1973-12-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the administrative difficulties that will arise from the implementation of the head tax on travellers that has been proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the House instruct the Minister of Transport to delay the implementation of the proposed airport charge in order to allow time for consideration of alternative methods of financing airport expenses, and to allow further consultation between industry representatives and officials of his department.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the costly irrelevance and ineffectiveness of the Food Prices Review Board in regard to the problem of the Canadian consumer who is struggling to feed himself and his family against a 1.2 per cent increase in the consumer price index in the last month alone and a staggering 18.5 per cent increase in his food costs over the last 12 months. With consent, Mr. Speaker, I therefore propose to move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That his House recommends that the term of appointment of the five commissioners of the Food Prices Review Board be terminated by the government on December 31, 1973, instead of the present
date of December 31, 1974, and this House urges that the consequential savings in public money of over $1 million be used to assist those Canadians who are unable to buy adequate and nutritious food at present food price levels.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has procedural reservations about the form of a motion of this kind. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley knows, as do other hon. members, that Standing Order 43 is used in very special circumstances and that if members choose to use the provisions of Standing Order 43 they should not take advantage of the rules to put argument on the record which, under the practice of the House, cannot be answered by hon. members who may not agree with the argument put forward in support of the motion. Having said that, I will ask whether there is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity. Therefore the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the increase in the consumer price index of 9.3 per cent from November, 1972, to November, 1973, I should like to ask whether he is going to come out of hiding before the recess and present a clear picture to the House of the government's economic policies with regard to this enormously shattering experience ordinary Canadians are undergoing?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have been visible but the hon. gentleman has chosen to direct his question elsewhere in recent weeks. I am glad to reply to him at this time and say that of course price rises continue to be disturbing, but the recent figures again reflect a rise in food prices which is the result of an imbalance again in supply and demand. I have dealt with this issue-


Mr. McGrath:: Hogwash!

December 11, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: I have dealt with this issue thoroughly at every opportunity we have been given in the House of Commons. The government's policies have been well illustrated to the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the continuing escalation in the rate of inflation in this country on a year to year basis, and month by month, with the rate increase now at almost 10 per cent, is it the intention of the minister to announce any new measures? As this condition is spreading throughout the whole economy and is not simply confined to food as the minister would like to suggest, is he going to introduce any effective measures or is he going to let inflation run away in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the thrust of inflation continues to be an imbalance in supply and demand in food commodities, in non-food commodities and in fuel, none of which, as I have indicated to the hon. gentleman and his colleagues, is subject to the type of policy he has been advocating. What the government has done instead is to introduce policies that will increase the supply and thereby render more chance of an equilibrium in prices in this country and, second, moderate the erosion of prices on the purchasing power, and the savings of Canadians by buttressing their incomes. More cash has been made disposable by commodity tax reductions, and by protection of families in the lower and fixed income scales by raising and escalating old age pensions and raising and escalating family allowances and that type of measure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When is the Minister of Finance finally going to be prepared to recognize that the policies he is following or not following are leading the country and ordinary Canadians to disaster?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a supplementary.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASE-SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC TAX INCENTIVES TO INCREASE PRODUCTION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the House when the government intends to introduce specific tax incentives aimed at inducing an increase in production which will bring it up approximately to the level of the increased demand present today so that inflation may be controlled and so that the skyrocketing cost of living may be stopped?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is some substance in the hon. gentleman's question to the extent that he recognizes that the problem at the moment in the economy is not on the demand side but on the shortage of supply. He recognizes quite properly that we must increase productive facilities. What he

fails to remember are the measures brought forward by the government and enacted by parliament by way of corporate tax incentives to manufacturing and processing industries which have had the effect of increasing capital investment intentions in this country by 15 per cent in 1973 over 1972, by an estimated 20 per cent in 1974 over 1973, and in the manufacturing and processing industry by over 40 per cent.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the measures which the minister has mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -obviously are not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. member was going to make a speech rather than ask a question. I know the hon. member never does that. The Chair will, of course, recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, then the hon. member for York South and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue who have sup-plementaries, and then we will continue with further supplementaries on this very important subject. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: I was simply saying that as the measures mentioned by the minister are not working and as it is now evident that the government does not intend to introduce these very necessary taxation incentives, will the minister advise the House when he is going to replace his present indolence with action and get the economy of this country moving? When is he going to do that?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


CONSUMER PRICE INDEX INCREASE-REQUEST THAT THERE BE NO FURTHER TAX CONCESSIONS TO CORPORATIONS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since the tax concessions which he introduced and which were passed by the House with the assistance of Conservative members obviously have not worked and cannot work, will the minister assure the House that he does not intend to present the corporations of this country with another half a billion dollars that will again be wasted?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could not disagree more thoroughly with the hon. gentleman's preamble.


INCREASE IN COST OF HOUSING-POSSIBILITY OF NEW MEASURES UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT TO MEET NEED OF PEOPLE ON LOWER INCOMES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary on the general issue of the cost of living to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Based on the fact that the cost of housing went up about .8 of one per cent and the statement by the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation appealing to builders in this country to build homes for lower income people, may I ask the minister whether this urgent need in
December 11, 1973

Canada will be met by any new and more effective measures by his department under the National Hoysing Act?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the assisted home ownership plan which parliament passed is designed specifically to fill the needs of low and moderate income people.


An hon. Member:: Is that all you have?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is beginning to take effect and it is working extremely well in most parts of the country. The statement to which the hon. member referred concerns the metropolitan Toronto area where the president of CMHC was making a very special appeal to builders to take advantage of the program.


INCREASE IN COST OF HOUSING-SUGGESTED FISCAL ACTION TO STOP GOUGING BY DEVELOPERS
David Lewis: May I put a final supplementary question, again to the Minister of Finance. It has been pointed out in statistics and in statements by leaders of the building industry that the price of houses is almost totally unrelated to the cost of land, to the cost of labour or to the cost of materials because of the way in which home builders and developers are taking advantage of the immense demand in this country and are gouging home buyers beyond reason. May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he will give consideration, if he has not already done so, to an effective fiscal measure to stop this housing gouging of people who try to buy homes by developers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I take into full account the statement that the hon. gentleman has just made and of course I will continue to consult my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
[ Translation]


SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION OF DIVIDEND BY BANK OF CANADA TO OFFSET FOOD PRICE INCREASES
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
Since food prices have increased by 9.3 per cent while wages have risen by 3 to 5 per cent, would the minister seriously consider the distribution of a national dividend by the Bank of Canada in order to gear the workers' purchasing power to the actual cost of living?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the remedy suggested by the hon. member is the appropriate one.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION TO BRING IMMEDIATE RELIEF TO CANADIANS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact
Oral Questions
the annual increase in the cost of food is 18.4 per cent, which represents the highest increase since 1951, and in view of the fact parliament may adjourn for the Christmas recess very soon, may I ask the Prime Minister what steps the government will take to bring immediate relief to Canadians by lowering the price of food in this country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question was already given.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the Prime Minister's answer. Perhaps I can redirect my question or perhaps the Prime Minister might want to answer it now.
I will put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether his government intends to act to do something about the disgraceful rise in food prices in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is showing contempt for the most serious problem facing this country today. Notwithstanding the fact he may have received the support of the NDP last night, that does not relieve him of his responsibility to do something about inflation in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: It is his responsibility to answer this question right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that I have answered both his questions but that the shouting on his own side has prevented him from hearing the answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just want to add, Mr. Speaker, that it is not my habit to raise my voice, as the hon. member does, to cover the shouting as he has to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to say with regard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crouse:: Who's shouting now?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-

December 11, 1973
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Now who's shouting?


Mr. Drury:: Hees!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They have done their job over there. They sold out their province the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I just want to say to the Prime Minister that I watched him very carefully and he deliberately-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am speaking on a point of order. He deliberately just said one or two words very quietly. I was listening with my earphone on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -and I would not have been able to hear him with my earphone if the House had been quiet. He did it deliberately to affront the House and to try to create a situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will not attempt to rule on the points of order that have been raised, but certainly there is a great deal of noise. I am not sure whether it comes from my left or my right or from where it comes, but it is difficult to hear both the questions and the answers that are given. I think hon. members might want to give members a chance to ask their questions and ministers an opportunity to reply so that we could all hear what is being said.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order. We have already spent five minutes on this matter, trying to get on with the first question. I would think that with a bit of good will we might be able to continue now with the question period.
Mr; Hees: My point of order is that if the Prime Minister would answer the questions put to him by the representatives of the people, serious questions wanting to know what the government is going to do to stop the rise in the cost of living we could get on with the question period a lot farther than we have. He sits in his chair and he sulks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: He is an absolute disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: If any of you guys want to step outside, I am ready for that too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a very valid point of order. Obviously it is a continuation of the dispute. I suggest to hon. members that they should forget about points of order for a moment and return to the question period which is being exhausted slowly but surely by these points of order.


Mr. Benjamin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is a request to you, Sir, to be good enough to deduct one question to be asked by a member of the Official Opposition each time they rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: You are not making the decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: I will deduct one point of order from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if you deducted the New Democratic Party from the opposition you might be doing this country a real service because they show no interest whatsoever in the people of Canada and this inflationary situation. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, who sits there smugly and complacently, if he can now give the House and the country the assurance that the government is prepared to act immediately to bring relief to Canadians who are suffering as a consequence of the 18 per cent annual increase in the cost of food?


George Harris Hees: Come on, little Lord Fauntleroy. Get on your feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver
Kingsway.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I believe the House and the country are entitled to know, especially on the eve of the adjournment of parliament for perhaps a six week recess, just exactly what this government proposes to do about the most serious problem facing the country today, namely, the 9 per ceot runaway rate of inflation and the 18 per cent annual increase in the cost of food.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway has been recognized by the Chair.


INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES-SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF EXCESS PROFITS TAX
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I have no intention of trying to outshout other hon. members, although I could.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 11, 1973


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the dramatic increase in profits in the food industry so far this year, for example, the 260 per cent profit increase on a 16 per cent in sales recorded by Ogilvy Flour Mills for the past six months, instead of the proposed handouts and incentives-


An hon. Member:: By the Tories.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, by the Tories-does the minister intend to introduce legislation to institute an excess profits tax to prevent further exploitation of the consumer?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is the type of budgetary measure that, if introduced, would be announced at the appropriate time.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. La Salle:: No, Mr. Speaker.
[ English]	.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER ACTION IN TERMS OF MONETARY, FISCAL AND EXCHANGE RATE POLICIES TO EXERCISE CONTROL
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that OECD studies now show that about 70 per cent of Canada's inflation is domestically induced and as the research department of the Bank of Montreal has stated that in their opinion a large part of inflation in Canada is homemade, does the minister still contend that there is nothing that can be done in terms of monetary policy, fiscal policy and exchange rate policy in Canada with regard to the rate of inflation that is taking place?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's position that the fiscal and monetary policies are about right in the present state of the economy and that the prime thrust of inflation is still induced by forces on the demand side from world-wide source.


George Harris Hees: And the weather is bad.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In all sincerity I wish to ask the Minister of Finance how he can possibly contend that our monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies, which are the levers that determine inflation and employment in this country, are correct when we have the inflation rate that we have and when it is now said by most students that two-thirds to 70 per cent of our inflation is coming internally and not externally?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. gentleman's contention that most observers of the economy have the same opinion as he has.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES- CONTINUATION OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been for the Prime Minister but in view of the fact he is not taking questions today-


An hon. Member:: He is sulking.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are not taking the answers.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -I will direct it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who I hope will be concerned about this problem because it affects the Atlantic provinces. In view of the report today from Statistics Canada that the unemployment rate in the Atlantic region now stands at 9.6 per cent-


An hon. Member:: Almost as high as inflation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -seasonally adjusted, and in view of the fact that as of December 31 this year the special development incentives provided in the minister's Regional Development Incentives Act will expire under section 9(3) (a), is the minister giving serious consideration to reviewing that expiration and has he initiated consultations with the appropriate provinces in order to consider whether action can be taken to alleviate the very serious situation in the Atlantic region?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the provinces and I have had such discussions. While I do not want to upstage them in terms of any announcements that ought to be made jointly-I think I have been consistent in making all announcements that have to do with the provinces jointly and have not tried at any point to upstage them-and do not want to be specific, I can hold out hope to the hon. member that the extension he is referring to with regard to the Regional Development Incentive Act probably will be announced before the end of the year.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER LOCAL INITIATIVES PROJECTS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that assurance and I hope I will have additional success, in view of the short term measures that might be taken, with a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the minister has said consistently that the allocation of local initiatives grants was related to the unemployment situation in the country, is his department giving serious consideration to the need for further projects in the Atlantic provinces because of the very large growth in unemployment there contrasted with other parts of the country?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that obviously would depend on the decision whether or not to provide additional funds for the Local Initiatives Program, which decision has not yet been taken.

December 11, 1973
Oral Questions


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact the minister is now in the process of disposing of over 200 acres of prime property formerly owned by the municipality of Burnaby, and in view of the fact this property was acquired for a nominal amount because of the world war II emergency, would the minister at least invite representatives of the municipality to participate in those negotiations with a view to returning this land to the municipality?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have met people from the municipality in question and discussed what the hon. member is suggesting. Negotiations have been in progress now for possibly two years and are still being carried on. No decision has as yet been arrived at.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: As the Department of National Defence returned the Jericho defence property in Vancouver for a nominal sum, would the minister now consult with others in the cabinet, particularly with the Minister of National Defence, with a view to developing some kind of consistent government policy in returning these world war II emergency properties to the municipalities?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, there is no comparison between the George Derby institution which looks after veterans and the munitions dump to which the hon. member has referred. There is no comparison.


PROPOSED SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE AND IMPORT OF OIL FROM SAUDI ARABIA-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
Can he tell us whether he has approached the Quebec government with a view to dissuading it from reaching an agreement with Saudi Arabia on the construction of an oil supertanker port, and the purchase of the oil required for consumption in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF CANADIAN EMBASSIES IN ALL ARAB OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.

Can he tell the House whether he intends to open Canadian embassies in all Arab oil producing countries in the near future since Arab countries without oil already have them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esguimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, as we seem to be getting some results from the Prime Minister, I will try this question on him. Is the government at least considering the introduction of policies designed to rectify the many economic dislocations in this country involving escalating interest rates, mortgage rates beyond the reach of many Canadians and rent increases that are at the origin of many domestic concerns, all caused by permitting a high rate of sustained inflation and encouraging a high level of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to consider every measure that will permit us to improve the economic situation.



AIR TRANSPORT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the inflationary impact and the administrative difficulties which the proposed airport head tax will create, may I ask the minister if he is giving any consideration to the request by the Air Transport Association of Canada for a delay in the implementation of the proposal in order to provide sufficient time for the consideration of viable alternatives inasmuch as the proposal as outlined by the minister is administratively unworkable under present conditions?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think this request is not reasonable. This subject was discussed at length in 1969. The problem was, at what time should this new tax be implemented. We think it is about time, if we do not want the general public to support the burden of the new tax, to put it on right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Has the minister received a telegram from the Air Transport Association of Canada outlining their objections to this new proposal and, if so, can he indicate the nature of his reply?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have
received this wire. I saw it about an hour ago. The reply has not been sent, but it will be sent today.
December 11, 1973



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can we anticipate any announcement by the government which will result in better co-ordination between departments whose policies have a direct bearing on inflation-I am thinking of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Treasury Board, the Department of Finance and the Department of Manpower and Immigration particularly- so they can act in a more unified way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the importance of consultation between all departments. We discussed this matter again today in the cabinet committee. I cannot say that there will be any announcement made in this regard, but I do hope we will be showing more and more that the government's various policies are interconnected and interdependent.


John Angus MacLean: I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. Has the Prime Minister established a cabinet committee to deal with the problem of inflation and try to contain it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, this is dealt with in the cabinet committee which deals with all the aspects of economic policy because we want to make sure that in the ways in which we deal with inflation we act in full awareness of the other aspects of the economy.



MANPOWER


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Two weeks ago the minister said in the House that he was considering the possibility of granting additional funds to counter the lack of money for local initiative projects. Today being December 11 and the unemployment situation having grown even worse, can the minister tell us whether he has made a decision and, if not, when he will be able to tell the House if there will be additional funds or not?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I answered a first question a few moments ago. No such decision has been made but I expect that to be done shortly.
Oral Questions



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is he now prepared to make public, of his own volition, the text of the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister on November 8 complaining about CBC coverage of his government in British Columbia and demanding discipline and to indicate precisely what kind of discipline he had in mind?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: No, I
am not, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, first, I did not hear the minister's answer; second, I have a supplementary. My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he prepared to assure the House that it is not the government's policy to interfere in the affairs of the CBC because it criticizes or allows criticism of government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize. I missed the previous question to which this one is now related.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Was it because there was too much noise on the Prime Minister's side of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, it is because I was speaking to the minister sitting next to me about more important things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to assure the hon. member that it is not our practice to interfere with the CBC.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister precisely what it is in his view that transcends the importance in this country of freedom of speech?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer that, let me point out to the House that the previous question was not addressed to me and therefore I felt entitled to talk to the minister by my side while that question was being asked and answered. That is why I said I could not refer to the previous question. As far as the statement in general that was made is concerned, I did give the answer.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister is leaning over and speaking to the reporter instead of talking to the House.


Mr. Nielsen:: The old arrogance is still there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to be accused of arrogance because I refuse to shout in this House to cover the noise that the hon. member is making.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 11, 1973
Oral Questions



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the interest of saving aviation fuel, has the minister, his department or any other agency of government issued a directive asking ministers and deputy ministers to use commercial airline services rather than government planes?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. All ministers were required to use Department of Transport aircraft only when necessary.



USE OF GOVERNMENT PLANE BY PRIME MINISTER FOR TRIP TO VANCOUVER

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister. By what authority was the government Jetstar plane used last weekend to fly to and from Vancouver, consuming 6,000 gallons of gasoline? Why was it used rather than other services?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I established the practice five years ago, and I intend to continue applying it unless the House decides to censure me, of using government aircraft for my travels within this country and, when possible, abroad in order to ensure that the inconvenience which would be caused to public users, if I were to use public transportation, would be avoided. There are many other reasons for doing this, Mr. Speaker, but I want to underline the one which is of particular importance to the public. When I have occasionally used public carriers it has happened that the carrier was delayed, sometimes for many hours, because when it is known that I am going to make a flight it does happen that there are bomb scares and it is necessary to keep the aircraft on the ground for a matter of hours. It has also happened that certain citizens have complained and have even asked the government to pay them damages for the time they have been caused to wait because of the fact I was to fly on that aircraft.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I thank the right hon. member for his explanation, but it is reported the aircraft was used so the Prime Minister could attend a Liberal rally in Vancouver. Will the cost of the use of this plane be charged to the consolidated revenue fund or will the cost be paid out of the Prime Minister's own travelling expenses?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of putting the record straight I would want to indicate that I not only attended a fund raising dinner, which was extremely successful and which caused a lot of funds to be raised for the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I also attended a public function, which had nothing to do with the party, at the city hall in Vancouver having to do with the Jericho Beach transaction and also having to do with the trip of the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to China as a result of my very successful trip to China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Finally, I attended another public function in Chilliwack the next day, namely, a Santa Claus parade, which was important to the community of Chilliwack. If it had the by-product of helping our friend, Jerry Pringle, I am happy about that too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have noted that the question period will expire in about two minutes. It has not been a very productive question period.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister about the criteria he has laid down regarding the use of planes and so on for the office that he holds. Will the Prime Minister now say that in the present emergency he will be practicing conservation in the use of energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, before taking this trip to Vancouver I did suggest to my staff that we should go commercially. They verified that with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who gave me a direct preference on their part that I not go commer'-ially because it was well known that I was going to Vancouver. As I indicated a moment ago, the dinner had been widely publicized. When it is well known that I am travelling on a commercial aircraft, this is precisely the time when there are bomb scares, generally by crackpots because none has actually gone off under my feet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are in Scarborough rather than Edmonton.
December 11, 1973



FINANCE


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the need to conserve energy resources dictates in part the use of public transit should be encouraged over the use of the private automobile where practicable, is consideration being given to waiving the federal sales tax as it applies to purchases of equipment by public transportation commissions? If not, why not?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the representations the hon. member has added to his earlier remarks in the House, that is something I will take into consideration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the figures for inflation issued this morning and is directed to the Prime Minister. As the rate of unemployment and inflation is incredibly high in Quebec and the eastern provinces of Canada and is affecting low income people in particular in those areas, apart from the government's two-price policy for petroleum products what immediate measures are to be taken by the government to come to the aid of citizens in Quebec and the rest of eastern Canada, especially low income people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how immediate the hon. member means, but if he refers to the record he will see that just last week the government proposed and introduced legislation to ensure that the five eastern provinces in particular, to which the hon. member referred, would get the overwhelming share of the $190 million which was added to the budgets of the provinces by the federal government through our new equalization formula.


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.



