provincial governments. The illusion is that medical care services can be limited, that you can get something for nothing. The doctors of this country are telling us that we cannot get something for nothing-if we want a medicare program we have to pay for it. I think the Canadian people are prepared to pay a reasonable price, Mr. Speaker.
It is this new conservatism, this ideology which has seized the minds of the Liberal party and the Conservative party- that the government which governs least governs best, and that all government spending is bad while all private spending is good. The government has limited itself, it has restricted itself, and it does not now have the means or the ability to deal with the provinces in a way that would enable them-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General (Mr. Collenette).


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) brought this subject to the attention of the House last week as I think it should be debated publicly. It is a very serious topic.
Before I answer, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the Liberal party is certainly not seized with a new conservatism. If it were I would not be standing here, nor would I be running in the next election under the Liberal party banner. I should like to put the hon. member at ease in that aspect.
The medicare program has been fundamental to the Liberal party's platform since the early 1960s.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since 1919.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is right-since the convention of 1919 when Mackenzie King became leader. It was finally implemented in the 1960s, and it is something to which members of this party are unequivocally committed.
I do not see any need to increase the federal contribution to the financing of medicare services in order that the provinces may meet the basic program condition of accessibility as required by the act.
The hon. member for Broadview referred to the established programs financing arrangements. These have been quite gen-
Adjournment Debate
erous to the provinces, but I should point out that it was the provinces that felt they were closer to the people and should have some say in the administration of the medical plan. The federal government took a gamble, perhaps, in instituting this somewhat decentralized system of government. I think one of the election issues in the next few weeks will be whether we will continue with this kind of arrangement whereby the federal government agrees that if the provinces want greater administrative control over certain programs they can have it.
The hon. member for Broadview is correct in drawing our attention to what has happened. The basic tenets of the medicare program, the universality with respect to population covered, the accessibility without excessive user charges, the portability of benefits-all of these could be in jeopardy. I think I need only repeat the reply given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during question period on March 9 to the Leader of the New Democratic Party when as reported at page 3990 of Hansard he said:
If anything is done by any province to depart from that principle, we would have to review the very high payment the federal government is making to the province in respect of half the cost of medicare.
It is quite clear; there is no equivocation. The hon. member for Broadview asked in question period this afternoon what legal authority the government has to withdraw funding from the provinces. I would think that the effective determination by the governor in council that a provincial plan had ceased to meet any of the conditions or the five basic points would mean there is no longer authority to make contributions. In other words, if they reneged on any of the basic commitments to medicare, then the federal government would have the moral and perhaps the legal authority to review the money advanced under the established programs financing arrangements. Again, I say, there must be no retrenchment, no equivocation on the basic medicare scheme of this country to which Canadians are entitled, which they want, and which they certainly deserve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Physician, heal thyself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A 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 10.32 p.m.

Tuesday, March 20, 1979