REQUEST THAT AGENDA OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE IN JANUARY BE WIDENED TO INCLUDE ECONOMIC MATTERS

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the continuing utterances of the Minister of Finance in the House every month that the economic situation is disturbing to him, which is tantamount to admitting failure of the government's policies, and in view
Oral Questions
of the fact there are obviously no ideas coming from the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question rather than make a speech. We have reached the end of the question period. The hon. member was recognized as we reached the end. He should ask his question because I will have to call orders of the day.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Because energy supply and energy prices will inevitably affect the inflation and unemployment mess, will the Prime Minister consider widening the scope of the first ministers' conference in January to include a comprehensive study not just of energy but of the whole economic mess this country is in at present?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with that question in a positive way, but I would first point out to the hon. member that there is another interpretation, which is the right one, of the stance of the Minister of Finance, that no matter how much better Canada is performing compared with other countries, he still wants us to improve.
As for the suggestion that has been made, it is a very valid one. I must say it has been anticipated by the government in the sense that the energy conference dates I have proposed are immediately before the conference of Ministers of Finance to be attended by the federal Minister of Finance and provincial Ministers of Finance. They will, of course, be wanting to discuss the very matters suggested by the hon. member, at which time the federal minister will give the usual leadership to the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might ask a quick supplementary, following which I will call orders of the day.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion comes, of course, from one of the premiers and I understand that more are on the way. Can the Prime Minister tell the House if he has replied to the telegram he has already received about this matter from one of the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There must be a misunderstanding here, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is referring to the meeting on energy matters, he is, of course, correct in the sense that the provinces at the interprovincial meeting last summer decided to put this matter before us and to ask for a federal-provincial conference on the subject.
My response was twofold. First of all, I said that we had indeed asked that the subject of energy be put on the agenda of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference but this had been refused by the provinces themselves. Second, I said that we had already scheduled a meeting of the ministers responsible for energy. This was held a few weeks ago in Toronto and I think I wrote to the premiers-perhaps this is the letter the hon. member is referring to-who had asked for meetings at the first ministers' level, suggesting that as soon as the Toronto meeting was over I would be prepared to hear their suggestions regarding a date and an agenda for the first ministers' conference. I think I established a deadline of around December 7 to have responses from them. I have now written to them formally proposing the dates of
8620

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act January 23 and 24, and I am waiting for their response as to those dates and as to the agenda.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of additional supplementaries have been asked and in allowing the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham to ask his question and supplementary we have gone five minutes past the end of the question period. Perhaps we might pursue this matter tomorrow when I will recognize hon. members. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products 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 and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate on Friday afternoon of Bill C-236, I had spent some time indicating the great difficulty that had been created by this government's so-called oil policy because of the increasing division in this country, not only over assurance of supply of petroleum products but also over the cost of those petroleum products to the Canadian people. When the debate concluded on Friday afternoon I expected, as I think did many hon. members, that many of the questions that had not been answered by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), who unfortunately was not with us at that time, or by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), arising from the statement he made on Thursday, would make themselves clear over the weekend or possibly during the debate that took place yesterday. As all hon. members of the House and all Canadians now realize, not only has the situation not been clarified, but in some way the confusion and anxiety has increased.
Even a minister so directly responsible for the economic and social development of eastern Canada, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), was unable to say anything more except this, and I quote from his speech as reported at page 8590 of Hansard, the second column:
Prices are being kept down where possible, and those in greatest need are being helped. If other steps are found to be necessary, they will be taken.

That, as I read it, is the sum and substance of this minister's response to the very great economic and social hardships being faced by the people of eastern Canada. As I said on Friday, since September of this year the cost of home heating fuels for those living in the Atlantic provinces had increased by early December by some 20 per cent, and the increase shows no signs of abating. With respect to the present price differential that exists between eastern and western Canada, on an average basis it is something like 40 per cent. Consumers of home heating fuels in Quebec and Atlantic Canada are paying 40 per cent more for those fuels than their fellow citizens who are able to make use of domestic petroleum products. I want it to be abundantly clear that in the days and weeks to come this government will have a great deal to answer for in the perpetuation of this inequity. It is one of the most disturbing ironies that, in introducing his remarks on Thursday, the Prime Minister should refer to this kind of oil policy as a one Canada oil policy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Let me just give the House an example of the situation as it existed a few days ago compared with the situation existing in eastern Canada in September of this year. Beginning in St. John's, Newfoundland, which for some time now has had unusually high heating oil costs, the cost of a gallon of home heating fuel in September of this year was 31 cents; by December it had risen 3.7 cents to 34.7 cents a gallon. In Halifax, the price in September was 27.3 cents; by December the price had risen to 33.2 cents, an increase of 5.9 cents a gallon. The situation in Saint John and Fredericton I explained on Friday, so I will not repeat it. In Charlottetown, the price in September was 29.4 cents; by December it had risen to 35.3 cents. In Quebec City-I hope some of my colleagues opposite are listening closely-the price in September was 28 cents even; by December it had risen to 33.9 cents, an increase of 5.9 cents. In Montreal, the price was 27.5 cents in September; it has increased to 33.4 cents in December, an increase of almost 6 cents a gallon.
By comparison, the price of home heating fuels in Toronto, almost at the end of the distribution line for domestic oil, was 26.3 cents in September; by December it had risen exactly one cent, to 27.3 cents. The present cost of home heating fuel in Winnipeg, as reported I think by the Mohawk Oil Company, stands at 24.7 cents a gallon. If that does not represent one of the great inequities of recent time in a two Canada oil policy that has been proclaimed by the government, then I do not know what does. That this government, which has such a large number of members representing an area that is going to suffer increasingly this winter from high fuel costs, should be supported in its policy by my hon. friends to my left is just inconceivable. I wonder how much longer the country can accept the rationalization of this government that this policy makes good sense for the people of this country.
We have in effect two oil policies in which the price of domestic oil is now being ostensibly frozen for the duration of this winter, but the government says basically it is helpless to do anything about the cost of home heating fuels in eastern Canada. I know the Prime Minister said
December 11, 1973

there were two things in particular his government had done that would be of great assistance, and he mentioned specifically the Canada Assistance Plan. He talked about the benefits which would be there for the provinces which found it necessary to expand their programs to assist those people who were receiving welfare. We know only too well, in the first instance, that the very provinces which are faced with low income and aid-receiving families are the ones that are even less capable of increasing their own 50 per cent share in order to provide any valid assistance in this day and age of rapidly increasing costs.
Not only that, we know too that in this whole area of Quebec and Atlantic Canada, a great many of the people who will be very directly affected are not the people who would normally benefit from receiving Canada Assistance Plan payments. They are the people on very low incomes, marginal incomes one might even describe them, and I have noted no comment from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion indicating in what way these people would be assisted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And small industry.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, small industry, as my leader suggests, is in exactly the same position. Perhaps no place is more adversely affected than Prince Edward Island which has a total reliance for its energy on petroleum production. All the electricity used in Prince Edward Island comes from thermo-generating plants at the present time, and up to this date the cost of electricity in Prince Edward Island alone has increased by some 25 per cent.
The response of the government is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to talk about the way in which indexing of the guaranteed income supplement, old age security programs or even family allowances will be of particular benefit when we know in the first instance that indexing is not carried out on a regional basis but on a national one. For the life of me, I find it is almost impossible to believe that the Prime Minister would talk about indexing as being an equitable way to deal with these rapidly rising fuel costs for one part of the country when indexing will automatically be done on a national basis.
More than that, the whole concept of indexing means basically that in the index as it is produced every month there will be a significant factor as a basis for adjusting these various social assistance programs, but such is not the case. In the first instance there is certainly a lag time in these indices which would mean that by the time there was any response whatsoever on a quarterly basis we would be long past the point of basic need. Second, because it occupies only a very small proportion of the over-all consumer price index, some 5.3 per cent, and because the establishment of that amount under the consumer price index took place at a time when home heating costs were a much smaller proportion of the domestic budget, it would take literally years for Statistics Canada to make an adjustment in the home heating costs component in the over-all consumer price index. I wonder who the Prime Minister thinks he is fooling when he says that indexing of old age security and other social security
Energy Supplies Emergency Act programs will be of some direct benefit to those affected by high petroleum costs, particularly home heating. This is virtually an impossibility, and I would suggest to you that if the Prime Minister has given it any thought at all he knows that it is.
What is his final response? His final response is, and here I quote from his speech of last Thursday:
The federal government recognizes that all these higher payments will not in themselves in all cases offset the increase in oil prices, especially in the eastern provinces.
What a generous recognition! What a perceptive remark! He went on to state:
Something more may well be required. This is a further matter I will raise at the meeting of first ministers.
That is the Prime Minister's final solution to the rapidly rising costs in eastern Canada. He is going to lay this matter before a federal-provincial conference sometime in the latter part of January. That will be quite a comfort to the millions of men, women and children who live in eastern Canada and who may find it increasingly difficult to meet their home heating fuel bills. This is the response of this government with regard to this major situation in eastern Canada.
I think it is high time this government woke up to its real responsibilities. This is not just an issue which divides political parties in debate in this Chamber. In recent days we have seen, and if people have been following the newspapers they have read, that the concept of doing something now is supported by the premiers of other political parties as well. The Premier of Nova Scotia said in a speech to the legislature a few days ago:
I agree, as I have said, that there should be price support, but I feel very strongly that it should come from the national level.
Even more recently, the Premier of Nova Scotia, responding to the Prime Minister's remarks of Thursday, is reported to have said that:
-he regretted there had been no indication the federal government would use its "tremendous resources" to prevent fuel prices in the five Eastern provinces from further increasing.
I believe the government has a basic responsibility, and the leader of our party indicated some weeks ago what action it could take rather than just raising its hands and saying it is helpless to act in this situation. The government has indicated that it was a prisoner of international economics and political wheeling and dealing over which it had no control. There should be a realization, in the first instance, that it has a basic responsibility to all this country and not just a part of it, and a realization that as a result of the very rapid rise in the cost of petroleum products in eastern Canada the government is increasing its own tax revenues. This is surely one of the shameful aspects of the situation. On the one hand, it says it can do nothing and it is helpless in this situation, except to use some kind of general moral suasion, yet on the other hand, it is quite willing to take increasing federal tax revenues because of the rapid rise in the cost and the necessary utilization of these products.
If this government does not have the imagination to use some of these excess profits, and even forgo some of its tax revenues until it has adequately prepared a pricing policy for this country, then it certainly should no longer set
26695-33*

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act itself up as having some kind of national oil policy. The national oil policy it is inflicting on this country at the moment will cause increasing economic hardship and, what is even more unfortunate for this country, a great deal of disunity and division.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you colleagues. Much of what has been discussed in this debate so far reflects our prime concern in respect of the control of our resources, keeping our homes and institutions heated and maintaining an adequate supply of gasoline for our cars. These are important and overriding considerations which I understand, and I share hon. members' concern, but we dare not overlook or treat lightly the other problems and opportunities presented to us in the manufacturing and processing sectors of our economy.
I bring forward this aspect of the subject at this time because of my background in this field, and more particularly because the petrochemical industry has perhaps the most significant growth factor and one that is future oriented. This involves hydrocarbons and fossil fuel derivatives extracted from oil, and gas and coal, which have resulted in new industries and revolutionized others. The potential of this industry for future growth is almost limitless, and we are now entering a unique position in which we can be world leaders because of our relative abundance of basic fossil fuels. These are not without limit, but if carefully and intelligently allocated will provide a multiplier effect because of byproduct or downstream processing and manufacturing which is perhaps unmatched by any other resource we possess. The gross product of this industry is currently $580 million, employing some 7,600 people, mostly skilled and highly paid people. Indirectly, employment and dollar volume is many times that. The multiplier effect of the basic derivatives is very high. The figures I have show a multiplier effect of 139.9. That is the multiplier of the dollar product from the basic material which in this case would represent a market value of $8.1 billion.
On ethylene alone there is a market value of $4.5 billion. That is at the market place level. This does not include some $220 million of imports to this country which are still somewhere in the range of 40 per cent for the petrochemical industry. Therefore, those multipliers are extremely great in this particular resource field and this resource which we have. The projection is that by the year 2000 the dollar volume of the petrochemical industry will reach $20 billion, which could be theoretically $200 billion or greater in the market place. The ingredients for pharmaceuticals represent a relatively small volume but are substantial in dollar terms and critical to world supply and health services.
The development of synthetics or plastics has opened up entire new fields for us. The day of the cheap plastic toys is behind us. Engineered plastics are high quality, efficient and usually of lower cost than conventional materials. Even when more costly, they offer design, fabricating, engineering and marketing advantages that far

outweigh the per pound cost. In the automotive industry alone, plastics have replaced some 600 pounds of metal with something over 100 pounds of plastics per vehicle, reducing the weight of cars and usually performing their function more safely, more efficiently, and markedly reducing assembly costs and the costs of replacements and repairs.
The same applies in packaging, lighting, furniture, housing and commercial construction, agriculture, electronics, and a myriad of other activities which affect our lives and our economy. Synthetic fibres have had a major impact on our clothing and textile industries. Carpeting, drapery, furniture and floor coverings are just a few examples of their use. We take them for granted around us, but we do not realize what they are. We are not inclined to think of our oil, gas and coal reserves when we see a fibreglass boat or a snowmobile, or when we buy a suit or a shirt, or when a doctor injects a life-saving antibiotic into our arm, but that is where it all begins in the hydrocarbon reserves which we have in such abundance.
The growth of our petrochemical industry has outstripped all expectations. Even before the current energy crisis, facilities were not keeping up with demand and some 40 per cent of our needs were still imported, leaving us in a vulnerable position, vulnerable at that time but far more vulnerable now with the shortages that are worldwide, meaning that the countries from which we have been able to import some of these needs will be more restrictive in their exports. The current shortage is worldwide, not because of the energy crisis but because of the fantastic acceleration of demand as a result of new discoveries as well as new and better uses of established technology and products. It is now seriously aggravated by acute shortages which will exist for at least three years, for it takes at least three years to design and build a complex plant and laboratories to produce the products.
In Canada today, we have the feedstock, or feedstock potential, to produce ethane, ethylene, polyethylene, benzene, styrene, polystyrene, polypropylene, and others with longer names which my seat mate mentions, not to mention polytetraflurethylene as well as the many other petrochemical by-products desperately needed by ourselves and our trading partners. The more we process ourselves, the greater and faster will be the return to our economy and the skilled jobs created. I strongly urge that we take advantage of our potential and develop a world scale, integrated petrochemical industry that is second to none, first, to give our secondary industry an assured source of domestic supply at competitive prices, then spawning thousands of large and small business opportunities that will challenge the ingenuity and the initiative of the existing business and industrial community and the young men and women entering the labour market in increasing numbers.
At the same time we will be creating an immense export potential for our resources at a more refined or sophisticated stage of process for which there is an almost insatiable demand. We have the resource and we have the technology, or if we do not have it precisely we have access to that technology. We will not be alone in this race for jobs and markets. It is thus essential that we move quickly and imaginatively. The Minister of Energy, Mines

and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) I suggest should immediately establish a task force, largely comprised of representatives of the petrochemical industry itself, because they know what this is about-I know that some of my friends opposite will say, "But they are corporations". Corporations run businesses and seem to run them successfully. That is their job and they are the people who should be on our side in this case. This task force should establish priorities and allocate projects for the maximum benefit of all. We should then give every encouragement to them and make every reasonable facility available to engage in a crash program to shorten the leadtime to build new facilities in order to get a jump on our international competitors.
This is the time to take a leaf from Alvin Toffler's book "Future Shock" in which Toffler says:
It is more important to be imaginative and insightful than in trying to be 100 per cent right.
Polysar, in the constituency of my friend from Sarnia-Lambton owned by the Canada Development Corporation-and thus the Canadian people-offers a unique opportunity for growth. The Dow-Dome project to deliver Alberta-produced ethane to the giant petrochemical complex at Sarnia should proceed with all haste. The Sarnia Olyfins and Aromatics, or "soap" project, should also get underway without undue delay. Further integration of the petrochemical industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan can and should bring new and large scale economic benefits to western Canada. The Montreal refinery and petrochemical complex, plus another proposed near Quebec City and the potential from the refineries of the Atlantic provinces, should be integrated into a rationalized and regionalized industry.
Staging of these developments will be essential. Details, sometime small details, such as the training and availability of key tradesmen, such as highly skilled pipefitter-welders that are needed in building chemical plants, can be stumbling blocks but, with proper planning, can be overcome. Other than Polysar, the giants in this field are major multinational corporations, most, but not all, United States based. They have the know-how and existing world markets, plus capital to invest. I think this is one time that we should give them every reason to invest this capital and know-how in Canada rather that elsewhere. The degree to which they permit Canadian equity participation should determine the extent of the extraordinary incentives or assistance we provide. Indeed, I would suggest that we look carefully at joint ventures under Canadian control, something in which they frequently engage in other countries without nearly the resources, stability or markets available to them in a Canadian venture.
In speaking to these people from multinational corporations in their New York and other bases, we find they are not afraid of going in where there are strong regulations. They do this in every other country in the world. They want to know what those regulations are and they cannot afford to stay out, particularly since we have the fundamental resources. So long as it is profitable, they will come
Energy Supplies Emergency Act in. Other countries have much more stringent regulations than do we. The opportunity is a current and unique one. In its ultimate form, it will not always be an available and viable option. We will always have markets for our oil and gas, both domestically and in the United States. Japan will likely be an ever present market for our coal. We will likely be able to sell all the available benzene and ethane as feedstock in the more sophisticated petrochemical and secondary manufacturing industries of other countries. We might not have another equivalent opportunity to build an integrated, viable petrochemical industry and downstream process and manufacturing industries here in Canada controlled by and employing Canadians. I suggest that we have that opportunity now but not for too long.
There are other factors with which we must deal in concert with such a program. The question of tariffs is a key one. We will have to negotiate these with skill and toughness in the current GATT round of tariff negotiations. Even a carefully staged program done on a crash basis might see huge plants completed when markets are not precisely phased in. Short term but large investments can be costly if the product is not immediately saleable. Indeed, this is part of the reason that there has been some reluctance to expand adequately in the past. Another reason is that in some cases too much production awaiting markets drove prices down to the point where the profitability did not justify expansion.
No one can foresee all of the possibilities and as this program must be a bold one, some chances must be taken and backup support in the form of credits and tax relief on temporary unused capacity should be negotiated between the industry and the government. My friends in the NDP will, of course, think that this is heresy, but I can guarantee the professor from Oshawa-Whitby-whom I do not see here today-the one man band player from Fraser Valley West, my friend the poet from Scarborough West, the parson from Winnipeg North Centre and that barrister from York South, that it cannot and will not be done by any government alone or without creating the atmosphere or incentives to make it work. Certainly, there will be profits. There had better be. But the majority of these will be reinvested in new plants, more research and development, better wages for more skilled workers, and dividends for shareholders on which to pay taxes and reinvest in still more development.
The biggest share of profits will be paid in corporate taxes for better education, better health services, better housing and pensions for senior citizens which will allow them to live in security and dignity. Without profits, or with a socialistic type of managed or mismanaged economy, these things are not likely to happen. Indeed, I would guarantee that they will not happen on as great a scale and with the same speed and efficiency, if at all. I know it makes my NDP friends furious to think that someone with ability might make some money, more money than someone without the drive and dynamics to make things happen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, that is a downstream oy-product that produces many things, including the green envy of the NDP. They think that profits are sinful. A greater sin, in

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act my view, is ineptitude, inefficiency, and no profits. Excessive profits, ill-gained profits, undue wealth without social responsibility are indeed sinful in my view. There is no reason why we cannot increase Canadian equity participation in this process which I suggest. I think we should encourage it, even insist upon it, and perhaps buy at least leverage control, such as we did in Texas-Gulf through the Canadian Development Corporation. At least we would have control of something good rather than ownership of something that does not exist.
As a matter of fact, I am getting a little tired of the insufferable self-righteousness and arrogance of some of my NDP friends and their crowing, strutting and posturing. Their claims that everything done by this government is because of them make me tired. They cover the waterfront of things we are likely to do, and when we do some of them, they say "we showed them; we forced them to do it." I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that recent moves in the energy field have been Liberal moves from start to finish. No set of policies has more reflected the expressed views of our caucus, both in concept and in detail. Now the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I hear, is strutting around the countryside threatening to withdraw his support if we do not do things we might very likely do even if he were back in his classroom. His leader is so inflated with delusions of power that he is telling the people that he has not finished with us yet. If we were not in the House of Commons and I was not such a gentle and polite soul, I would call it what it is in eight letters.
Those pious gentlemen think they are the sole repository of virtue, that they are making parliament work and that they are keeping the government in office. Well, it is our views, our policies and our actions supported by the divisions and ineptitude of the Conservative Party that are keeping that small band of NDP in parliament at all. They support us because they find it in their own selfinterest to do so. I will grant that they recognize the fact that even a minority Liberal government is far better for Canada than any Tory government, but they also know that an election will decimate their ranks. They are divided between their leader, their caucus, and the various factions of their party, very much like the Tories. It is this government with this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that is carrying the responsibility of government in this most difficult of times, but we are doing it with thoughtfulness and determination in what we believe to be the best interests of Canada and the vast majority of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I challenge the NDP to defeat us in favour of that sad band of Tories over there made up of refugee Liberals and bewildered Social Creditors, plus a hardcore of Neanderthals-that is where fossil fuel comes from- who cannot figure out which way is up or who really speaks for them. I know that we are a unified party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mr. Danson' We are ready to take them on in any election, winter, summer, spring or fall. But I would rather get on with doing the serious job that needs to be done now, and that Canadians want us to do in this most

serious of times, and which we wish to do in the best interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the bill before us may I say that I listened with interest to the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). I wondered why he was smiling during the last few minutes when he was talking about the unity of his party and the Liberal policies. I suspect he got flak from his constituents about the Liberal's capitulation to NDP demands.
We have before us Bill C-236 to provide an emergency allocation of energy supplies in the event of a crisis. It seemed before Monday that certainly this country was in for a crisis of the ineptitude of the government and the lack of any concrete energy policy. To some degree, that has been changed by recent events and by the demands of the NDP being met by the government to a large extent. We are still in a rather critical situation in this country so far as energy is concerned. We talk about an energy crisis. Really, what we mean is a crisis with two aspects, one of supply and one of price. The supply aspect cannot be solved overnight. We cannot wave a magic wand and make it disappear.
Because of the oil policy initiated by the Conservative government in 1961, the country was divided into two regions, east of the Ottawa valley line being dependent on imported foreign oil, and west of the Ottawa valley line being dependent on western Canadian oil. But, Mr. Speaker, much of that oil was being exported. In fact, at present we are importing a million barrels of oil a day and exporting an equal amount.
Now, people in the oil industry who previously overestimated our supplies of conventional crude are admitting that we have only about ten years' supply of conventional crude left in Canada. Yet, we still continue to export oil at the fantastic rate of one million barrels per day. Because we have only ten years' supply of conventional crude left ir. Canada, we must seriously look at the Athabaska oil sands. Their development will have to take place soon if we are to avoid a supply crisis ten years hence.
The second aspect of the so-called energy crisis is that of price. Over the past few months we have witnessed a government being dragged, kicking and screaming, into an admission that there was no justifiable reason for an increase in the price of western Canadian crude oil. If we look over events during the past few months we find that the stand taken by the New Democratic Party has been vindicated. The Liberal government, faced with the threat of an election, was forced to accept our policy, and it has won widespread support from the Canadian people.
What did the NDP demand? Months ago we asked for export controls to be placed on crude oil. As I have said, we were exporting oil at a fantastic rate, and the United States was demanding even more of our oil. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admitted a few days ago in his televised speech, our exports of oil this year to the United States had increased by 18 per cent. Because we foresaw this problem, we demanded that there be a curtailment of
December 11, 1973

further large increases in exports to the United States, and the government acquiesced. Hopefully, some time in the future this will result in further oil supplies from conventional sources being available.
The other thing that we foresaw was that as the world price rose at a tremendous rate the oil companies would make a fantastic windfall profit if the government did not step in to create a two-price system. We demanded that an export tax be put on crude oil so that, while the Canadian price in western Canada would be frozen, the difference between the domestic and export price would not fall to the oil companies but would fall to the federal government in the form of this export tax. We agreed that the producing provinces should be compensated for the loss in royalties that they suffered because of this export tax, and we said that surplus funds accrued through this export tax should be used to develop oil resources in the producing provinces.
We also demanded a continuation of the price freeze. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we have a price freeze on oil in western Canada and a voluntary freeze in eastern Canada. Of course, as the cost of imported oil increases there has to be some adjustment to the price in eastern Canada. I will have more to say about that later because I am rather suspicious of the way in which that price has been adjusted. But, as I say, there is no reason why domestically produced oil should rise to the inflated world price, and on behalf of the Canadian consumer we demanded that this price freeze be maintained. Finally, the government acquiesced.
Much earlier in the year, in fact in previous years, we also demanded an extension of the oil pipeline to Montreal in order to bring western Canadian oil to the eastern market. That extension would guarantee us security of supply. But we wanted something else. We wanted a reversible pipeline so that we could have true competition between the two energy markets in Canada. Without the concept of a reversible pipeline we would have another protected market. That was the case under the old oil policy, and the oil companies had a field day so far as price was concerned. If we had a reversible pipeline, and if for some reason supplies of oil from discoveries off the Atlantic coast became less expensive than other Canadian oil, then we could have true competition, and the consumers in western Canada would benefit because the producers there would have to market their oil at a competitive price.
We also asked for an ending of the Ottawa valley line which prohibited oil from coming into Canada from any other source. In the light of the growing crisis in supply, the government recently announced the removal of that line.
We asked for a national petroleum company. To me, it is very strange that countries like Italy and France can have highly successful petroleum companies working in their interests, and in fact working very successfully in western Canada, engaging in exploration and production there. How many people realize that the French have a very successful well in western Canada, and also are doing exploration work off the Atlantic provinces? The proposed national petroleum company should get into the oil market and start regulating all aspects of the industry in
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Canada. Here, I am thinking not only of exploration but also of production, distribution, marketing and .retailing at the wholesale level. It seems to me that the best way to do this would be for the government to take over one of the existing multinational oil companies, thereby acquiring the expertise and the reserves in the ground, and through the national petroleum company sell oil at a price slightly above cost, a price from which the Canadian consumer could benefit. As a result, all other oil companies in the country would have to sell at that government price.
In addition to a national petroleum company, we also need to undertake development of the oil sands at Athabaska in Alberta, where there is a huge reserve of oil. We do not have to worry about exploration costs. The oil is there, and we know it is there. The technology has been developed. It is economically feasible to mine those oil sands. But here we are at a point where it seems to me the Alberta government, and to a large extent the federal government, are again willing to let private industry have a free hand with respect to this valuable resource. If we allow that to happen we shall be committing the same mistake that we committed a decade ago in 1961, when we did not have the kind of planning to protect the public interest that was necessary in deciding on a Canadian oil policy.
What I am saying is that because of NDP demands, because of our position in holding the balance of power in this parliament, we have forced the Liberal government, although reluctantly, into a new direction with respect to energy policy, a direction that will require public involvement, and into an acknowledgement that there is a fundamental role that the government should be playing, a role to protect present and future consumers of oil produced in this country. I think to anyone with an unbiased mind this has been a very positive role that our party has played.
I listened with interest yesterday to the Conservative motion of no confidence, and the speeches of members of the Conservative Party deriding the government for having a vacillating, inconsistent and incompetent energy policy. That sounded to me very much like the Conservative policy, or lack of it, itself. If anyone has been vacillating as far as energy is concerned, it has been the Conservative Party. They admit that they have no energy policy. They hope that Santa Claus will bring it to them for Christmas, although I hear it is already in its fourth draft. It seems to me that they are having problems with their cowboys from Alberta, their oil interests and other members from the consumer oriented parts of Canada.
The Conservative party has also been quite inconsistent in proclaiming recently that they wanted the pipeline extended to eastern Canada as far back as 1969, and they trot out the Niagara policy convention. I thought that resolution was buried very deeply in that thinkers' conference. It was not taken seriously and indeed during the last federal election campaign when it came, time to announce their platform about extending the pipeline we found that that resolution was watered down to such an extent that they would only "consider the advisability of extending the pipeline to Montreal".

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I hear them referring very often to the hardship to the consuming public. I hear, too, that the Conservatives were against the concept of the export tax, which would have allowed prices to increase, the windfall profit to the private oil companies and the government, if we had no price freeze, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) say that the policy of a price freeze was discriminatory against eastern Canada, but if we did not maintain that price freeze in western Canada then all Canadians would face higher prices, at least $100 more in expenses this year as far as heating their homes and running their cars and it could have gone higher. Where is the interest in the consumer if that is the kind of policy they are advocating? Surely, if we had a national energy policy and a national petroleum company, we could have the petroleum company set one price for Canada and equalize it until we get the pipeline through by combining the higher cost of eastern Canadian oil with western Canadian oil. That would be much more fair than the policy advocated by the Conservative Party.
The other thing that worries me about so much of past policy, both of the Liberals and the Conservatives, is the degree to which their policies sound like the chairman of the board of some of the large oil companies. If the price of oil goes up in this country by even a dollar a barrel, because we have reserves of some $10 billion in the ground, that is a windfall profit to the oil companies of some $10 billion minus, say, one-fifth for royalties. There is no increase in the cost of production. There is just the simple fact that the oil is there, trapped in reserves, and that world price is going up. If we allow the domestic price to rise that results in an unconscionable windfall.
Already the price of oil increased by 95 cents per barrel in this year before the government was forced to put on a price freeze. This meant a profit of 37 per cent to the oil companies, and still they are crying about low profit figures. I challenge anyone to look at the recent reports of the profit figures of the oil companies. They range from 40 per cent to 80 per cent higher than for the last quarter. All the Conservatives could do as far as controlling price was to advocate-and I do not hear them advocating it very much any more-their old policies of a 90 day price freeze. They know what would happen as soon as the price freeze was lifted.


Mr. Baker:: Such socialist claptrap!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, another oil executive has just spoken! I hear the argument from the oil companies and the energy spokesmen for the Conservative Party very frequently that we must allow the price of crude oil to go up so that the oil companies will have an incentive to explore for oil. Mr. Speaker, we find that in Alberta alone there is an outflow of money to the tune of $1 billion to the oil companies in that province. Where does it go? Does it go for exploration in Alberta? No, sir. Some $300 million goes up to the Arctic and $700 million to places outside Alberta and outside Canada. We have no guarantee that if the price allotted for a barrel of oil goes up, the oil companies will spend their money looking for oil in Canada. We have no guarantee whatsoever.
Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? In 1957, American oil companies in Canada earned $600 million and spent $176

million in exploration. In 1972, the same oil companies earned $2.5 billion and how much did they spend on oil exploration? They spent $195 million. In other words, there was an increase in profits of some 400 per cent, but only an increase of 10 per cent in their exploration activity in the province of Alberta.
I also see the advertisements in magazines of oil companies to the effect that they need higher prices because labour costs have gone up by some 400 per cent in the last decade. I think Imperial Oil has a glossy chart showing this in many magazines. But I should like the Canadian public to note that between 1962 and 1970, the cost of operating oil wells decreased by some six cents per barrel at the same time as the oil price went up by some 38 cents per barrel. These statistics can be found in the Canadian Petroleum Association statistical year book. The oil companies say they need more money for exploration, again and again. Let us look at what they have and what they are doing with this money.
In 1969, the last year for which we have statistics, out of 681 oil and gas companies in Canada, 556 paid not one cent of federal income tax-not one cent, Mr. Speaker. For the period 1965 to 1971 Imperial Oil, with net earnings of $1.5 billion and with a tax rate of only 19 per cent-that is the tax rate for a man with two children who earns $11,000 a year-that company had a cumulative total of some $170 million in deferred taxes, taxes they did not have to pay, because of our very biased tax laws. That was like a loan of $170 million to that company, yet they cry that they are not making enough money. When we look at the money they do make, and again I use Imperial Oil, 70 per cent of their dividends, the money they make in this country, is sent to the parent company Exxon Corporation. How much does Exxon return to Canada in exploration expenditures? Are you ready for it-one per cent. The parent gets 70 per cent, and sends back one per cent of that money for exploration. Where is this argument that oil companies need so much money for exploration activity in Canada? It holds absolutely no water, or should I say, oil.
The pricing of oil and gasoline products in eastern Canada concerns me greatly. Since the voluntary price freeze has been imposed in that area, it is argued that as the cost of imported oil goes up the oil and gas companies should be able to pass on the increased cost to the consumer. The cost of home heating oil and gasoline in eastern Canada has increased by seven cents per gallon. I have asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), both in the committee and in the House to make available the formula under which the federal government has accepted Imperial Oil's claim that costs have gone up by some seven cents per gallon. I can only test our figures if the minister does what we ask. Of course, he could question the figures his own officials give him. According to my figures, costs to the oil companies have increased not by seven cents per gallon but by four and a half cents per gallon. That is how much costs should have risen, I submit. If my figure is correct, it means that oil companies in eastern Canada have been getting windfall profits of about $400,000 per day. I say the increase should be only four and a half cents a gallon.
December 11, 1973

Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? The bulk of oil imported to eastern Canada comes from Venezuela. The government of Venezuela has a system under which it sells oil to the oil companies which, in turn, sell the oil abroad. The government of Venezuela has decided to tax these companies on the basis of what it calls the tax reference price. In other words, that government says to the oil companies that they can take oil from the ground of Venezuela, but they must sell it to the Venezuelan government for the tax reference price and the Venezuelan government, in turn, will give it back to them. The point of the tax reference price is this: no matter what the price is, the government of Venezuela will tax the company at the rate of 60 per cent. I hope hon. members will be patient with me; I shall refer to many figures, but the point is important. In mid-October the tax reference price on Venezuelan oil shipped to Canada was $4.65 a barrel. Recently, that price went up to $7.25 per barrel, the increase being $2.60 per barrel. If that $2.60 increase per barrel is taxed at 60 per cent, it means that the companies should be paying an extra $1.56 per barrel.
Let me explain what has happened. Exxon Corporation has a subsidiary known as Imperial Oil operating in Canada and another subsidiary known as Creole Oil. Under a cozy arrangement, Creole Oil buys Venezuelan oil and then sells it to Imperial Oil of Canada. I think Creole Oil has not raised the price of Venezuelan oil sold to Imperial Oil merely by $1.56 per barrel, in line with the tax increase; the company has raised its price by the full $2.60 per barrel. In other words, a windfall profit of $1.04 per barrel is accruing to the parent, Exxon Corporation. So, here is a case in which the parent has one subsidiary selling to another subsidiary for a higher price. Imperial Oil can, therefore, go to the government and say, "Our costs have gone up by X dollars, therefore the price must go up by X dollars." Really however, the profit is going back to the parent company. This is a neat and cozy arrangement. That is why I wish to see some of the facts. I want to make certain that there is justification for the seven cents per gallon price increase. According to my figures, an increase of four and a half cents per gallon would be justified. Because the private oil companies control and manipulate the oil market in Canada, government agency such as the national petroleum company must be involved in the market in buying and selling, so that oil is sold at a fair price.
If I may move my attention from the East coast to western Canada, may I speak of another frustrating development. As I said, because our conventional crude oil resources are being depleted, we shall have to develop the Athabasca oil sands. We must consider the question of lead time. If we are to run short of conventional crude oil in ten years, we ought now to be making plans to bring into production the Athabasca oil sands, so that ten years from now we shall have those oil producing plants on stream. That will entail the constructon of at least one plant per year, each plant costing about $1 billion.


Mr. Paproski:: That should be $1.7 billion.


Reginald Cyril Symes: If we allow the proposal regarding Syncrude in Alberta to go ahead, I maintain that we shall embark on a $2 billion sellout to that consortium under existing terms of reference. If the old Alberta royalty scheme were used,
Energy Supplies Emergency Act there would be a net gain to Alberta of some $4 billion over the lifetime of the project. Under the present formula of Syncrude, Alberta and the public of the province will receive a maximum of $1.8 billion. That figure is calculated at an interest rate of 8 per cent over the next 29 years.
What are some of the particulars of this deal? Mr. Speaker, our caucus went to Edmonton last week and had a private meeting with some of the directors of Syncrude. What a revelation that was. The cost of the plant will be some $800 million, some additional $200 million being spent for pipelines and supporting facilities. Debenture capital will finance 75 per cent of the cost of this plant.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I thought it was a private meeting.


Reginald Cyril Symes: All these details are public knowledge. The government of Alberta will put in $200 million, and the company itself will put in $50 million. What will the syndicate called Syncrude get in return? It will, in return for putting up 20 per cent of the equity, gain 100 per cent control of the project and 50 per cent of the profits. The government will put up 80 per cent of the equity, without getting any control; the public of Alberta has been told that the public will get 50 per cent of the profits.
According to the Syncrude people we met in Edmonton, Syncrude will not make any profits or losses. It will not even pay income taxes, because Syncrude will merely be a transfer company. The four multinational oil companies which are the parents of Syncrude will get from Syncrude the synthetic oil and Syncrude, in return, will get from those companies the money to pay operating expenses.
How do the tax laws apply? How does one define profit? If we were defining book profits, the story would be different. But as we may be considering taxable income, as I suspect, then the four multinational companies will apply against the synthetic crude produced by Syncrude all the tax writeoffs in the existing law and all the available depletion allowance formulas. Therefore, there is no guarantee that the people of Alberta will get a fair portion of the profits. That is an example of the kind of sellout that we cannot allow to be continued in this country, if we are to protect future generations of energy consumers in this country. It is obvious that we need joint federal-provincial government development of these vast resources which belong to the people of Canada and should be exploited in the interests of the people of Canada, not in the interests of the multinational oil companies which are there to make a fast buck and, when the resource is depleted, leave Canadians high and dry.
As I have said on many occasions, we have reached the crossroads of energy policy in this country. We have taken a significant step in the right direction with the adoption by the government of many NDP proposals. At the same time, if we are really concerned about the future of this country and its people, we must do more. We must have more public involvement. Only in that way do we guarantee the people of Canada will be best served by the resources they own, and which should be available to all future generations.
8628

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some strange statements today. A few moments ago, I listened to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) making a speech he would not have made the day before yesterday. After the NDP propped up the government in the vote last night, the hon. member for York North gave them a gentle slap on the wrist, and then waxed eloquent over the unity in the Liberal party. That was the first thing to cause a little wonderment in our minds.
We then listened to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) make some strange comments. He referred to the Progressive Conservative party and what he termed the changes in policy or lack of policy. I remember a number of occasions when the leader of that party went out west and squared off, stating this government had had it; the NDP were not going to support them any longer; they had the government on the ropes and when he got back, he was going to deal a knock-out blow. When he returned, he said that because the government had taken a tiny step, his party would continue to prop them up. Instead of dealing a knock-out blow, he hit them rather gently, then wrapped his arms around them and held them up again.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie referred to the situation in Alberta, and the fact there is going to be an increase in the cost of fuel there. However, he did not say anything about the increase in the cost of natural gas in the province of British Columbia, where it was announced that the cost of natural gas had increased by 81 per cent. The NDP somehow neglect to make reference to that because it does not fit in with their story.
In addition, we hear the members of the NDP talk about the monsters called multinational corporations. One day I tried to count the number of times they used the words "multinational corporations", but I lost track. I will not comment on multinational corporations except to say that I read in the paper the other night that Premier Ed Schreyer of Manitoba said some very kind words about them. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to reconcile statements made here by members of the NDP with statements made across the country by both their national leader and premiers of the various provinces.
I am reminded of an incident that happened some years ago when I had an opportunity to attend a commonwealth conference in Jamaica. A delegate from Western Samoa stood and very sincerely but gently said something like this: In my country when a speaker gets up to make an address, he starts off by giving thanks to the Heavenly Father for all His goodness. Perhaps today we should give thanks to the good Lord for the moderate weather we are experiencing this fall, which will somehow offset or counterbalance the problems we face because of the ineptitude of the Liberal administration.
As we think of the statements that have been made in recent days, and the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-outlining the program he classed as a new national policy, it seems as though he gave a Christmas present to the New Democratic Party, promising that in the working of this program he would go to some length to meet the desires and demands of that group. This makes us think of somebody playing the tune and somebody

dancing. I am not quite sure who is playing the tune and who is doing the dancing. The government said they are stating their policy and that it is a purely Liberal policy. However, a member of the NDP says the government has swallowed their proposals and therefore it is doing alright.
We cannot help but feel sorry for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). When we consider his statements in light of the statement made by the Prime Minister, it seems as though the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under him. Those statements have, in almost every respect, negated everything the minister told the House during the past two or three months. I will not take time to quote Hansard for the past two months or so to try to reconcile the minister's answers with the statement made by the Prime Minister just the other day. For example, what the Prime Minister said on December 6 pre-empts the bill before us at the present time. By the way, we are dealing with a bill that is before the House. The Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 8478 of Hansard:
We are confident that no Canadian need fear serious shortages of oil and fuel this winter,-
I wish the government would tell us and the Canadian people whether or not there is an energy crisis in Canada. We hear that eastern Canada is going to freeze this winter. Then, in a gross miscalculation on the part of the government, we hear that the refinery at Come-By-Chance will be able to supply most of the oil that is needed. Next, the government tells us it will not be producing products in time for this winter because it cannot get crude oil. Friday morning we heard that it already has stored some 3.5 million barrels and there are two supertankers on the way. This government has so confused the issues that they have somehow, intentionally or otherwise, alarmed the people of Canada for their own political ends. I do not think this increases the confidence that was expressed in the House last night.
I should like to say a few words about the proposed price freeze to which reference has been made. This myth was started by the Prime Minister on September 4. I grant that there may have been some price freeze in western Canada, but whatever freeze there was in eastern Canada was very difficult to visualize or comprehend. Is the government so forgetful that it does not realize that since the price freeze supposedly took effect gasoline prices rose nine cents a gallon here in the capital city of Canada? When the minister was questioned after the first increase by a member of this House and was told that there did not appear to be a price freeze, the minister replied: "Oh, yes, there is a freeze; it is just frozen at a different level". That seems rather strange logic, Mr. Speaker.
I should like now to make a few comments on the background to the situation we are currently facing. There are few, if any, Canadians who would disagree with the widely acknowledged fact that a global energy crisis presently exists. You never miss the water till the well runs dry is a proverb that holds true as well with regard to energy supplies. We have moved forward into the use and enjoyment of each successive type of energy on the assumption that we need not be too concerned about the
December 11, 1973

past or about the future. For in the ongoing progression of technical and industrial discoveries, mankind is destined to achieve an ever easier and more satisfying way of life. I think this attitude has caused us to consider former energy sources as obsolescent and unneeded, and has also closed our eyes to the need for new sources and types of energy for the future. We are now awakening to the fact that the supply of fossil fuels is not inexhaustible. If we are to continue to enjoy an adequate energy supply for the future, it must be through wise and all-inclusive use of all resources presently known, with research into sources which are at the moment just bursting into view or are yet beyond the horizon.
The world energy problem is not caused by a shortage of energy resources at this moment, but rather by political power plays in an endeavour to achieve national objectives. While the right to such action cannot be contested, I suggest that from the moral and ethical point of view it is neither humanitarian nor excusable. The Shah of Iran is reported to have told the Arab world: "Oil is like bread. You cannot cut it off during a time of peace. Why do you want to look as if you want the world to starve?"
As has been stated many times, the current unease in Canada is not over the question of over-all supply. My colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) last evening presented the picture quite clearly when he referred to the vast supplies of energy that we have in Canada. I should like to refer to his remarks at page 8584 of Hansard. He referred to the 500 billion barrels of oil, the 700 trillion cubic feet of gas, the 100 billion tons of coal, the one million tons of uranium, the hydro possibilities, the potential of the Fundy tides, the Churchill River, coal in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Mari-times, and went on to say:
-we have sufficient energy sources of the non-renewable sort to last this country for 500 years or more.
So, again I say that the current unease in Canada is not over the question of over-all supply, but rather the production and transportation of this supply to all areas of the nation in volumes adequate to meet consumer requirements.
In this connection we have before us Bill C-236. I should like to associate myself with a statement made by my colleague from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). Last Thursday, speaking prior to the speech of the Prime Minister, the hon. member had this to say, as reported at page 8477 of Hansard:
I hope the Prime Minister will attempt to indicate to us what case they have for stating that there may be an energy crisis in Canada this winter and for their belief that this crisis warrants the wide powers which the government wants under Bill C-236.
My colleague's hopes were not realized, for the Prime Minister sidestepped the issue completely. He did not explain the nature or the extent of whatever crisis might exist. In fact, as I indicated earlier, he stated outright that no Canadians will face shortages this winter.
I believe that Bill C-236 is another intrusion into business. This government, above all, has not indicated any overwhelming proof that it has the capacity properly to administer anything. Private enterprise has done a magnificent job of developing this nation, and if there is fault to be found, and if there have been areas in which that
Energy Supplies Emergency Act development has failed to benefit Canadians as a whole, it is because government has failed to create the proper climate and to lay down proper legislative guidelines to achieve the highest good for the nation. I do not think that we can place the blame on private enterprise.
There may be notable exceptions, but in the majority of instances government enterprise has shown up rather poorly against the combined and experienced expertise of those engaged in private enterprise activities. It has not been government bureaucracy that has provided the impetus, the initiative and momentum that have propelled us forward in the various fields of scientific research and technological development; rather it has been those individuals with initiative and determination that have blazed the trail and opened up new vistas.
Not only do I suggest that Bill C-236 is an unwarranted intrusion into business; it is also an intrusion into the provincial domain. May I suggest that this government is a government of confrontation. It is obvious that the administration is attempting to tell the people of Alberta something. Since the Liberals do not have one single member from that province, they feel they can say whatever they want or do whatever they want. It seems to me that in a sense this is blackmail. The government is, in essence, saying "You did not return any of our members so now you will pay for it". How else can we explain the politics of confrontation in which the Prime Minister and the energy minister have dabbled during the last two to three months?
The government has been guilty of a lack of consultation with Alberta, of breaking agreements, albeit verbal agreements. Now, during the last weekend we find it engaging in slander. Let me ask how the government can justify the kind of speech that its leader made in Vancouver on Friday night. No one can tell me that he had national unity at heart when he slandered a provincial premier in the way he slandered Mr. Lougheed. This is completely unacceptable behaviour for someone who occupies the position of Prime Minister of this nation. I ask, where now is the great champion of federalism? Where now is the great champion of participatory democracy? Where now is the great champion of national unity?
Then we see the lesser of the two coalition government leaders standing up in this chamber last week and involving himself in the game of name calling, calling the Premier of Alberta "Sheik Lougheed". He forgets all the while, as I have mentioned before, that the Premier of British Columbia has increased the price of natural gas by 81 per cent. Perhaps he should be called Sheik Barrett, as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) so rightly points out.
As for the view that we can blame the NDP for forcing its policies on a reluctant Liberal government, as stated by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), this is difficult to accept. I believe the NDP has lost too much credibility across this country to have such great power on this government which sits opposite at the present time. I think, as stated in an article by Mr. Charles Lynch, that perhaps there is something more important behind the position taken by the Liberal government in this connec-
26695-34J

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act tion. I suggest that, rather than being forced to accede to the requirements and demands of the NDP, this is an outcropping of the Prime Minister's essential political philosophy, the emergence of his true colours and a large step on the road the NDP want him to follow. Mr. Lynch quotes from the writings of the Prime Minister on the seeds of radicalism and the path of socialism. I do not know whether it took Mr. Lynch quite some time to realize just what was going on, but I think possibly what we have seen in the past few days is not essentially NDP policy but rather new Liberal policy, and really there is not too much difference between the two. I wonder, therefore, why the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) emphasized this point so much, because really there is not too much difference.
This bill would permit the government to override any provincial legislation and regulation. The national petroleum corporation he announced could take away from the provinces the only bargaining point they have with the federal government-their natural resources. This country, thanks to the work of that gentleman since he took over in 1968, is moving steadily toward a unitary state, and I do not think Canadians want this type of situation. I suggest that the provinces must be left with control over their natural resources, and must have complete autonomy within their fields of jurisdiction. The encroachment on their rights as proposed by the bill, unless amended, are completely unacceptable.
Let me refer to a speech on this subject made in the House by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Les-sard). Apparently he is one of the few Liberals in this House who does do some very careful thinking on the subject of provincial rights. He stated, as recorded at page 8533 of Hansard:
However the establishment of such an over-all Canadian energy policy compared to the former one which was partial should not be set up for the second time while ignoring the priority interests of the provinces and mainly of Quebec in this field.
That is perhaps too limiting, as I feel it should apply to all the provinces. Surely, my hon. friend would agree that if it applies to Quebec it should apply to Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia, my own province of British Columbia and any of the other provinces I have not mentioned by name. Later the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said, as reported at page 8534 of Hansard:
But I would like to sound a note of warning to all provinces: the federal government should not take advantage of the situation to assume a right which it does not need. This applies to Alberta as well as to the province of Quebec. I am pleased to find restrictions in the legislation before us, particularly the one year limit, because otherwise I would not accept it as a Quebecker. Some of my colleagues are in the same position. As members representing various areas of Canada we all are in the same position. Then we should not agree to place it under federal control unless there is a completely new understanding and distribution of powers and responsibilities between both government levels.
I wish the hon. member was able to get this point across to his leader, as it does not seem the government understands this particular principle.
In addition, this bill vests an appointed body with absolute authority in certain areas. What will happen to the already downgraded power of parliament and the circumvented and undermined role of the elected member of this

House? This government has already tried to strip the members of any real role in parliament.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Alexander Bell Patterson: You ask me to explain; I will do just that. This situation has been compounded by using defeated government members as advisers, executive assistants and consultants rather than using the people's choice-the elected member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: This bill in its present form is a denial of the supremacy of parliament, the abdication in favour of bureaucracy and the surrender of its responsibility to a body with no accountability to the people of the nation, but solely to the government. So we have a nice, neat set-up and a real energy czar in our midst. The bill has far-reaching powers in overruling other jurisdictions and other departments. I could refer to a number of sections which give this body the authority to overrule decisions under the National Energy Board, the Combines Investigations Act, environmental legislation, the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canada Shipping Act, the National Transportation Act and I am not just sure what else. I would suggest that this is too much power without the board having some responsibility to this House.


Mr. Bechard:: What about in cases of emergency?


Alexander Bell Patterson: We have seen the use of powers in so-called emergency situations in the past, and I do not know that we want to see them used too often in the future.
This bill is far-reaching as well in its power to manipulate the economy. I know many of my colleagues and many government members would agree that control over energy at this time implies economic control. Thus the Prime Minister, disguised as the energy supplies allocation board, would have a free rein to manipulate the economy of Canada. The way this government has incom-pentently handled the economy in the last few years without a free rein, I wonder what we might expect in the future if this board is set up?
For instance, this bill allows allocations to be applied selectively. Let me just give an illustration of how this could be a most powerful weapon in achieving national economic policy ends. Were the government to desire the establishment of a synthetic textile industry in the Mari-times, and I use this as an illustration, it would be a simple matter to declare a shortage of certain petroleum by-products necessary to such a textile production, except in the Maritimes. So, we can see that whether the shortage was actual or declared would be a matter of opinion, and the possibilities of misuse are endless.
Certain domestic industries or commercial concerns depend upon petroleum products as part of the content of their manufactured output. Other industries rely on what is classifiable as an alternate fuel or fuel product as part of output. The supply of these materials required for production is regulated under the provisions of this bill which is currently before us. Complete control over the transportation system of the country is also provided, both through
December 11, 1973

fuel allocation and allocation of its use. The number of industries directly affected by allocation measures may be seen or understood perhaps, when one realizes that almost 20 per cent of real domestic product can be directly controlled by the Governor in Council under this particular bill. So, we see the wide powers that can be exercised through the use of this measure.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the powers of this bill are far too great. They are far-reaching. I do not see how they could be justified under current circumstances. The government, if ever given some of these powers, should be given them only if it has been established that Canada will in fact suffer a major energy crisis. The Prime Minister has stated again and again that we are not faced with this energy crisis in Canada.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: When did he say that?


Alexander Bell Patterson: He said that. You do not listen to your own leader. If you would listen to someone you might learn a little bit. The only power the government may need now is authority to ration. The government has at its disposal adequate legislative authority to deal with most of the other energy problems facing Canada today. We must ask ourselves this question-and I include government members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has not expired, but I would ask that he be permitted to finish his speech. I have allowed some considerable latitude. He certainly provoked a large number of other debates in the chamber at the same time because of his remarks, but I would ask that he be heard in conclusion.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Hon. gentlemen opposite were not disturbing me at all. I can usually shout anyone down if I have to. However, I was just drawing my remarks to a conclusion. I would say we must ask ourselves this question: Should the far-reaching powers of this bill be given to a government that has shown itself to be incompetent and incapable of handling even the situation which exists at the present time?


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I am very happy to speak for myself, and I say I do not believe we ought to give the government the authority it is requesting in the bill as it presently stands.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me. By taking part in this debate I wish to enlighten some closed minds from Quebec, in particular that, of my hon. colleague from the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner)-


Mr. Wagner:: Talk about the bill.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: That's nothing. It's just the beginning. Wait a moment.
I want to point out the meanness of the hon. member's attack on his colleagues from Quebec irrespective of their
Energy Supplies Emergency Act party. In fact, he suggests that he can show us how to govern and especially how to assume our responsibilities towards Quebec. I will call the attention of the House to the manner in which-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You should listen.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: You, too, should listen.

As I was saying, I will call the attention of the House to the manner in which this hon. member attempts by all means possible to make us forget what fate people like Borden and Bennett inflicted on the province of Quebec. I think that this is indecent behaviour on his part, Mr. Speaker.


Claude Wagner: Talk about the bill.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Yes, but I also will talk about the Borden line that the Progressive Conservatives forced upon us in 1961. Where was the hon. member in 1961, when that happened? What was he doing at that time? He was going from one "chair" to the other. He was getting ready to watch his positions in order to become judge, come down, move up again, come down again.


Claude Wagner: Talk about the bill.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


Claude Wagner: No. Only that the hon. member returns to the bill.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I see. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would be kind enough to listen; I think that he would be happy to hear someone who is able to give a speech without letting show any partisan feelings. If you refer to his vocal diarrhea of last night, you will note that what he is getting today is a direct consequence of his flow of words.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who took part in this debate have shown a great deal of interest in the bill which we are now debating.
From the speeches made hon. members representing the Progressive Conservative Party, it is obvious that they have not been able to tell us what would be their policy if they were in our place.


An hon. Member:: They have none.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I certainly did not hear one. Does the Progressive Conservative Party have a policy as concerns this issue? No one can say.


An hon. Member:: It has none.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I cannot ask the Progressive Conservative members from Quebec to tell us about this policy. There are two of them, and they never agree, Mr. Speaker. For the solution to their problems they called upon Mr. Masse. They conclude: We shall be three, so we might perhaps agree.

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Mr. Speaker, I think that this matter brings out the true nature of the Canadian fact. Inasmuch as we fail to understand as a whole all the factors involved in this, the farther we get from real solutions. I tried to show-


Claude Wagner: The hon. member should come back to the subject.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Right, I should come back to the next, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe suggests, but I would like to point out also that it is because I simply do not wish to waste anybody's time.


Claude Wagner: The hon. member manages well in the laborious reading of his text.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Yes. I am doing alright and I will continue.


Claude Wagner: To me that is shorthand. I do not want to read it.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not want to read it he can either leave or stay, one or the other. I could also remind him to read the discussions he had on bilingualism. Several members of his party disowned the French language in this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, to try and illustrate that complexity suffice it to mention first the differences in economic interests. On the one hand, we have the producers who are caught between the depletion of their resources, the necessity to ensure quality and quantity in trade supply, and the responsibility towards all Canadians.
On the other hand, consumers see prices skyrocket and are looking for a substitute to oil products. Finally, what needs to be done to solve the problem?
Second, we have the aspect of international relations where recent changes in all international trade networks certainly played a capital role in the present situation. Needless to go over the events in the Middle East and it is certainly not with the explanations from the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that we are going to understand anything to what is happening there. However, Canada is at a road crossing where the interest of its citizens must be balanced against the need to preserve strong international friendships.
Third, the federative nature of this country adds to the complications. We are actually touching an important subject as well as the complex problem of every area in this country.
Fourth, the question of enterprise is indeed questioned. Some suggest that resources so vital as these should not be left at the mercy of a competitive market. On the other hand, others are crying pitifully for the state not to meddle with commercial activities regulations. In fact, this is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party which merely wants to protect the interests of big business and does not give a damn for consumers.
We must realize that our government, while taking into account every aspect of the problem, is constantly faced with an opposition which enjoys trying to topple the government. They crave for power in a sickening way, these people. They play at threatening the existence of this government. One can appreciate the usefulness of this

bill and especially the value of the minister who sponsored it.


Claude Wagner: Which one is it?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Apparently the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members of his party have fallen victims to the temptation of taking advantage of this problem to improve their credibility with the public.
I think that they did the opposite, Mr. Speaker, and that their utterly ambiguous position and their lack of policy have involved an ever increasing downgrading of that party's credibility. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they blame the government for its attitude towards the United States and they do not understand that this government is primarily concerned by the needs of Canadians, and they blame the minister for what they call a lack of national policy, while they have nothing at all to propose.


Claude Wagner: Shame!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: In a situation where a shortage is taking place, can we satisfy both the interests of foreign countries, however friendly they may be, and home requirements? And after that we are accused of not being flexible enough, both in our positions towards the United States and with regard to Canadians.
This means calling for priority consideration of two matters that are incompatible. In that regard, I suggest that the government-by the way, Mr. Speaker I would like to outline that I do not necessarily have $200,000 or $300,000 to have my speeches prepared in order to take the floor every day and make myself known by everybody- was right to opt for the Canadian people's interest. This choice was shown at the level of the security of supplies and of the price stability. These gentlemen would like to see prices increase everywhere throughout Canada. They said eastern Canada is not going to be the only one to pay a little more, the west must pay even more. That is what they want. That is their policy.
As for supplies, the minister announced a series of steps that will certainly contribute to ease the situation in the eastern part of this country. These are short-range measures that will have some results as early as this winter. Rationalizing of oil industry, long-term planning will not solve the immediate problems of the people from Quebec and the Maritimes, should a heating oil shortage occur this winter.
And the government, far from losing itself in intellectual arguments, was fast to respond. It has encouraged the voluntary saving of energy by consumers. In addition, it has made sure that all possible means will be taken to send maximum reserves in the east. I do not think that the members opposite have made more constructive suggestions up to now. I have not seen any. When one reads the speeches which have been delivered, one realized that it is merely politicking.


Claude Wagner: The reading of that text is laborious.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: As for price stability, this is where the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has per-
December 11, 1973

formed his best stunts. Indeed, giving his moral support to the oil magnates of Alberta, he tries to show some concern for the interests of Canadian consumers. Is that attitude of the opposition ascribable to an unconditional allegiance to the Alberta government which seems to be strictly devoted to the interests of the great oil companies and which does not care a bit about eastern Canadians.
This question remains ambiguous and in my opinion, it is the duty of hon. members opposite to state their views. What is their position? I would like them to let it plainly known. I would also like to know what they tell the people when they go in Alberta. I would like to find out their position when they go in eastern Canada. What do they say? They constantly change their version as they move from one province to the other.


Walter David Baker: That is not true.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Further to the problems that we meet, our political system, the very nature of our country, brought together regions whose aspirations are often contradictory. The importance of the activity of Parliament and more particularly of the members stems precisely from the existence of inequalities in the distribution of goods and the mentality of every person that we find here.


Claude Wagner: It is written in shorthand, he cannot even read it.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: This is very well written. Of the viewpoint-


Marcel-Claude Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that when he was a judge he would not tolerate any noise in court. Today, he is one of the two Progressive Conservative members elected in Quebec. He was complaining yesterday of the fact that some Quebec members were not speaking. I would ask him to be at least courteous enough to listen to the hon. member for Longueuil.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I suggest to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) that when I was a judge, people pleading before me were much more gentlemanly and respectful. But this is not what happened when I listened to the first words of the hon. member who is now holding his speech and trying to read it. If that hon. member wants to be gentlemanly, honest and straight toward his colleagues, then we will allow him to read his speech as well as he can.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For some reason, the debate on this bill seems to have generated a number of subdebates, more particularly during the last hour. But I do not think they really give cause for points of order because most of these exchanges have been in subdued voice between distinct parts of the chamber. I do not have to point out where most of this is coming from, but I would ask that the hon. member who is recognized by the Chair, and who does have the floor, be allowed to speak.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I was never ashamed of what I said. I can repeat what I said at the beginning, I can keep on and he can keep on acting like a clown, I was never interested in that.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe can try to prevent me from telling the truth, I will tell it just the same. He can send his police officers with their truncheons, I will tell the truth just the same. He could quote the Scripture or the words of an archbishop in 1900, I will keep on telling the truth, Mr. Speaker. I am not ashamed of what I say.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to make certain things clear to my illustrious colleagues. I would like my Alberta colleagues to understand that in emergencies, one must think first not of the province, but of the country one represents here in the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: That is fine.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: When there is an apparent emergency at the national level, Mr. Speaker, one should put aside local pettiness and think rather of the Canadian people as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, what we were told fully justifies the action we want to take. Moreover, it must be kept in mind that our parliamentary system is made up of several parties and that in an emergency, we must support fair and reasonable ideas in the face of an actual situation. Mr. Speaker, what would happen this winter, if people ran out of oil in Montreal? If the same thing happened in Saint-Hyacinthe? People would get up in arms and cry shame. They would tell us we made no plans, we did not act. What would happen if lives were lost because we did nothing, and did not foresee the situation?


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would not be cold.


An hon. Member:: He is never there.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Someone said that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would not be cold because he is never in his riding. I wonder if he ever goes there. He can answer me when he wants to; in any event, he is always talking.
Mr. Speaker, the importance of the debate today-


Claude Wagner: One is so smart at that age! If only he grows older!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I am not through: I have just started.
One thing is sure; even if I do grow older, I will not let anyone buy me off; I will not change party ten times.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative party, through the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, is taking this crisis lightly. He is merely trying to restore his for-tures in Quebec. I think also of the manner whereby the Progressive Conservatives try to present their views. In addition to the numerous frustrations we have suffered due to their position in respect of language, they are now trying to divide the country even further, they are willing-

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act ly trying to divide the country rather than unite it, in order to reign, that being the only way for them to attain power some day, if ever-


Claude Wagner: You were better with your text.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I don't need it. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, the proposals in Bill C-236 are reasonable considering the conditions we have to face. I prefer, Mr. Speaker, criticisms at the administrative level or at the political level from one or more provinces, in order that this winter our children will be warm everywhere in Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) may I advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 40 the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)- Health-Need for increased personnel trained in geriatrics-Government position; the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Disposition of unused portion of George Darby Hospital, Burnaby-Participation by municipal representatives in negotiations; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Energy-Nuclear reactors and heavy water plants-Date of expansion in western Canada-Possible increase in research and development funds.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products 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 and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
[ Translation]
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-236. I certainly do not intend to make a speech similar to the one of the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) who has just

spoken; he managed to do something quite remarkable, that is sticking his tongue in oil. In such a time of crisis and when there is talk about oil shortages, we should not waste any.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to note that the government does not handle major problems till there is a crisis. That is the point I wanted to make at the outset of my remarks. The government's role is to foresee, to give directions, to make sure to meet the people's essential needs such as food, clothing, and housing and, indirectly, fuel and energy. It is, according to the very definition of a government, what it must do. It is therefore stunning to note that at a certain moment there is a crisis, or that there is the possibility of a state of crisis, since the government and the minister did not make us aware in precise terms of the successive situations which were likely to develop in recent months. As a result, we do not know precisely what is going on.
Last week, we had the impression that the oil companies were merely dictating what to do to the minister, whereas it would be the contrary for a responsible government. And last week the minister candidly admitted that the possibility of an emergency was based on reports made to him and not on specific studies and figures which could be used to assess the situation accurately. He went so far as to say that the Montreal storage facilities were completely full and that it was difficult at present to bring too much oil supplies to Montreal since no storage facilities were available. An oil shortage is unthinkable after the price of petroleum products has skyrocketed.
We are told that regular oil supplies to Quebec will raise a problem this winter because of ice conditions which will make it difficult for some tankers to reach Montreal. It will not be the first time in 1973 that we have a winter in Canada. How is it that this problem did not exist last year or the previous year? How is it that it is only in 1973 that there are transportation problems because of winter conditions? And yet, the minister simply told us that the transportation of winter supplies will be difficult because of ice conditions.
One would think that they want us to freeze and to stay icebound. I think the government has a policy of trial and error, a hit and miss policy, a policy dictated by high finance, so that for the last few months and weeks we have been paying extravagant prices for products that did not cost one cent more than six months or a year ago.
It is our duty to denounce this situation and to show to the people, as mentioned in yesterday's motion, that the government has proven that its policy of the last few weeks is totally inconsistent.
Should we therefore carry on with an energy policy that does not take into account any of the basic elements of any government policy? It is to be wondered whether this is an artificially created shortage designed merely to increase prices. It would be shocking, Mr. Speaker, if such were the case and yet, to date, nobody has been able to state that there was a shortage. And how could they when our own country is an oil producer? How could they when the circumstances which led to the present international oil crisis have hardly anything to do with us? Because in fact,
December 11, 1973

the Arab countries which are now turning the tap off and on as they see fit ship very little oil to Canada, 2 per cent of our imports at the most. Then we are almost not affected by the political action of the Arab nations against the whole world regarding the distribution of their oil resources.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is virtually not affected by this problem. Then, why do we have a crisis situation when we have no reason to be affected by this problem? We should get some explanations. But now we can see only one. All this area is controlled by oil corporation trusts. It seems obvious as we should not have such an oil crisis when we have in Canada the oil we need, when it seems there is no reduction in the supply in eastern Canada and particularly in the province of Quebec. Yet we know very well that Arab nations are blackmailing many countries in the world and that in any case, they provide us with little or no oil. All this gives us doubts about the way this government is administering the country.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for such a crisis. Let us consider our situation as would a Frenchman, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Belgian who would look at our situation. What do they see? They see, Mr. Speaker, that we are an oil producing country, that we export at least 50 per cent of our production. They would find absolutely stupid an oil producing country which exports more than half of its production and has a crisis situation.
Canada must then be stupid since it finds itself in this situation. We have oil, we sell some to the Americans, and some people have the gall to suggest a freeze. Such a policy is incredible. Anyway, if the problem was one of transport, we would have to wonder how come no adequate policies have been developed in this field. Why, for instance, has no effort been made to create what we have long advocated, namely our own merchant navy? This has never been done. Why is it that, in the field of transportation, we have provided no facilities for supplying oil to eastern Canada?
Once again, we are faced with the fact that this government has forgotten what the government of any self-respecting country should do. But if we have been confused by the intricacies of this pseudo-crisis, Mr. Speaker-
Mr. Speaker, did we want at all cost to avoid offending the Americans? At times, the government is so conscious about this that it says: you, easterners, freeze a little! Turn down the heat and close the windows. Do not use your snowmobiles this winter. Do without a lot of things because we will send our oil to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, this is almost funny. In spite of everything, supposing that it became necessary for the government to supply the United States and granted that there is a transportation problem in this country, this is no reason why Canada could not find other supply sources than Arab countries and why we should freeze here to please the Americans, because we do not want Arab oil.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec especially, people are becoming quite familiar with that problem. We know very well that Arab countries are willing to supply us with the oil we need in the East but, of course, we must understand that
Energy Supplies Emergency Act they are not interested in selling this oil in order that we can tranship it to the United States. It is quite understandable. This afternoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during the question period, answered a question by my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) asking whether the government was considering the possibility of establishing embassies in the Arab countries who have oil, with a barely audible no.
Mr. Speaker, is it conceivable that at a time when an oil shortage is foreseen and oil producing countries are willing to sell us some oil, the government is not even thinking of opening embassies in those Arab countries, when we have some in other Arab countries that do not produce oil? It is unbelievable but that is the situation.
In his last election campaign, the Quebec premier talked about superports to be built with Arab capital. How do you explain that the whole scheme fall through when Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Masse meet with their federal counterparts? There are strange coincidences and I would be inclined to think that the federal government, in order to save somebody or other-maybe its little brother in Quebec-refused to enter into agreements with Arab countries. It is always the same policy, to freeze everything, but the potential is there. Let us not develop it.
How is it that our country is involved in international disputes like the Israeli-Arab conflict. What business is it of ours? Why should we create bad blood between both sides and why could we not be considered a friendly country by Arab countries? I can make nothing of it. Maybe we want to freeze everything?
Mr. Speaker, those facts may be hard to take but they are true. And because they are facts, they must be brought out in order that attempts be made to find the means of remedying the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, if something positive and concrete is to be done, in view of the situation we are witnessing today, it is high time we cease to allow companies, trusts, monopolies, pools to do as they please and decide whether there is a shortage or not. It is up to us to find the means of ensuring a much more stable consumption of the energy required by all Canadians. We must put a stop to mysterious goings-on, to hesitant policies, and see things as they are: then we can remedy the situation appropriately.
Mr. Speaker, there are certainly various ways of eliminating waste in the field of energy so as to determine the action to be taken in order to live in a minimum of comfort. I think that these problems always arise from an unrealistic basic policy having nothing in common with a natural economy that can really enable all Canadian consumers to take advantage of this country's potential. I believe we have here an excellent opportunity of showing that only a government inspired by economic policies such as those we advocate could avoid these crises.
Even if someone once again argues that we are harping on the same theme, Mr. Speaker, I will answer that when we have a potential of physical natural resources as we do in Canada and when we rely on these resources that we find all over the country it is scandalous. However, with the kind of system that the Social Credit would apply, Mr. Speaker, such a situation could not exist since we would have a daily inventory of our possibilities, of our capacit-

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
ies. We would know exactly where we stand in such and such a field, where are our petroleum and hydroelectric resources, what are the possibilities both in quality and quantity for our energy resources and this would ensure our stability. There would never be a crisis since, in a system materially based on our real physical possibilities, a crisis is impossible.
In the present system everything is based exclusively on profit instead of needs. We wonder why we have not already begun developing the tar sands in western Canada, Mr. Speaker. It is scandalous. We should not ask this question. We have failed to do so because it is too expensive. We should ask ourselves: Do we need that? If we do, we have only to issue a line of credit. Consequently, we have a human policy. We have needs and we have the physical possibility to satisfy these needs; all we have to do is to take action. It is as simple as that! The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government cannot contradict such a thing. Mr. Speaker, we say that our suggestions are mathematical and scientific; we would like somebody to attempt to contradict them, not to make fun of them, it is too easy, because some people usually summarize all arguments against our policy in two words-the money machine. We are far from it but we talk about oil and energy in general.
Mr. Speaker, we do have this energy. We are too stupid to develop it. We wait for capital and investments; how many times have I repeated in the House how stupid it is to rely on investments, on foreign capital and especially on foreign products? We see what that brings with it. And this country still bases its policy on trade, and exclusively foreign trade. We have the proof that we are on the wrong track. When we estrange foreign oil producers we see that when they do not operate neither do we.
If we have an economy based on our potential and our own needs and if we develop our physical potential according to our needs we will never have to call upon Arab countries or Venezuela. And God knows that in the great majority of areas which provide for consumer needs Canada is a totally independent country. We would always be ready, Mr. Speaker, to go and bargain with other countries to get lemons, bananas, pears, oranges and grapefruits since those are the only things missing in Canada.
It is therefore always ridiculous for a country capable of supporting itself, producing everything it needs, not too populated, with nearly infinite reserves, not to be able to develop coherent and stable policies. That is unacceptable. And no matter how hard the government tries to protest by saying that it is doing as good as the others and the latter would not do better, when suggestions so clear, so explicit, so mathematical and so scientific are made, they have no other choice but to accept them.
We understand this government not wanting to accept that. It would seem to displease those who actually control this country-high finance. They are not ready to accept those reforms. If that happened we would actually see this country develop and progress on the sole strength of our real credit and not on the goodwill of foreign investors. Evidently, this is not acceptable to those who have the financial means but such is the situation.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I think that Bill C-236 may help improve conditions. In spite of the various ways to obtain imports, if nobody wants to sell us oil, we will look stupid. This is not the solution to the problem. It has been stated that through that legislation, the matter will be entirely settled, as if production and goods depended on a legislation.
I do not hope so, but in spite of the goodwill shown in the bill I hardly think that something can be done about it. The real solutions should strike at the root in order to make what is financially possible materially feasible.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-236, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, in its proposed form and the way it is worded is, in my opinion, just one more retrogressive step this Liberal government is taking to eventually deprive the Canadian people of the effect of the principles of representative government, principles which this government has continuously and progressively eroded over the years it has been in power. If this erosion is not soon abated, the people of Canada will be saddled with a government that will be as effectively totalitarian as some of those now evident in some unfortunate countries around the world.
Immigrants like myself who came to Canada from areas and countries where democratic government is anathema, came not only to better themselves economically but, more important, to regain lost civic and personal liberties and to once more breathe the air of free men. No words of mine would be adequate to describe the emotions of these people when they are no longer challenged in their every day living by bureaucratic dictatorial stooges-there is no better name-who are responsible to no one but themselves. You only have to ask groups like the Hungarians and Czechoslovaks who fled from Soviet military subjugation in their homelands, and the Ugandans who fled the dangerous and volatile General Idi Amin, to confirm firsthand accounts of the terror these people went through. That is why we must be ever vigilant and ready to uphold democracy in Canada, whether an attack originates from sources within or without.
It is imperative that this government take stock of itself if it is to extricate itself from its apathetic approaches to solving the problems of this nation, and its apathetic approach to the important needs and desires of the people of Canada. It is quite evident that this government has not lived up to its mandate, a mandate which is being violated more and more each day this government remains in power, ably aided by the conditional support of the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party of Canada, by their actions in supporting this inept government, is doing a disservice to the people of Canada by depriving them of their right to choose their own government and not be governed by confrontation, as is now being witnessed.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) opened the debate on Bill C-236, he spoke very casually, even more casually than he does when giving his hazy replies to the many questions on energy put to him during recent question periods. The casualness
December 11, 1973

of his delivery is reminiscent of one of my processors in university who had long passed his academic usefulness and had long lost not only his own interest but that of his students and, therefore, was not of any use to himself or his students. I suspect the minister had an underlying purpose in this type of delivery. It was a lame attempt to lull the members of this House into passing this bill by playing down its dictatorial aspects if passed, this bill would give dictatorial powers to five people to allocate and govern all aspects of energy in Canada. These five people, all omnipotent, would not be responsible to the people of Canada. They would have a power that should be foreign to any country which calls itself a democracy. The word "democracy" does not mean dictate to the people, as this government would like it to mean. It means rule by the people, as advocated and established by my forefathers almost 2,500 years ago.
The way Bill C-236 is worded, with its innuendos and soft-sell approach, compares very much with the fine print one often hears about in connection with some shady contractual dealings conducted by people whose only interest is to dupe their victims for the sake of the almighty dollar, giving no thought to the aftermath of such action in terms of suffering and deprivation.
It is not my intention to dwell on this bill clause by clause. This will be done by the committee. However, I say most emphatically this government has not made a case to justify the wide-reaching powers of this bill. The only power the government may need now is the authority to ration. The government has already at its disposal adequate legislative authority to deal with most of the energy problems facing Canada today.
Perhaps the most serious energy problem we face today is that of price and price increases. This bill does not provide for a realistic policy that would alleviate fuel prices which work to the disadvantage of Canadians east of the Ottawa valley. One of the most devastating provisions of this bill is that which would give the government authority to negate provincial priorities relevant to an energy crisis. In fact, some of the powers are so far reaching that the federal government can invade areas of undisputed provincial authority.
This bill, if passed, will give all power to a board to supersede and over-rule all legislation now in effect relating to the control of pollution and pollution problems affecting our country nation-wide. Legislation that may have taken years of preparation to protect our environment would be ruthlessly swept aside, perhaps never to be enforced again, or if re-enforced, would only be in a diluted version. This bill is not a temporary measure to deal with a specific crisis and then expire. It is intended to be permanent. It does not come into effect on proclamation like the War Measures Act. It is in effect from the day Royal Assent is granted and can be used by the governor in council at any time. A much more careful look will have to be given this bill. Many changes will have to be made before it will win the respect of the majority of the members of this House.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on Bill C-236, the energy supply emergency bill. Surely, there can be no matter of greater importance at this time, to not only this country but other
Energy Supplies Emergency Act countries around the globe, than energy supplies. This bill will give the government wide-ranging powers to allocate the supplies of energy which we have available in Canada. Indeed, we are probably one of the most fortunate of all nations on earth in that we are blessed with large supplies of all forms of energy, including hydroelectric power, coal, oil, gas and, perhaps the most important in the long haul, uranium.
The problem is that these resources are not all arranged geographically so we can take complete advantage of them at the present time. This is why this bill is brought before the House giving the government the power to allocate these resources during the next couple of years while we construct an oil pipeline from western Canada to supply markets in eastern Canada-Montreal and the maritime provinces.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in this House and outlined a series of steps that will provide the basis for a national energy policy. These include the maintenance of the price freeze on crude oil until the end of the heating season this winter. The effects of this will be felt in parts of Ontario and western Canada which receive petroleum products from Alberta and the prairie provinces.
As might be expected, the immediate reaction to the maintenance of this present price freeze from the multinational oil corporations was a strong one, since they see the windfall profits that might otherwise have been theirs slipping out of their hands. However, the benefit of the freeze will accrue to the Canadian people who require oil products in the part of Canada west of the Ottawa Valley line. In spite of the loss of these windfall profits which the multinational corporations had their eye on, they have not done badly in that the price of their products has gone up at least 30 per cent during the past year.
That is not to say, however, that the price of crude oil will remain constant or frozen for any length of time. The Prime Minister made it clear that in the long haul we must raise the price of our crude oil products if we are to develop the Alberta tar sands, the oil reserves in the Arctic and those off the east coast on our continental shelf. Indeed, I have heard it said that in order for the tar sands reserves to be developed at current prices and cost of production, the oil companies would have to receive something like $6 a barrel.
The Prime Minister also made it clear in his speech last Thursday that the federal and provincial first ministers would be meeting in January and looking at the problems caused by increased prices east of the Ottawa Valley line, especially the cost of heating oil for Quebec and the Maritimes. He indicated that some solution would be found for low-income families. I, personally, think we should be considering some form of direct assistance, whether a direct payment to compensate low-income families for the additional heating costs they are going to encounter this winter, or some other form of assistance. The Prime Minister made it clear that the old Borden-Ottawa Valley line was to be eliminated, and with the co-operation of the premiers of the provinces there would be a one-price and one-petroleum policy for Canada. However

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
this is worked out, whether through an oil marketing board or some other mechanism, the idea is sound and the only one suitable for Canada. We must have a unified pricing system across the country, with some differences in respect of the various areas to compensate for transportation costs.
I also welcome the government's plan to establish a national petroleum corporation. This will have definite benefits for Canada in that the government will be able to acquire supplies of petroleum products from overseas by dealing directly with the state concerned, which it cannot do at the present time, at least not in a manner that will ensure adequate supplies.
I was also pleased to note that in the government's new policy the national petroleum corporation would be given certain powers. One of its responsibilities would be to hold oil reserves for the future needs of our nation. I welcome this announcement. Most important, I feel this national petroleum corporation should be looking at the development of the tar sands. There are something like 500 billion barrels of oil locked in these tar sands, and acquiring the technology and know-how for removing it should be made one of the responsibilities of the new national petroleum corporation. Indeed, I would like to see the federal government become involved in at least one public work in the tar sands for extracting this oil. This could take place either in co-operation with the government of Alberta, as I hope will be the case, or if that is not possible I believe the federal government should go ahead and establish at least one mining and refining program in the tar sands. This would enable the federal government to develop the necessary know-how.
I was pleased, as well, that the Prime Minister said the government is giving top priority to the development of our nuclear technology and the use of uranium by electric utilities. Perhaps the nuclear technology which Canada now has is one of the greatest success stories in the country in view of the development of the CANDU reactor. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and Ontario Hydro with their development at Pickering, Ontario, have developed a system for bringing on stream tremendous reserves of electrical energy. The federal government has made it clear that it will provide half the financing of additional plants to be developed in New Brunswick and other provinces. The success of the CANDU reactor can be seen from the sales of the reactor to countries such as Argentina and South Korea which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) announced last Friday.
Representing the uranium capital of the world, Elliot Lake, may I say we view the position of the government on this matter with a great deal of satisfaction and pleasure. The township of Elliot Lake has certainly suffered a great deal of economic upheaval during its brief lifetime. However, with the recent announcement of a sale by Denison Mines Limited of some $800 million of uranium, representing over 40 million pounds, for delivery during the 1980s and early 1990s, combined with the recent sale of reactors to other countries, and the announced lifting of the embargo by the United States Atomic Energy Commission in 1977, to be fully implemented by 1983, the future stability of Elliot Lake is ensured.

Apart from my own interest in this matter as the elected representative for the community of Elliot Lake in the Parliament of Canada, I believe we should be moving more of our electrical utilities toward deriving their energy from uranium. It seems wrong to me that Ontario Hydro is at the present time building the Lennox generating station that will utilize petroleum products which might have to be brought in from overseas, in that we cannot be sure of adequate supply, when it could have been designed to utilize the uranium mined here in the province of Ontario. Surely uranium is the principal source of energy we now have in the province of Ontario since most of the accessible hydro dam sites have been developed.
Similarly, last summer Ontario Hydro announced an electric utility station to be developed in the next few years in northeastern Ontario, leaving it open whether it would utilize petroleum, coal from the United States, soft lignite coal which is located near Moosonee, or uranium. It is time that a province such as Ontario, so rich in uranium, came out forcefully and in a decisive way and said it will build future electric utilities designed to use the uranium with which it is so richly endowed.
Although the matters I have mentioned are important, perhaps the most urgent announcement last week concerned the pipeline to be built to supply crude oil to Montreal and the eastern provinces. We now have a pipeline system running from western Canada to Manitoba and then to Sarnia through the United States. This line passes through northern Michigan and crosses the Straits of Mackinaw at St. Ignace. It is my opinion that a pipeline to Montreal should be built from this location at St. Ignace, Michigan, to Sault Ste. Marie and from Sault Ste. Marie through northern Ontario to Montreal. That would be a preferable route to the Sarnia to Montreal route over United States soil. In the first instance, the distance for the transmission of this oil via the route through Sault Ste. Marie would be approximately 200 miles shorter, and the majority of the pipeline would be built through Canadian territory rather than through the United States.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Using Hamilton steel.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) suggests that Hamilton steel should be used. I thought the minister was very kind in his response to him last Thursday or Friday when he said that the Canadian Commercial Corporation would look into the prospect of purchasing some Stelco steel. There has always been a friendly rivalry between Algoma Steel, in Sault Ste. Marie, and Stelco in Hamilton, but it is quite obvious that if the pipeline is built from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal we would save a great deal in shipping costs if the steel and the pipe were obtained from Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie; and I know the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth would not want to see these extra shipping charges added to the cost of the pipeline. I am sure a great deal of the pipe will come from the Algoma Steel Corporation in Sault Ste. Marie.
In his announcement last Thursday the Prime Minister indicated that the federal government would proceed as
December 11, 1973

soon as possible with a natural gas pipeline from the Alaska, Prudhoe Bay area, through the Mackenzie River delta to Edmonton having due regard to environment considerations and native rights, and would seek a reciprocal agreement with the United States for the continuity of supply for both countries. Surely this is a wise proposal.
The majority of our pipelines supplying crude oil pass over United States soil. We have the Portland pipeline from Portland, Maine, to Montreal which supplies something like 500,000 barrels a day. We have the Interprovincial pipeline from Manitoba to Sarnia which carries large volumes for the Ontario market, and we also have pipelines on the west coast. Surely we should make arrangements to build a pipeline from the Mackenzie River delta to Edmonton to carry natural gas. But if the United States decides to transship its gas in a liquified form, it is questionable whether we will have large enough volumes to justify the establishment of such a pipeline, at least for many years.
On the other hand, if a common carrier pipeline were developed which would carry United States and Canadian natural gas, the reserves in the Mackenzie River delta would be available to southern Canada. While I think the reciprocal agreement to ensure continuity of supply, proposed by the Prime Minister, is wise, in the long-run we should be looking toward the building of a maximum amount of the pipeline on Canadian soil using the Sault Ste. Marie route, thus having the greater percentage of our oil travelling over Canadian soil.
Another advantage to having the pipeline from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal is that the long-term transmission costs of pumping would be greatly reduced because the line would be 200 miles shorter. In addition, the construction time would be shortened. Most of the territory of Northern Ontario is rural, and the difficulty of obtaining right of way would be considerably reduced. Much of this area is Crown land, and the acquisition costs are less in rural areas than in urban centres. The urgency of constructing the pipeline, and the fact that it can be built more rapidly through this area of northern Ontario, are obvious and decisive factors.
It is my understanding that the proposed pipeline would be of the 30-inch size and would have an initial capacity of some 300,000 to 400,000 barrels a day. It could be expanded by adding additional pumping stations, perhaps increasing the number from five to ten at some later date. This would provide the possibility of supplying the Montreal market via a Canadian pipeline. I understand the market in Montreal is in the nature of 500,000 to 600,000 barrels a day. This is a mommoth project amounting to an expenditure in the neighbourhood of $150 million. To put it in perspective, this is somewhat less than one-third the cost of constructing the St. Lawrence Seaway-and prices have gone up since that construction.
The advantages to the area in which the pipeline would be located are mainly related to the number of jobs created during the construction phase. From this point of view it would be most welcome in northern Ontario, where we have areas of high unemployment, especially in the north-shore area of the Algoma constituency. But there may be other long-term advantages such as the possibility of a refinery to serve northeastern Ontario. It has been pro-
Energy Supplies Emergency Act posed at various times that a refinery should be constructed in the Algoma or northshore area. The location of a pipeline through this area would make this possibility even greater.
Since 1969 the federal government has been trying to diversify the economy of northern Ontario with incentive grants for regional development. The availability of an oil pipeline offers the possibility at some future time of a petro-chemical industry being established in the area, such as we now have at Sarnia-where the main Interprovincial oil pipeline terminates. If this were to occur, the location of a crude oil pipeline through northern Ontario would be one of the most important instruments of regional development that the federal government could provide. The area has many natural assets to lend itself to the development of secondary manufacturing and processing industries or the petrochemical industry, such as the availability of several locations for deep water ports along the north shore of Lake Huron.
If a refinery capacity were to be located in this area of northern Ontario, it would eliminate some of the expensive back-haul costs which now exist in bringing back refined products from the Sarnia and Toronto areas to points in northern Ontario such as Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Sudbury. For many years the people of these areas have paid higher prices for petroleum products than those paid in southern Ontario. Perhaps the availability of a refinery capacity in northern Ontario would eliminate some of the transportation costs from the refineries located in southern Ontario.
It is my understanding that the major oil companies are now moving to establish a refined products terminal at Superior, Wisconsin, which is designed to provide the upper Great Lakes region with refined petroleum products. It would be nice to see some of the refined products for northern Ontario made in northern Ontario. If the pipeline is to be located through northern Ontario, this becomes a distinct possibility. I think the government should give serious consideration to having this pipeline located in northern Ontario. This would provide a shortened distance for transmitting oil and would reduce further the transportation costs in respect of moving crude oil to Montreal. Also, there would be a shortened time in respect of the construction of the pipeline if it were to be located there. There is, in addition, the possibility of lower prices of petroleum products in northern Ontario and some future diversification of the economy in this region.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I should like to lay on the table of the House notice of a ways and means motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Standing Order provides for this procedure. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time before six o'clock, but perhaps I could take a moment or two to say, in rising to speak on Bill C-236, that I am very conscious of the fact that coming from eastern Canada I do not have the degree of expertise of some of my western colleagues. I think this House of

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Commons and my party are very fortunate in having the benefit of so many people from that part of the country who have a pretty good background in the petroleum industry.
Frankly, I am amused by the many one-day wonders on the government side, who all of a sudden have been making weighty pronouncements in the House about petroleum and all the ramifications this so-called crisis has in store for us all. I am particularly apprehensive that some of these policies may affect in a very detrimental way the part of Canada I represent.
I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) made an excellent speech last night. It was a thoughtful speech in which he dealt with a great many aspects of the problems involving energy. It is a great pity he did not make this speech even a year ago, because had he done so it would have been not only a great credit to himself but of immeasurable benefit to this nation. I wish he had had a bit of foresight rather than the hindsight he now has.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is getting close to six o'clock. Perhaps I might be permitted to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was in the process of saying that I thought the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made an excellent speech yesterday in which he dealt at some length with the pertinent aspects of this country's energy policy. He mentioned some of the potential of a nuclear power strategy, he made passing reference to the potential involved in the long-range transmission of hydro power in Canada, and he dealt with possible subsidies to alleviate some of the difficulties that people in various parts of Canada will encounter. Since he is here this evening, may I point out again how much better it would have been, and how much more credit his speech would have brought him- although, granted, hindsight is easier to come by than foresight-had he made it even a few weeks ago, preferably a few months ago.
I was interested also in the intervention in this debate on Bill C-236 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think that all too often the Prime Minister chooses not to intervene in the debates in this House. Of course, we are all the poorer when the prime minister of a nation does not come forward with a definitive statement of what his feelings are on important pieces of legislation.
Speaking as a member from eastern Canada, I wish to say that I was not overly comforted by what the Prime

Minister had to say or, I should say, what he had to read, but it does seem clear that he has found it necessary to admit that a pipeline should have been built and, hopefully, will be built in the not too distant future. He mentioned that initiatives must be taken to develop the Athabasca tar sands. He also mentioned that if conditions in the Atlantic region deteriorate, he is prepared to discuss some sort of welfare or social measures under the existing framework to help people in that region. I commend him for all these things, but I cannot help saying-and I do not say so with malice-that I wonder where the right hon. gentleman has been and where his government has been for the last few years.
Surely if what we have now in Canada is a crisis, it has to be, at least in some measure, a crisis of neglect. I cannot help but think, since I am a new member of the House of Commons, that in the so-called good old days, which were not that long ago, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) headed the government, he took a lot of abuse, as all prime ministers must, for some of the economic conditions that prevailed in Canada. However, at that time his administration introduced the concept of the Ottawa Valley line, and in so doing provided a useful climate for the Canadian oil industry in which to develop. Also in passing, since there has been a lot of comment made about general economic conditions, he has been recognized, at least in my part of Canada, as the first prime minister really to recognize the need and necessity for and the desirability of some meaningful measures to reduce regional economic disparities. He also controlled inflation.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), one of the most able ministers in the government and a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, gave his usual speech that was full of bombast. It was a good speech, as his speeches always are, but one thing that was not characteristic of the hon. gentleman was that he appeared to deliver it from a text, as is the invariable custom of the Prime Minister. That is very unusual for that very talented minister. I could not help but think it did not quite sound like him and I had the feeling that, while he gave the speech in his usual forceful manner, his heart wasn't in it.
Nowhere in his speech did he express any reservations about what is likely to happen, in terms of the measures for which he is responsible, in attempting to reduce regional economic disparities. Nowhere did he express determination that he was going to stand up and try to persuade the Prime Minister and the cabinet that the present energy situation, by its very nature, was bound to have a serious effect upon eastern Canada. I am surprised he did not do this, because he is too astute an individual not to know that nowhere in this nation will an industry of any magnitude settle when there is a shortage of energy or any difficulty in obtaining a guaranteed source of energy.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also made note of the necessity, as I said earlier, of possibly subsidizing the consumers in eastern Canada. Obviously, this will mean the expenditure of a great deal of money. I am not qualified to pass judgment on how much, but if a million
December 11, 1973

barrels of oil per day are required for eastern Canada, and if the price differential is as great as it appears to be, say around $3 a barrel, then even a partial subsidy of $1 a barrel will mean a total of $365 million per year. If that is the effect this will have on eastern Canada and our national budget, I cannot help but wonder where the administration was, in not being able to foresee the situation, and why in heaven's name it did not build the Montreal pipeline a year ago when it had been given every indication by people who knew, including the much maligned Premier of Alberta, that this situation was likely to occur.
Although it is easy to point the finger at this side of the House and say it was the Tories who implemented the so-called Ottawa Valley line, surely in fairness it must be said that economic and social conditions have changed tremendously in the last 11 or 12 years. When the Prime Minister said on September 4-and he has made at least two subsequent pronouncements-that the pipeline is going to be built, surely that was one of the greatest obviosities ever uttered by a prime minister. Of course it must be built. I only wonder why it was not built a long time ago as conditions changed and the industry evolved. I see that the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) is in the chamber. He, too, knows that what is aggravating the energy crisis is a transportation problem, a distribution problem. And while this is understandable, I think it is more forgiveable than the omission by the government to take the ordinary preventive step of building the pipeline. Surely this is so obvious that it is incredible that the government did not do it.
But returning to the transportation aspect, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the priorities in this nation are such that if we move any great amount of petroleum products it will seriously interfere with badly needed facilities to move other basic commodities such as wheat, apples, lumber and any number of things that have to be moved. To impose this burden on our transportation system at this time makes it difficult to understand how it can be done.
It seems pretty clear that the Prime Minister in imposing this policy is not to be criticized so much for doing one thing or doing another thing as for being inconsistent in what he is doing. At least the NDP policies on this matter are fairly clear. They would like to see the petroleum industry brought under government control as much as possible. That is their policy; and whether we agree or disagree with it, at least in this regard they have been fairly consistent. But the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have not been consistent. They have been saying one thing at one time and another thing at another time. And regardless of whether or not you agree with them, if one is to respect them and give them credit for having the courage of their convictions, one has great difficulty in doing so when one looks at the contradictory and rather inconsistent policies they have been advocating.
When the Prime Minister talks about conditions in eastern Canada he is not being consistent. I well remember, as the newest member of this House when I came to Ottawa in 1971, that the very first question I asked in this chamber was of the Prime Minister. He had just come back from the Victoria conference. I asked whether the ques-
Energy Supplies Emergency Act tion of offshore mineral rights had been on the agenda or had been discussed. As I recall his answer, the right hon. gentleman indicated that it was not on the agenda but there had been something done about it. Since that time I and other members from eastern Canada have asked him what he intends to do to resolve the impasse between the eastern provinces and the federal government, which was actively impeding and which continues to impede the exploration which oil companies must undertake if they are to build up our reserves.
In my opinion, the Prime Minister has tried to put the onus back on the provinces, but the Premier of Nova Scotia has been very quick to put the onus back on the Prime Minister. The latest announcement indicates that there will be an early resolution of this impasse. I am very skeptical, and hon. members will have to be a little indulgent with me because I see no reason, based on the past policies of the government, to suggest that either the federal administration or, for that matter, the province of Nova Scotia, is taking steps at this moment that will finally cure this ridiculous situation which, at a time of national energy crisis, is impeding the search for the very substance we require so desperately in that part of Canada.
This debate is on Bill C-236 and, while I understand it is not proper to go into the bill clause by clause at this time, I would like to deal with some of its provisions in a general way. In this regard I would like to say at the outset that I see no reason for any member to withhold support of the bill provided the government is willing to modify some of the very sweeping and almost dictatorial and coercive powers that are embodied in it. I have not had much time to read the bill, but from the cursory way that I have been able to go through and compare it with another piece of legislation brought forward by this government, Bill C-181, commonly known as the War Measures Act, I find they have quite a bit in common. Just as the War Measures Act, in retrospect I think, is universally regarded as one of the sorriest aspects of civil liberties in this country, I feel I am not being unfair when I ascribe the feeling to the government that if they had to do it over again they would not invoke this type of measure. I think they are indulging in the same type of overkill when they try to persuade members to pass this legislation, Bill C-236. I think it is obvious that because of the government's neglect it is necessary, if not desirable, to give them the power to allocate and ration, but I cannot see why it is necessary to have the tremendous, sweeping powers that they are asking for in this piece of legislation.
We have just finished a major debate on Bill C-132, the foreign investment review act, and in that piece of legislation we were given a very good example of how intransigent the government has been when it comes to giving the provinces of this country some sort of consultation in deciding their own destinies and in dealing with some things that under the BNA Act may be under their exclusive jurisdiction in less troubled times if time were taken for a judicial determination.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation transcends or makes a nullity of some major bills. It supersedes the National Energy Board Act; it appears to super-

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act sede the Combines Investigation Act in part; it appears to ride roughshod over environmental statutes; it supersedes the Transportation Act, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, the Export Act and the Export and Import Permits Act which has been in effect since 1947.
Mr. Speaker, one wonders why at this particular time the government seems to be in such indecent haste to pass this bill holus-bolus without, as far as I know, having any meaningful opportunity for knowledgeable people in the industry and the provinces to come before the relevant standing committee to testify and give advice. At least in Bill C-132 the government gave the provinces and the other interested parties an opportunity to do this. The hearings were quite lengthy and everyone who wished to do so had the opportunity to speak and to put their feelings on the record.
For the balance of this winter, unless the crisis is a great deal more serious than the minister has led us to believe, I do not see why the simple power to allocate and ration would not suffice for this government. I hope when this bill is sent to committee that the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will pause and reflect on the advisability of taking a more tolerant and less dictatorial and totalitarian attitude toward this whole legislation and will give a little attention to some of the amendments that I am sure will be forthcoming from all members of the House interested in civil and provincial rights.
Since much has been said about the position of the province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, I think the editorial in today's Ottawa Journal seems to stand up very well as far as it concerns reaction to the Prime Minister's remarks in Vancouver. I think it would be only fair to point out that far from being the selfish, oil-grabbing sheik that he has been portrayed to be by certain members opposite, the Premier of Alberta has given every indication that he is making every effort to achieve the maximum production, for the general good of Canada, of Alberta's petroleum resources. In fact, if he were to take a more selfish view and curtail production and leave some of the oil in the ground, thus taking a narrow, provincially-oriented view, probably in terms of future dollars and cents his province would be much better off. I think it is time that people in the House of Commons recognized this, and I think it ill behooves the leader of the federal government to go out of his way to malign the Premier of Alberta. I hope this will not happen as often in the future-hopefully, never in the future-as it has happened in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Looking briefly at some of the provisions of Bill C-236, it is very interesting to see what clause 34 says. It is a very short clause and appears to be designed to make certain that the provincial administrations are bound beyond the shadow of a doubt, because all it says is:
Her Majesty is bound by this act.


Mr. Baldwin:: Anti-monarchy!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It may well be, as the hon. member says, that it is an anti-monarchy act. If it is not, it is anti everything else. When looking at the powers given under this piece of legislation, one wonders what the minister

has left out. They can practically do everything but sell fish and chips and mine gold under this act and do so at the expense of the province.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I notice that the head office of this proposed body, that will have the great power to allocate and ration and do everything else that they would like to do, appears to be designed to be in Ottawa. That is hardly surprising in view of past experience, but one would wonder why they could not put the head office where the main supply of energy is, whether it is hydrocarbon or petroleum-that is, in the western provinces. Why must it be in Ottawa?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Surely there should be some minimum standard on the qualifications of the people who are to sit on this board. I see that they may hold office at pleasure. There is no particular measure put in there to limit their term of office, and there does not appear to be any qualifying standard or measure of administrative, technical or procedural ability either. It would be easy to say, I believe unkindly, that it is another refuge for defeated Liberal candidates or partisans of the government. I hope this does not occur. I do not mean to be unkind by suggesting this, but surely if there is to be any amount of expertise generated particular qualifications should be laid out for the people who hope to sit on this very important board.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Most of the defeated Liberal candidates have already got jobs.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There is another aspect of this so-called crisis that has been dwelt upon in passing by some hon. members, but I think it should be mentioned again. There does not seem to be any unanimity amongst members of the treasury benches as to whether there really is a crisis in this country in so far as energy is concerned. If there really is a crisis, I am sure no hon. member would wish to quibble in any respect with the government's request that it be given emergency powers. We have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) saying, in effect, that we never had it so good and we are going to have a great, great year next year and there will not be any adverse effects at all; or if there are, somehow it will all turn out to be good for us. Then we hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources saying at various times that there is going to be a shortfall of "X" thousand barrels, or there is likely to be a curtailment of supply from Arab sources because of political ramifications. In such a situation you wonder who to believe.
Is there a crisis, or is there not? The much heralded technical advisory committee to which the minister referred seems to be-I do not want to be unfair and malign his committee-like that mythical dagger in Hamlet. The quote, as I recall, is as follows: "Is this a dagger that I see before me, with its handle towards my hand? I have thee not, yet I see thee still. Or art thou a dagger of the mind, a false illusion?" That about sums up
December 11, 1973

what we know about the committee. We do not know very much about it. It is neither heard directly nor seen clearly. Why, some cabinet ministers are not even able to name their representatives on the committee.


Mr. Blenkarn:: At least four of them.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This applies to at least four of them. Again, one wonders what is going on and if the government really knows.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You know the government doesn't know.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My hon. friend from Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) says that the government does not know. I accept his suggestion but I hope he is wrong. I hope the government knows what is going on because, after all, it is our government. It would be a sad commentary on Canada if the government really were as incompetent as it now appears. I hope for all our sakes that it is not.
An energy crisis has been proclaimed. However, as inflation will soon increase by almost double, if the rise in December is at all significant, and as food prices have increased by 18 per cent, it is evident that there is a crisis. I suggest, however, that the crisis is a governmental and credibility crisis rather than an energy crisis. I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is determined, and well he should be, to take steps for curing the problem in so far as those steps lie within his power. He realizes, I think, that we need a national power grid in this country. I hope he will bend every effort in making sure that such a national power grid is built and that the blanks in our energy picture are filled in. He will encounter enormous problems in this regard and it is unfair to expect him to cure these overnight. I believe he is making a sincere attempt to do something.
I wish that in his statement the Prime Minister could have indicated what tangible steps are being taken to build a pipeline. Does the government not realize that rights-of-way must be acquired, surveys done and expropriations carried out? How is the pipeline to be built? Will it be built on a cost plus basis, or otherwise? Will it be built by a consortium from the private sector, or is the government going to build it? How will this be done? It would be reassuring to know if the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) has made sure that there will be enough steel for the pipeline. Concrete action would reassure the people of Canada more than high-sounding announcements. I trust that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who has been under a lot of strain and a lot of fire lately, will bring forward something concrete and, will, either in the committee or in the House, reassure the people of Canada that something tangible is being done and not just being talked about.
It would be encouraging if the Minister of Finance would bring forward positive proposals, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) suggested in a recent speech, for giving fast write-offs to companies and individuals erecting storage facilities so that we can have at least a 90-day oil supply in eastern Canada, instead of literally wondering where next month's fuel is to come from.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
It is evident that if any board of directors or any executive of any labour union in Canada had gone before the shareholders, or before the rank and file and presented the sorry record of performance which this government has presented to the people of Canada, that board of directors or that executive would be turfed out so fast that they would not even be given the chance to say, "Thank you for giving us the privilege of serving you."
If the government is sincere in wanting to cure our problems, if it will give assurances that when this bill is sent to committee it will be receptive to constructive suggestions and sound amendments from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, if it does not appropriate unto itself, at the expense of the provinces and the people of this country, more power than it actually needs for dealing with the crisis for which the government itself is responsible, it will not find it difficult to get the support of most members of this House.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take my full time in speaking on Bill C-236. I just wish to make a few comments. First I wish to discuss some of the inequities which I see evident in the bill and then I shall turn to what I consider possibly a more important question, the over-all world situation as it relates to energy and to food. I say that because food and energy are interrelated questions. Then I shall refer to what may happen if the present Liberal government does not make any effort to do any long-range planning with regard to the situation in Canada.
In our discussion of Bill C-236 we must first ask ourselves this question, "Is there really an energy crisis in Canada at this time?" because that is really what the government asks us to decide. I submit that Bill C-236 is premised on the belief that Canada has a serious national energy crisis. It appears this way, certainly. While it is undoubtedly true that Canada is experiencing regional supply shortfalls of Arab oil and imported products, it is also true that much of the country is not faced with an energy crisis similar to the crisis in the United States, parts of Europe and Japan.
While the Middle East dispute undoubtedly accelerated some domestic price characteristics, many of the aspects of Canada's crisis have their roots in longstanding domestic problems which have been brought on by the present government. The principal cause, therefore, of our crisis today-if it can be termed a crisis-is not Arab cutoffs or oil embargoes but lack of federal leadership in anticipating and settling problems in an orderly and co-ordinated manner.
For example, in March this year the government stated that it saw no need for a pipeline to Montreal. By June, when the government energy "non-policy" as it has been called, was tabled, this pipeline was about the third priority. Yet on September 4, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the decision to build such a pipeline. Now, over two months since that announcement, nothing has been done, no plans have been announced and the project may yet be delayed because there may be a lack of steel and other commodities which are needed for building this pipeline which is essential if Canada is to meet its total energy requirements. As I have said, we are not even sure at present if we can get the necessary steel piping. Accord-

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act ing to Premier Lougheed of Alberta, the federal government could have built the pipeline in a crash program this past summer. By now the pipeline could have averted the most serious supply shortfalls in eastern Canada. In my opinion, at present we are experiencing serious supply difficulties, but I do not consider these difficulties as being the same as a serious energy crisis.
May I make the following comments about the bill. First, I do not think the bill is a temporary measure which will deal with a specific crisis and then expire. I think it is intended to be a permanent measure. It does not come into effect upon proclamation, such as the War Measures Act. It is in effect from royal assent and can be used by the governor in council or the cabinet at any time.
In talking specifically to the bill, its scope extends over petroleum products manufactured in whole or in part from petroleum, natural gas, coal or electric power. The scope of the bill is not confined to an emergency that is Canadawide but can cover one that affects only a region of Canada; so we could have the government acting on pressures from one region, which certainly could be to the detriment of the long-term interests of the country. The scope of the bill not only provides for control of the products mentioned, but railways, pipelines, ships, Canadian and foreign, and extraprovincial motor transport. The entire power is in the governor in council. This is something we should be aware of, not only in this House but throughout the country.
The declaration of an emergency measure, actual or anticipated, is at the sole discretion of the governor in council or, in this case, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). I consider this to be a sham. As long as the board acts on the instructions of the governor in council, it can be used in any way the governor in council wishes.
Another area that has to be considered is where powers are given and appear to be restricted, as with the declaration of an emergency and the regulatory powers that go along with it. It will be observed that these restrictions will be apparent only since the restrictions are subject to the discretion of the governor in council or the board. Another point should be kept in mind as we are debating and eventually coming to a vote on this legislation. Once again, this word runs through virtually every clause in the bill. It is the same kind of regulation that one detected in the old Bill C-176, the national marketing legislation, which gave the governor in council virtual domination over a large segment of the agricultural industry.
The bill would give the governor in council power to enter the provincial constitutional field of legislation, to affect provincial energy revenue sources, provincial industries manufacturing products in whole or in part from petroleum and, as well, provincial primary and secondary industries through control of railways, pipelines, ships, and extraprovincial motor transportation. If this bill were implemented, the side effects upon the provinces, apart from the direct effects, cannot be foreseen except in the darkest terms. This bill is unnecessary and unwarranted. The powers of the bill are too far reaching and cannot be justified under current circumstances. The government

should only be given these powers after it can be established that Canada will in fact face a major energy crisis, and not a major transportation or distribution crisis. The government to date has not made a case to justify the wide-ranging powers of this bill. The only power the government may need now is the authority to ration. The government has at its disposal adequate legislative authority to deal with most of the other energy problems facing Canada today, certainly if it acts on consultation with the provinces, which is something it has not done up to this point.
There is another point that should be remembered: Should the far reaching powers of this bill be given to a government that has shown itself to be incompetent and incapable of handling the current situation? I say no, Mr. Speaker. These kinds of powers should not be given to the present government. Perhaps the most serious energy problem we face today is that of prices and price increases. This bill does not make provision for a realistic domestic energy pricing policy. No provision is made for the postfreeze period or for the replacement or removal of the export tax on oil.
Once again we see the government reacting to shortterm expediency. The bill has the authority to negate provincial priorities relevant to any energy crisis. In fact, some of the powers are so far reaching that the federal government can invade areas of undisputed provincial authority. For example, the Manitoba Hydro corporation could set a rate and the federal government could invade that provincial right, changing the rate if it deemed this to be necessary.
With regard to recommendations, the legislation would certainly be more palatable if two areas were touched on, and two areas alone. First, an inquiry should be launched into aspects of Canada's energy crisis to determine the true extent of the crisis we face at the present time. Second, we would go along with this legislation if it contained an offer to grant the government the powers needed to allocate fuel supply at the wholesale level and rationing at the retail level, if that was the limit. As I mentioned previously, that is not the case. As I stated in my opening remarks, two important areas, from a global point of view, are not touched upon by this bill. There has not been any move by the government to even recognize the possibility of the kind of situation we could be getting into as far as food and agriculture are concerned.
I have been asked how this so-called energy crisis or supply problem we are experiencing in Canada is going to affect agriculture. I think it is safe to say that because of the inaction of the government in not extending the pipeline into the Montreal area when they had a chance, east of the Ottawa Valley line there may be some shortage of fuel for agricultural purposes. If nothing is done, the over-all effect will certainly be higher prices to the consumer, as the costs incurred by the primary sector will have to be passed on. We are looking at areas directly related to the whole petrochemical industry. We are considering fertilizer, for example, in which we will see an increase in price. We are talking of 15 per cent increase in the price of fertilizer for this year, and goodness knows what will happen in the future. Gasoline and diesel fuel, oil and grease will also be going up drastically in price.
December 11, 1973

There are side industries such as tire manufacturing to be considered. Plastics are used in a good many agricultural machines at the present time. There are also the implements manufactured in the United States for large tractor and manufacturing facilities. They could not only be in short supply, but the price could increase substantially. I think these are the kind of questions to which the government must address itself.
What is the government going to do to deal in the long term with food prices in Canada? As I mentioned before, I should like to talk for a few moments about the use of food and fuel on a worldwide basis and how these commodities will ultimately affect Canada. There has been no indication that the government is going to take any steps in this direction until we face what might be termed a very serious situation. Fuel and food shortages on a global basis interact to increase the effect of each. It is safe to say that rising fuel costs will discourage increased output of food, thus escalating the cost of food. This in turn will force up wages and other production costs, which once again will force up energy costs. I do not intend this to be a warning to the public that higher food prices are in store for us all, but certainly the fact is that the Canadian public, as people throughout the whole world, will experience higher and higher food prices unless steps are taken now to safeguard against this.
Commodities derived from oil and grain are central to the needs of all mankind. As I have said, their production is interrelated. In various forms they are so essential to the entire human economy that their relative scarcity and their price affect and will affect the availability of all commodities. Because they are traded on a worldwide scale, the effects of scarcity and the price of these commodities will be international. Therefore, it will be difficult or impossible to shelter the economy of any nation from the effects of sudden price increases unless governments are prepared to introduce policies to offset these increases.
Because price increases have been sharp to date, and because these new high prices will prevail, sudden and sometimes startling economic disruptions can shortly be expected on a worldwide scale. One of the first effects of these disruptions will be the creation of pockets of unemployment. One industry likely to be sharply affected in North America, certainly in the United States, within the next 12 months is for example, the automotive industry. If gasoline rationing is imposed, sales of standard cars with a V-8 or six-cylinder motor will be sharply reduced and the output of automobiles will decline. This will have tremendous side effects on related industries, thus damaging the economy.
We will also see a reduction in tourism and recreation. Two effects of this will be rising costs and fuel shortages that will cut back the distance travelled as well as the number of people travelling. Carrying this assumption to its conclusion, the consumer durables industries will also be affected. If unemployment rises-and there is certainly no indication that it will not do so once we get into the new year-and if prices continue to escalate, consumer buying very likely will decline. Since the effects I have outlined are likely to spread to all of the industrial world,
Energy Supplies Emergency Act a major economic disruption of a new and little understood form would appear likely. I think as early as June, 1974, we can expect a good part of the world to face major problems.
So far as domestic policy implications in Canada are concerned, if we continue on our present course, applying stop-gap measures, I think we will see widespread economic disruption on an international scale, the effects of which will spill over into Canada in the form of price instability and diminished markets for manufactured goods, consequently bringing about unemployment.
Canada produces large, exportable surpluses of most of the commodities in short supply. We are self-sufficient in others and in still other cases, such as oil and natural gas, we could expand production to make surpluses available for export. In this context I think it is imperative that the nation understands that international terms of trade have undergone astonishing changes in the last 18 months and that these new terms of trade are going to be more or less permanent.
In essence, the balance of bargaining power has shifted to favour those regions or nations that have available for export supplies of food, fuels, hides, paper, wood and natural and synthetic fibres. The balance has shifted away from those countries or regions that have had available well-made or low-cost manufactured goods. The mere capacity to produce steel, automobiles, aeroplanes, colour television sets or cameras is of little value if food is short throughout the world and energy is scarce. Indeed, rapid increases in energy and food costs may make price structures so unstable as to reduce the capacity to manufacture, and may also tend to diminish markets. The terms of trade have changed not only among nations but also among regions. The regions with oil and grain and food products for exports are favoured by such terms of trade as exist at the present time. In Canada, the west and the north are so favoured, really to the disadvantage of the industrial heartland of Canada, and certainly this is a change.
Unless the government gives direction to the country and consults the people of Canada, instead of simply bringing in ad hoc and short-term measures to deal with the situation, I think we can assume four or five different eventualities. First of all, I think the price of most foodstuffs except fruit and vegetables will remain high. In fact, if nothing is done by the government to increase production-and the government has not been able to increase production significantly up to this time-the price of most of these items will probably increase. I think it goes without saying that the price of oil and natural gas will remain high. I think, also, that inflation, food costs and energy shortages will ultimately generate unemployment, leading to what could be considered an economic recession. I think lumber and paper prices will remain high for some time to come, and the price of manufactured goods will be forced down by diminishing demand.
With energy and labour costs going up and general inflation increasing, prices are likely to be erratic and confusing. Consequently, prices are likely to be very erratic and uncertain for the consuming public not only in Canada but in the total global sphere in which we are talking.

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
During the question period today a very valid question was asked in respect of consultation to begin in January when the federal and provincial energy ministers meet. I suggest a conference should be called to discuss the overall consequences of economic policy in order to determine what might happen and how it will affect Canada. Such a conference should discuss measures we can take to soften the blow for certain groups in Canada, if not for all consumers. It should decide on a policy designed to help all the nations of the world and to alleviate the plight of some of the more unfortunate nations. At that time the question was sloughed off as being irrelevant and not having much meaning.


Walter David Baker: The government doesn't have any answers; that's their problem.


Jack Burnett Murta: In view of the situation we will be facing, unless we have meaningful consultation at this kind of conference on the broad economic base, we will face more difficulties. I think such consultation is essential if we are to experience any kind of general prosperity during 1974 and beyond.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) began his speech by asking whether there is an energy crisis in Canada. Then he proceeded to tell us there is no real crisis.


An hon. Member:: We heard him.


David Orlikow: He said that what we had in Canada was a shortage of oil in Quebec and the maritime provinces, and that in fact western Canada-which means all of Canada west of the Ottawa River-has more than enough oil, and the difficulties which Canadians are now experiencing are the result of the failure of this government to build a pipeline.


An hon. Member:: Along with yourselves.


David Orlikow: What the hon. member failed to say-he did not tell the whole story because if he did he would convict not only the present Liberal government but former Conservative governments-was that the decision not to build the pipeline to supply eastern Canada was made in 1961 by a Conservative government. That government decided it would be better for the oil companies in western Canada to leave the eastern market to the tender mercies of the multinational corporations.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go back to your socialist party.


David Orlikow: I presume the reason for this baying from the Conservative backbenchers is that they realize the difficulties we are in today are a result of a Conservative government's decision in 1961 that the maritime provinces and Quebec should be left to the tender mercies of the multinational corporations which would supply the needs of those provinces with crude oil from Venezuela and the Arab countries. Now that we have a shortage because the traditional suppliers cannot bring in oil, or if they can they are bringing it in at very substantially increased prices, we observe a sudden desire on the part of the

official opposition to have this pipeline built. We have been calling for a pipeline for years.


An hon. Member:: You have been having a pipe dream for years.


David Orlikow: We have been calling for the construction of a pipeline under both Liberal and Conservative governments.


An hon. Member:: You haven't called for one, really, at all until now.


David Orlikow: I suggest that had this pipeline been built, we would not now expect the shortages in the eastern provinces which undoubtedly there will be this year. The hon. member for Lisgar joined his leader and the Conservative Premier of Alberta in urging increased prices. Let me put on the record what the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said a little over a week ago when speaking in Vancouver.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It's on the record, baby.


David Orlikow: Mr. Stanfield suggested that the federal government should be meeting with representatives of the oil-producing provinces with the idea of increasing prices in stages and working out arrangements leading to a Canadian price ceiling somewhat below the international level. The hon. member for Lisgar repeated that in a slightly different way.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


David Orlikow: The hon. member said that when the price freeze comes off at the end of the winter season, the federal government should discuss the question of prices with the provinces. I suggest he made a slight mistake in that he did not mean with all the oil-producing provinces; he meant the government should consult with the one province, Alberta, whose premier wants an increase.


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


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the hon. member aware that the province of Saskatchewan has just imposed, or made preparations for the imposition of a tax of $2.20 on oil leaving Saskatchewan?


An hon. Member:: What about B.C. and its socialist government?


David Orlikow: I am glad the Leader of the Official Opposition asked me that question, because I want to spend a substantial part of my time putting on the record the policy of the province of Saskatchewan embodied in its new legislation, and the policy of the province of British Columbia in regard to gas, comparing that with the policy of the province of Alberta whose premier wants to increase the price of oil and gas not just in respect of exports to the United States but for all Canadians. The bulk of that increase will not go into the coffers of the provincial government but will go to the oil and natural gas companies. That policy is exactly opposite to the one
December 11, 1973

adopted by the governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and I will prove that by putting on the record exactly what are their policies.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are just another phony socialist.


David Orlikow: I want to put on the record-


An hon. Member:: Put something on the record, will you?


David Orlikow: I want to put on the record the views of a very radical, revolutionary socialist cabinet minister in the largest province of Canada.


An hon. Member:: How about the socialist cabinet we have across the floor?


David Orlikow: I want to put on the record the views of the Minister of energy for the Conservative government of the Province of Ontario.
An	hon. Member:	That	well	known	red,	Darcy
McKeough.


David Orlikow: Yes,	that	well	known	red,	Darcy
McKeough.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just speak about the provinces that are NDP-oriented.


David Orlikow: Did you say that he is NDP-oriented?


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, I said speak for the provinces that are NDP-oriented, because that's all you guys know about.


David Orlikow: If the hon. member for Edmonton-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Centre.


David Orlikow: -Centre (Mr. Paproski) would stop interrupting me, I might have time to put on the record not only the views of Mr. McKeough, whom I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton West will not agree with, but-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Edmonton Centre, please.


David Orlikow: Let me quote from a report of a speech which Mr. McKeough made in, of all places, Edmonton, to that very radical organization, the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, on December 4.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you talk about Don Macdonald from Rosedale over there.


David Orlikow: This is a report concerning what Mr. McKeough said:
"If we bump the price by $5 a barrel-and there are plenty of people that are talking about $9 oil in Canada at the wellhead- there'll be a windfall for somebody of $50 billion," he said.
The report continues:
"The highest price ever paid for crude oil in this century-$16.40 a barrel-has been accepted by the Nigerian government. The price is nearly double the official posted price for Nigerian crude."
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Then further:
We have in this country of the order of 10 billion barrels of proven conventional oil reserves. If we bump the price by $5 a barrel-and there are plenty of people that are talking about $9 oil in Canada at the wellhead-there'll be a windfall for somebody of $50 billion. This will be a direct transfer from the citizens and industries of this nation and obviously, it will reduce the effective earnings of many wage earners. It may well drive certain enterprises out of business and this will further prejudice the earnings of other citizens.
I notice the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blen-karn) has been trying to get the floor. I hope he will follow me and deal with some of the arguments put forward by Mr. McKeough. Mr. McKeough is also reported to have said:
"So we've got to say $9 is too high. Well, what isn't too high?
"In this whole matter of price and given any kind of national leadership, it should be possible for Canadians to design policies that will serve Canada. And it can be done without taking it out of the pockets of the people of Alberta ... But it makes no sense at all to attempt to accomplish the strengthening of the economy of Alberta simply through upping the price of petroleum when, with every dollar we add to the price of a barrel of oil we create a windfall profit of $10 billion, and the bulk of this goes to the oil companies that have that ten million barrels in their inventory. The government of Alberta will get extra income from royalties, but why would the Canadian consumer give up $1 to put some 20 cents into the general revenues of Alberta. It doesn't make sense."
I hope members of the Conservative Party are listening.


An hon. Member:: We will answer you.


David Orlikow: Don't answer me; answer Mr. McKeough. Mr. McKeough further stated:
"I submit that there are two alternatives in the matter of the pricing of petroleum. We can hold the price on our conventional oil and gas and protect nation and people-all of the nation and all of the people. That price, by the way, should be one which more than covers the cost of production-which in terms of Alberta oil and gas will and properly so escalate."
I think I have quoted enough from Mr. McKeough to show that a very important Conservative, one speaking on energy for the largest province in this country, is opposed to an increase in the price of oil for existing stocks. That speech of Mr. McKeough last week is virtually the same speech made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) when he warned the government that if it increased the price of oil it would face defeat yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition asked, "What about Saskatchewan?" Let me summarize what the Saskatchewan legislation, which was introduced yesterday, proposes to do. Incidentally, the bill of the Saskatchewan government was attacked by the Canadian Petroleum Association as being probably the most vicious piece of legislation ever enacted in North America.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


David Orlikow: I like to know who opposes me, because very often when I know that I know whether I am right or wrong. If the Canadian Petroleum Association is opposed to the bill, then in all likelihood we can assume it is a good bill. The government of Saskatchewan proposes that the present wellhead price in Saskatchewan, currently about $3.38 a barrel, will continue to be the maximum the oil

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act producers will receive. The price of Canadian oil in the United States at the present time is $5.58 a barrel, the $3.38 which the government of Saskatchewan proposes to continue to pay to the oil producers plus the federal export tax of $2.20 a barrel.
The Premier of Saskatchewan says that the oil producers will be allowed to continue to receive the current wellhead price, but that the government of Saskatchewan proposes to take all increases in price over that figure and add them to the provincial revenues. An exception would be allowed in the form of incentives for exploration and development. Industry minister Kim Thorson said that the revenue from the special tax-which could produce $160 million a year if the tax is $2 a barrel-would be used for subsidies to keep consumer oil prices down, for financing the operation of Crown-owned Saskoil, for research and other steps to improve energy supplies and for bolstering general government revenue. He went on to say that the $3.38 maximum price for oil producers could rise if their costs rise, and added:
Twice a year we will review the costs of producers and operators in Saskatchewan and where we are satisfied that those costs have actually increased, then the operator will receive a rebate or exemption. His basic price will go up.
That is what Saskatchewan is doing. Let us compare that with the proposals of the Premier of the province of British Columbia under which price increases would apply to all the people in Canada as well as the users in the United States, and under which the major portion of the price increase would go not to the government or to the people of the province of Alberta to help pay for the services they require but to the producers of the oil, the multinational corporations which control virtually all the oil and natural gas in Alberta.
Yesterday when my friend the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) was speaking he was asked about the increase in the price of natural gas in British Columbia. I wish to place on the record what has happened. Let us look at the situation with respect to British Columbia and see who is to be affected and who will pay more money for natural gas in British Columbia, and compare the situation there with the situation in Alberta. The British Columbia government will collect $100 million a year extra through the sale of petroleum resources, particularly natural gas. The government of British Columbia has set up a Crown agency, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which has the power to produce, market, distribute and transmit petroleum products in British Columbia. Through this agency the government has taken over the role of middleman in the natural gas industry, which role formerly was performed by Westcoast Transmission company. Producers will now sell their gas to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, which will then resell it at a profit to Westcoast Transmission for distribution to the domestic and foreign markets.
The government of British Columbia urged Westcoast Transmission to raise the price being charged for natural gas so that it would more accurately reflect the real value of that resource to the province's economy. Westcoast Transmission received approval from the National Energy Board in Ottawa to increase the price of natural gas to 58 cents per thousand cubic feet from 32 cents. Who is paying that increase? That is the important question. More than

60 per cent of the natural gas produced in British Columbia is exported to the United States.


Mr. Taylor:: Shame.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Taylor) says "Shame". I say, more credit to the government of B.C. which is making the American consumers pay the same price for natural gas as they would have to pay if they got it from any other source in B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: The remaining 40 per cent of natural gas in B.C. is consumed by commercial and industrial operations and by residential consumers in the province. In some cases it would be difficult for gas-using home owners to escape the effects of so drastic a price increase as that imposed by Westcoast Transmission. But in British Columbia a Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, distributes the vast majority of natural gas to residential users, and this year B.C. Hydro has enough surplus cash left over from sales of electricity to the power-hungry northwest United States to subsidize the increased cost of natural gas.
In other words-and I hope members of the Conservative Party are listening-the government of B.C. will get substantial increases in their revenues but the B.C. consumer will not pay more for natural gas than he has been paying. The net effect is a profit from the sale of natural gas to Westcoast Transmission, the collection of an increased corporate income tax as Westcoast reaps the benefit of higher prices, and no price increase to the public.
I suggest to members of the Conservative Party, and particularly to members from Alberta, that they should consider how the terrible socialist governments of British Columbia and Saskatchewan have dealt with the problem and compare it with the solutions to the problems of oil and natural gas that have been suggested-


Mr. Epp:: That is a socialist rip-off.


David Orlikow: I want to tell the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp) that I, and I am sure all my constituents, would be very happy with a rip-off the benefits of which go to the people of the province concerned, rather than a rip-off the benefits of which go to the corporate, multinational corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: I make an offer to the hon. member for Provencher. I am willing to have him debate this subject at a meeting in my constituency, and I will debate the subject in any town in his constituency that he wants to name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: This is the kind of policy which we believe should be followed, a policy which brings the benefits of the resources with which this country has been blessed to the people, rather than giving the benefits to the multina-
December 11, 1973

tional corporations as has been argued by members of the Conservative Party in the House and as haS been argued by the premier of Alberta. We say that there is no excuse for an increase in the price of the oil which we now have. That oil has been searched for, drilled for, discovered, tapped, piped and collected. It is still oil that can be obtained whenever wanted. The oil companies were selling oil a year ago at $2.50 a barrel and were making a legitimate profit. Today, they are getting $4 a barrel and they are not satisfied; they want more.
We do not say that the price of oil which is yet to be discovered should cost $2.50 a barrel or $4 a barrel. We know that the price of oil discovered in the Arctic will be much higher than oil found in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the smaller amounts in Manitoba, in years gone by. We know that the price of oil to be extracted from the tar sands will probably be substantially higher than the present price. I will not repeat the argument in detail tonight, but we have said that we believe it would be more efficient and cheaper for the people of Canada if the oil which we need was searched for an developed by Crown corporations organized jointly by the federal and provincial governments. But whether that happens, or whether we develop future oil by the traditional method of permitting private companies to search for it, discover and develop it, the oil will cost more money. We do not question that and we do not question that whichever way oil is found, the new oil will cost more than the oil we now have.
What we are saying, and what we will continue to say, is that the oil which Canada now has belongs to all the people of Canada, not just to the multinational corporations which have title to it. Since it belongs to the people, it should be delivered to the people to meet their needs, at a fair price. We say that the price of oil is high enough- the oil which is now in reserve. As I said a few moments ago, the oil companies were making money a year ago when the price was $2.50 a barrel. We are saying that they are making more money now that the price is $4 a barrel. It has been estimated that the increased revenues of the oil companies in a full year, as a result of this increase of $1.50 a barrel, is in the neighbourhood of $700 million, which is added to the more than adequate profits which the oil companies were making a year ago.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Who determines the profits, the NDP?


David Orlikow: No, the shareholders of the oil companies who were very happy when they were making the profits which the oil companies showed in 1971 and 1972.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Do you think the shareholders were happy? Were you a shareholder?


David Orlikow: I was not a shareholder and it is immaterial whether I or the hon. member for Mississauga are shareholders, although I am inclined to believe, without any other evidence, that such is the vehemence of the interjections of the hon. member in defence of the oil companies that he is in fact a shareholder of Imperial Oil. If he is not, because he is so vehement in their defence perhaps they ought to make him a gift of some shares, because nobody could be more avid in the defence of the oil companies than is the hon. member for Mississauga.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
The fact is that the profits of the oil companies went up by some 37 per cent in the last year. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is an increase of $700 million. If you calculate the increase in the assets of the oil companies just on the basis of the oil which they have in their proven reserves, we are talking about an increase in this one year, on the basis of $1.50 a barrel, of $9!4 billion. And the Leader of the Opposition and the other oil sheiks from Alberta want to double that price; they want to give the oil companies increased profits in the neighbourhood of $40 billion to $50 billion.
That figure of $50 billion is not one which I conjured out of the air. I assume that the very competent, cautious Conservative, both with a small "c" and a large "C", the Minister of Energy in the province of Ontario, was not talking through his hat, as members of the official opposition think I am doing, but was talking on the basis of adequate and detailed research when he made the speech to which I referred earlier in which he said that an increase to $9 a barrel would be a windfall of $50 billion. He did not say to whom it would be a windfall, but obviously it would be the multinational corporations. Who would pay for this windfall, Mr. Speaker? It would be the western Canadian consumer. My constituents would pay for it in increased costs of gasoline for their cars. They would pay for it in the increased cost of oil for their homes.
The hon. member for Lisgar talked about how it would affect some people. His constituents would be affected in the same way as I have already indicated. In fact, his constituents would be hit much harder than mine because they operate farms; they have tractors and combines. They are the ones who would be hit with an increase in their operational costs of something in the neighbourhood of $500 to $1,000 a year. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar forgets about his constituents and their needs; he thinks about the oil companies and joins the Leader of the Opposition in calling for an increase in the price of oil. It is obvious that Mr. McKeough was thinking about the Ontario citizen, the Ontario consumer, the Ontario farmer, the Ontario businessman.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Are you campaigning for us in the next Ontario election?


David Orlikow: If I thought you meant it, I might. Mr. McKeough knew how much the Ontario manufacturer will have to pay in increased costs for the fuel to operate his factories, and how much the consumer will have to pay for the by-products of the petrochemical industry which, to a large extent, are processed and manufactured in the province of Ontario. He is worried, and that is why he goes to Edmonton and uses the opportunity of speaking to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce to appeal to the Premier of Alberta, his fellow Conservative, to be reasonable, to be moderate and not to demand the pound of flesh which that premier is demanding, the bulk of the profits of which will go to the multinational corporations rather than to the people of Alberta.
Mr. McKeough understands what is at stake here. He takes the trouble to think through the problem. He takes the trouble to think through what are the needs of the

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act people of Ontario. He calls on the federal government and the government of Alberta to keep the price of conventional oil where it is at the present time.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And Mr. McKeough calls for the people of Ontario to vote Tory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) rising for the purpose of asking a question, or on a point of order?


Mr. Stevens:: To ask if the hon. member would permit a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This could only be done with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was wondering if the hon. member could inform the House when he intends to speak specifically on Bill C-236, and specifically why he thinks that bill is needed with respect to any energy crisis in Manitoba.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that I am as much in order as was the hon. member for Lisgar, or as was the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), in that what I am doing is discussing the question of oil, including the price of oil and the allocation of oil.
I am going to vote for this bill because there is an emergency that must be met. It is an energy crisis caused by the failure of this Liberal government and of the former Conservative government to adopt a national oil policy which would build the pipeline to Montreal. It is the lack of that pipeline which is creating this crisis. Of course, the hon. member for Mississauga is uncomfortable because I am quoting the words of a Conservative minister.
The discomfort of the Conservative Party with respect to its position on the question of oil involves the impossibility of its meeting the desires of the Ontario Conservatives, so ably expressed by the Ontario Minister of Energy, and the stand of the Alberta members of parliament, all of them Conservatives-all 19 of them-who are here to back up the unconscionable, unjustified demands by the Premier of Alberta who has one objective and that is to increase the profits of the multinational oil corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in almost 12 years as a member of parliament I cannot remember ever being interrupted or heckled as much as I have been tonight. It does not bother me but I ask, what is the explanation? Is it a coincidence, or is it because the questions I have raised are touching some very sensitive nerve? Is it due to the fact that the Conservative members still have not figured out how they are going to explain to their constituents why they are supporting the Premier of Alberta when he demands, in every way he can, an increase in the price of

oil, which will be paid for by every resident in this nation if he has it his way?
As I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I am going to support this bill because although I recognize that the crisis is the result of the negligence, the criminal negligence of the former Conservative government and of this and past Liberal governments, the fact remains that we have this crisis. The people of Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. are facing oil shortages. As long as they face possible oil shortages, I am going to support this proposal which the government has introduced so late. But, Mr. Speaker, better late than never. This proposal will give the Canadian government, even this incompetent government, the legal means to deal with the shortages which may occur. That is why I am going to support the bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, support of this bill does not mean continued support of the government. The hon. member says, "Careful, careful". I say to him as my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said last Wednesday, that members of parliament in the New Democratic Party will not agree to a price increase. We would not have agreed to it yesterday; we would have brought the government down.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You don't have the guts.


David Orlikow: And you did not have the courage. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga and I hope the Hansard reporter has been able to-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You give it out, baby. You don't have the guts.


David Orlikow: I hope the Hansard reporter has been able to get the interjections made during my speech by the member for Mississauga, because I hope the record will show-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You love the Liberal bed.


David Orlikow: -how these interjections are a continued defence of the Conservative government and the Conservative Premier of Alberta in their demands for an increase in the price of oil. We have said that we are opposed to an increase in the price of oil and I say tonight, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said last week, that if and when this government moves to remove the freeze on oil prices, whether it be at the end of March or the end of April-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


An hon. Member:: Continue. It is a good speech.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


An hon. Member:: Now we will never know what will happen.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
December 11, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) wishes to ask a question, but because the time of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has expired it can only be done with unanimous consent. Does the House agree that the hon. member may answer the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I would remind hon. members that this would automatically give extended time to the hon. member.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. He said that the Conservative caucus was supporting the Premier of Alberta. I should like to know, as a fellow Manitoban, how he reconciles the statement of the Premier of Manitoba and the Minister of Industry and Commerce, Mr. Len Evans, who have said that there is no energy shortage in Manitoba and that Manitoba should use all the energy it can.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between what the Premier of Manitoba or the Minister of Industry and Commerce said and what I said. I said there is no crisis-


An hon. Member:: You said there was. You would vote for this bill.


David Orlikow: I said there was no shortage of oil west of the Ottawa River, and that is precisely what the Premier of Manitoba and the Minister of Industry and Commerce of Manitoba have said. There is, or there may be, or there will be a shortage in the provinces east of the Ottawa River. It seems very strange to me, as a member of parliament from Winnipeg and as a member of a party that does not have a single member east of the Ottawa River and is concerned about the possible shortage in those provinces, that members of parliament from the official opposition who have a majority of the members from Newfoundland, all but one of the members from Nova Scotia-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Orlikow: -and half the members from-


An hon. Member:: There will be some from Winnipeg the next time, too.


David Orlikow: -and even two members from Quebec, do not seem to think there is a crisis. They do not seem to think there is a possible shortage. They do not seem to be very concerned at all about whether on not the citizens of that part of Canada are going to suffer this winter. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I am concerned about the welfare and the needs of the people of Canada from whatever area they come.


An hon. Member:: Even Alberta.


David Orlikow: Even Alberta, Mr. Speaker. And if there is a possibility of shortages in those provinces, if there is an possibility that rationing is required, if there is a possibility that allocation of supplies will be necessary, I am more than willing to give the government the authority to do
Energy Supplies Emergency Act the job which is necessary. I do not think it would be in the interests of the people of those provinces to leave the allocation of oil to Imperail Oil, to Shell, to Gulf or even to the former resident of New Brunswick, K. C. Irving. If some agency must take the responsibility for allocation of short oil supplies, I would rather trust the government of Canada, even an imcompetent government like this, than the multinational corporations.


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, as one of my hon. friend says, an answer like that deserves a speech. I am sure it is apparent to all hon. members this evening that there is a crisis in Canada. The crisis is certainly not in gas; the crisis is one of confidence in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles E. Haliburton: The crisis is mainly concentrated in the area to my left. This is quite apparent from the speech we have just heard. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) supported this government last night. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, he rises to condemn the very policies of this government which were the subject of a vote of confidence yesterday. Listening to the speech just made, one would think that the debate tonight was not about any crisis in relation to energy in this country or any crisis in relation to oil or petroleum supplies; one would think we are dealing with a resolution to put the oil companies of Canada in their place. That is not the question before the House, Mr. Speaker. The question before the House is whether this House can endorse what the government would have us believe is the initial opening volley of some kind of oil policy for Canada, of some kind of energy policy for Canada that would have some meaning, some continuity which would assure the people of this country of reasonably priced energy during years to come.
The performance of the government to date, and I speak of the party from 1963 to the present, is such that one cannot have any confidence whatever in the ability of that party on the opposite side of the House to make the policy that would benefit Canada. Why should we support such far reaching powers as are contained in this legislation? The powers contained in the legislation are as great as any that were contained in wartime measures, powers that will give the government absolute control, absolute discretion to choose between companies, to favour regions and otherwise to interfere with the normal operation of the oil market. What is the basis for their request? Is there an anticipated shortfall this season of 75,000 barrels? There was one day, but another day it was an anticipated shortfall of 200,000 barrels.
One day, Mr. Speaker, we had the situation where there was no blacklist as far as Saudi Arabia and Canada were concerned. According to my information derived from an oil company, officials of the company were advised by officials of Saudi Arabia that although Canada perhaps was not on any Arab blacklist, there would not be any oil shipments to Canada from that country. So although it may be suggested that we are not on any blacklist, we would be fooling ourselves if we took that suggestion seriously, as our consumers need relief.
8652

December 11, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
We are suffering from lack of foresight on the part of the government. The government should have foreseen difficulties this year. We barely escaped difficulties last year when it was apparent to the world that energy was running out. Certainly, for several months this year members on my side of the House suggested that energy may be running short. Even the Liberal government should have foreseen three years ago that certain measures were needed to preserve energy supplies in this country.
I wish to make a couple of suggestions which I have made before. These things could have been done by the government to alleviate the situation. For instance, the government might take advantage of certain storage facilities in various areas, especially in the eastern part of the country from which I come, and thereby make limited amounts of oil available in time of need. We have salt mines in Nova Scotia. I understand, from my slight knowledge of the west, that there are abandoned gas wells there which could be used to store oil and gas. I suggest that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) should consider using the salt mines in Nova Scotia which could hold tremendous quantities of oil. I do not think we can expect commercial companies to store the quantities I am speaking of; however, I do not see why the government should not build up significant inventories of oil which could be of substantial help in times when supplies are temporarily disrupted.
Another suggestion I wish to make, which perhaps is not new, relates to oil pipelines. Surely the advantages of an electrical grid are now apparent. The need for a national electrical grid system is apparent to all. I do not see why some kind of national grid for transmitting oil and gas should not be built as well. That ought to be investigated. The grid should be designed, not to supply all the needs of any market but to supply the top end of the market which the commercial companies seem reluctant or unable to supply. It is apparent that all commercial companies fulfil their supply commitments in a similar way. Therefore, what is required, I suggest, is some sort of publicly-owned system which would provide a supply cushion in the event of shortfalls.
May I mention something else. I have heard it suggested a number of times in this chamber and elsewhere that eastern Canada, which to my mind includes the maritime provinces, has for some years enjoyed cheap oil while parts of Canada west of the Ottawa Valley line have been required to pay higher prices for oil in order to foster the Canadian industry. I do not know of the experiences of other hon. members; however, if my experience of oil prices in the maritime provinces is the same as that of other hon. members, I suggest that that allegation will not strike a responsive cord in the hearts and minds of consumers in those provinces. There may have been some slightly cheaper prices in the eastern provinces; I am not qualified to comment on that. According to my information, in Nova Scotia the price of heating fuel has been one cent lower, at the maximum, than the price in Ontario. By the same token, for the past five or ten years since I have driven a car I have found when driving through Ontario and the western end of Quebec that gasoline has been between 10 and 15 cents cheaper in Ontario, or in the area

west of the Ottawa Valley line. It was much more expensive in Nova Scotia, where I have done most of my driving. That higher price may be a distortion resulting from federal or provincial taxes; there may be some very good reason for it. I merely say that the suggestion that eastern consumers have benefited for some years from the expenditures undertaken west of the Ottawa Valley line will not bear examination in my area.
What moves has the government made in this alleged energy crisis? It has instituted a price freeze. Again, speaking as a consumer from the maritime provinces, may I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that the price freeze which he endorsed a few moments ago in fact is not a price freeze in the maritime provinces. If the government has imposed a price freeze, certainly the consumer in the maritime provinces is not overly aware of it. We are told that oil companies have been asked to freeze prices and not increase the margins under which they operate. At the same time, the consumer in eastern Canada is being asked to shoulder the full cost of increases of petroleum products imported into the country. There is no price freeze, then, east of the Ottawa Valley line; there is only a price freeze west of the Ottawa Valley line and, as I suspect, it is more apparent than real.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I bring up this subject of aging and its problems in order to focus attention on the need for increased knowledge in the field of aging, its prevention and treatment. Many people, many of them professional, believe our knowledge is entirely inadequate to meet the demand. The need for this knowledge has grown because of the greater number of people who have avoided the pitfalls of acute diseases from infancy to 40 years of age as a result of the discovery of vaccines and serums. Diseases have been prevented by innoculations and the treatment of acute diseases has been controlled by sulphas, penicillin and antibiotics. For those principal reasons people now live longer. Actually, accidents now are the principal causes of death up to 40 years of age and over. That is why today the average span of life is nearly 75 years, as compared with just over 40 years at the turn of the century.
About one person in ten today in Canada is 65 years old or over. There are nearly two million such people in Canada. Hospital admission rates for those 65 years and over are three times greater than for younger people. Today, Mr. Speaker, 60 per cent of all deaths are owing to

chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc. We run into these chronic diseases after 40 years of age. Therefore it follows that with the increased life expectancy and the falling birthrate there will be an increase in chronic illnesses.
Perhaps in future we shall need to provide, not so much schools and recreational facilities for the kids as work for the aged who are able to work and homes and hospitals for them when needed. Therefore, medicilly the problem is to prevent the onset of chronic disease as long as possible and to rehabilitate people if possible, even those 65 or over who have suffered from disease, if it can be done. As I said just now, sicknesses and hospital admissions are three times greater for older people than for younger persons. I suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that economics demands that more research be undertaken in the field of aging. Chairs in geriatrics should be established in medical schools and should be similar to chairs in pediatrics established just over half a century ago.
Research should be carried on from childhood to old age. When, and why, does arteriosclerosis set in? What can be done to delay its progress by treatment and diet, and that of many other diseases? When studies show that 50 per cent of a group of young men 20 to 30 years of age who were killed in action had evidence of arteriosclerosis, it is time research endeavoured to find out what we can do about it, what is the cause and whether it can be prevented. Geriatric medicine must stimulate research to prevent illness, suffering and loss of manpower. We lose many people at the peak of their earning power because of coronaries and so forth. Within the past two months in my home town we lost two dentists, both around 50 years of age.
I am sure the minister is aware of this problem. I urge him to make available the money and the leadership to establish geriatric chairs of medicine so that we may prevent, not only the huge economic loss of men and women at the peak of their earning power in their forties and fifties but we will meet the challenge of an aging population. I say to the minister or to his parliamentary secretary, give the necessary leadership and the funds to establish with the provinces the necessary teaching and research so that people may continue to work and enjoy good health, even well beyond their retirement age, happily adding to the resources of their country in the sunset of their lives.
It is not enough for the minister to say this is a provincial matter. He knows that the whole economics of this social structure may be threatened. This social structure has been built up by the federal government and no one else. There is not only that, but the increased costs of medical care and hospitalization fall in the national medicare field. This he knows. Action and leadership must be given or we will find ourselves floundering in a sea of enveloping social discontent and unrest, unable to meet our social liabilities to those we have promised to look after.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon.
Adjournment Debate
member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). There is no question of his concern for the aged of this country and the problems that are unique to their particular group in society. The health resources fund is being used to build high quality educational and research facilities from coast to coast for the training of all types of health manpower. The greater part of this national investment is being used to develop our 16 university health sciences centres. These centres include, of course, teaching hospitals and ambulatory care centres where training in geriatrics is possible.
Since 1966, when the health resources fund became operative, the total output of physicians from Canadian medical schools has risen and is rising dramatically. In 1966 we produced 881 physicians, and in 1972, 1,292 physicians. Plans for 1978 indicate an output of 1,904 physicians. Furthermore, increased immigration has added to our supply of physicians in Canada to give us at the beginning of this year a total of 34,508 active physicians, which is equivalent to a physician-to-population ratio of 1:633.
The decision as to the use of our education institutions is, of course, for provincial governments to make, and I believe they are making good decisions. We are endeavouring to help them make their decisions by determining what the actual requirements are for physicians of all types. A task force in our department, making use of the unique information arising out of the medical care program, is working closely with a committee set up by the national physician manpower committee, and with each of the specialty associations, to come to a more precise understanding of requirements. This would include, of course, requirements for physicians with specialized training in geriatrics.
Probably the best person to care for older people is the family physician. We are fortunately experiencing in Canada a change in attitude and a swing of the pendulum away from the traditional specialities. More and more of our new graduates are moving into family practice after taking a two-year residency training program in family medicine. We should be grateful to the College of Family Physicians of Canada for its leadership and dedication in this important area and to the faculties of medicine for developing the residency training programs. With all these things happening in Canada through the collaborative method of governments and other concerned agencies, I believe we can look forward to better care for our older people. Our department is cognizant of the tremendous needs in terms of the health care of and the unique problems faced by our elderly people in Canada, and as a federal government we are doing everything within our jurisdictional power to solve these problems.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-DISPOSITION OF UNUSED PORTION OF GEORGE DERBY HOSPITAL SITE, BURNABY- PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES IN NEGOTIATIONS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) which was really in two parts. First of all, I asked whether he would see fit to invite the municipalities of Burnaby to participate in negotiations for the transfer of a very large area of land, some 200 acres, in that municipality. I also asked whether
26695-35$

December 11, 1973
Adjournment Debate
he would consult with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) in view of the precedent this government set in the transfer of the Jericho lands in Vancouver, lands which were returned to the city of Vancouver for the price originally paid by the federal government.
Let me give a very brief history of this Burnaby property, for in order to see the injustice that is probably being rendered to the municipality of Burnaby one has to look at the history. When this, land was acquired in 1945 for $70,000, about 75 per cent of its market value, it was acquired because of the war emergency and the many veterans who were returning and in severe need of rehabilitative facilities. At that time the facility was very successful, but in course of time, of course, the number of veterans who needed this facility diminished. Therefore, negotiations were commenced for the acquisition of the main veterans hospital on the lower mainland, the Shau-ghnessy hospital, and with that went the George Derby site.
The problem is simply this, that in its negotiations with the municipality the federal government incurred either a legal or a moral obligation to include the municipality in the transfer negotiations, and the government has a moral obligation, I submit, to return a substantial part of this property. I think it is key to the position that I take that we are not asking that the whole site be returned. What we are asking is that the site exclusive of the hospital area itself, the Derby site, be returned to the municipality.
Why is this desirable? It is simply that this area is one of the fastest growing areas, in terms of population, on the North American continent. It is absolutely bursting at the seams and the need for recreational and park facilities is simply tremendous. If this land does not go back for that purpose, there is no doubt that the municipality will have received a severe setback, not only in respect of its planning but the whole lower mainland will receive a severe setback in terms of providing green recreational space for the one million population of the lower mainland.
Somebody once said that confederation set things up so the federal government had the money, the provinces had the jurisdiction and the municipalities had the problems. With the present attitude of the minister, he is not doing a great deal to solve the problems of this particular municipality. I can understand that the minister has difficulty. He is being pressured by the municipality and the province and in a sense he is in the middle. I can appreciate that it is a sensitive and a difficult problem for him; but with the greatest respect, the solution is staring the minister in the face. The solution is to subdivide the Derby section of that site and include the municipality in the negotiations for the retransfer of this land back to the municipality at the price the federal government paid. Only in that way, it seems to me, can we solve this situation.
It is interesting to note that in 1959 correspondence was exchanged between the municipality and the Department of Veterans Affairs and in one of those letters this was written;
Certainly during the negotiations Mr. Ker intimated to the council that in the event of the government abandoning any portion of the

land this corporation would be given first opportunity to repurchase at approximately the price per acre finally agreed upon.
That was contained in a letter from the municipality to the ministry. That was never rejected and never commented upon, and certainly the municipality at that point was left to believe that would be the kind of treatment accorded the municipality; but in the long run this has not been the case. There is either a moral or a legal duty, in these circumstances, to return this land to the municipality. We are talking in terms of $5 million in property, so it is a matter of vital concern to the whole lower mainland area and not merely to the municipality of Burnaby.
I would urge the minister to reconsider the position he has taken. That position, by the way, was set forth in a letter from the minister to the municipality on November 9 in which it was stated;
We have also agreed that the departmental property, both in Vancouver and Burnaby, will not be partitioned in any way as long as negotiations are in process for the transfer of Shaughnessy Hospital.
What I am asking through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister reconsider that somewhat inflexible position, involve the municipality in negotiations and agree to the partitioning of the Burnaby site so the hospital itself can go along with the Shaughnessy complex, obviously a logical conclusion, and that the rest of the site, being in the neighbourhood of 160 acres, be returned to the municipality. The municipality cannot afford to burden the people who reside there by increasing taxes in order to obtain more recreational land. We can no longer treat municipalities as poor cousins of confederation. This government should set forth a decent and consistent policy in respect of the disposition of surplus Crown lands acquired in this way so that municipalities are no longer discriminated against as they have been in the past.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in talking about George Derby centre I think it must be made clear at the outset that we are talking about Shaughnessy Hospital since George Derby is considered as a wing of that hospital even though it is located a few miles away. The George Derby property was acquired by the federal government after the war, and the municipality and other owners were then paid the full market price for it. As hon. members know, a decision to transfer veterans hospitals to the provinces was made ten years ago. So far three hospitals have been transferred and negotiations are under way as far as some of the others are concerned.
Negotiations with the government of British Columbia have been going on for a number of years concerning the transfer of Shaughnessy Hospital. Ever since negotiations have been under way it has been made clear that the George Derby property was offered as part of the negotiations. Of course, as was the case in other transfers, the value of any property that is attached to the hospital transferred will be fully taken into account.
December 11, 1973


ENERGY-NUCLEAR REACTORS AND HEAVY WATER PLANTS-DATE OF EXPANSION IN WESTERN CANADA-
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBLE INCREASE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS	'
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to thank the minister for his presence tonight to speak on the topic of heavy water. In respect of the energy crisis, which we have all come to know possibly more as the delivery crisis, one matter which gives me satisfaction and which has come to the attention of many Canadians is the potential of Canadian use of nuclear reactors as an energy force.
Many people, possibly unknowingly, have had a feeling that nuclear energy brought with it many dangers. In many respects such a view is unfounded. One thing which seems to have developed from this energy crisis is that it is necessary to have adequate research and development in the area of nuclear power in order that Canada can take leadership in the world in respect of nuclear development. In this regard we have the capability and are well on our way toward this goal. I think that is one of the positive things resulting from the energy crisis.
The question of heavy water has been with us for some time. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has been quoted as saying that he would even find it difficult to live in the cabinet if the next such plant did not come to western Canada. Last Friday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) made a statement to the effect that the sale of a CANDU reactor had been made to Korea and that an option had been taken out by that government for a second one. This followed on the heels of continuing discussions in respect of a sale to Argentina.
In order to make the CANDU reactor it is necessary to have heavy water. In Canada we use a system involving heavy water and natural uranium, whereas in the United States conventional water and uranium is used. On the international scene, countries are directing their attention in respect of self-sufficiency with regard to supply to the CANDU reactor. I am thankful for this situation. On Wednesday, November 21, we find the following in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal.:[DOT]
Federal nuclear experts have predicted Canada will need three of four more heavy water plants during the next 15 years if Canada's fledgling nuclear industry is to continue expanding domestically, let alone on the international market.
The question of a fourth heavy water plant, specifically in western Canada, is one of very great interest to western Canadians as well as to Canadians generally. In Manitoba, specifically eastern Manitoba, unfortunately many people are unaware of the tremendous expertise that is available there and the research that has taken place concerning the CANDU reactor and the research that has taken place in respect of the development of the hardware for the CANDU reactor. In western Canada, specifically eastern Manitoba, the deuterium content in our water, particularly in the Winnipeg River and that area, runs at approximately 140 to 145 parts per million. This is very adequate in light of the amount of deuterium we would use. The content generally is 20 parts to the million. Canada has enormous uranium deposits, and various countries have asked us to enter bids in respect of the CANDU reactor. I
Adjournment Debate
commend the government for presenting this international theme.
One problem exists in relation to the CANDU reactor. If this program is to expand, specifically in respect of CANDU reactors, then we do need a larger supply of heavy water. Presently, along with the Gentilly announcement possibly we have sufficient heavy water production capability for the immediate future, but the minister is well aware of the lead time that is needed. If the CANDU reactor receives greater international acceptance, plus the fact that in Canada we are starting to look more and more to nuclear reactors because of the success at Pickering, I suggest to the minister that the decision as to where a heavy water reactor will be placed in western Canada should be made relatively soon because of the lead time that is necessary to make the decision, finish the research and build the plant. If the decision is made relatively soon, it would be to the advantage not only of Manitobans but also Canada's international trade and the development of CANDU.
Eastern Manitoba has excellent water resources, and this is the number one requirement. The other one, of course, is energy. The Saskatchewan site does have energy, but there are various energy sources that we could use in Manitoba and personally I would like to see research done regarding the viability of the movement of adequate energy supplies for the eastern Manitoba market in relation to the building of a heavy water plant. Another aspect that has concerned me somewhat is that we must have adequate scientific support capabilities in that area. There has been a question from time to time in the installation at Whiteshell as to whether or not the government was really concerned with regard to directives-


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his continuing courtesy in phrasing this question in particular. He has touched upon a number of significant aspects of the heavy water program, not the least of which is the importance of giving adequate lead time for the construction of additional heavy water plants to meet the expanding demand.
As I mentioned to the hon. gentleman the other day, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been active in seeking both domestic and international business for the highly successful CANDU nuclear reactor. As the hon. gentleman has mentioned, we have received a letter of intent for one and possibly for two reactors from the Republic of Korea. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), along with the president of Atomic Energy of Canada, has been active in attempting to persuade the British government to adopt the CANDU system for its nuclear program, and there is considerable optimism in the company about the possibility of setting up in Italy the CANDU system in partnership with an Italian firm.
All of this indicates, along with the prospect of the additional use of the CANDU system in Canada, that there

December 11, 1973
Adjournment Debate
will be an oncoming increased demand for heavy water in this country. It has been the government's decision that when the time comes for an additional heavy water plant-that is to say, additional to the one at Gentilly-it should be placed either in Manitoba or in Saskatchewan. The choice of a heavy water plant site is dictated by two economic factors: first, by the deuterium content of the water supply which, as the hon. member has mentioned, is favourable from the standpoint of Manitoba, and second by the cost of the power that is available for extracting the deuterium from normal water systems, which is an advantage that the Estevan site has in Saskatchewan. But the
Estevan site is subject to the difficulty of not having adequate water supplies.
Under the circumstances, I think it will be interesting if, through programs administered by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), there is an extension of the water supply from the Saskatchewan River system down to Estevan where there is a possibility of a plant. But the site mentioned by the hon. gentleman, I think I am correct in saying, in the Winnipeg River region of eastern Manitoba is indeed a very competitive one and will receive very active consideration by Atomic Energy of Canada and the government of Canada at the relatively early date when we expect an additional heavy water plant will be required.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, December 12, 1973