1973-05-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table the press release issued at the end of the conference of first ministers which took place in Ottawa last week from May 23 to 25.
Upon reading this release, hon. members will see that there has been considerable progress toward harmonization of federal and provincial government goals in several areas of mutual interest. For instance the federal proposal to increase family allowances while assuring the continuation of national standards and the possibility of amendments brought about by the provinces has received significant approval. This will be a major innovation in an area of shared jurisdictions of the two levels of government.
The joint revision of the social security system now has full approval of the premiers. Within the framework of this review there will be a special effort to safeguard and increase work incentives, while social welfare ministers will see what place is to be taken by programs of assistance to housing and manpower training.
There has also been closer harmonization of goals and programs in the field of regional economic expansion. The views of the provinces on policies related to industry and foreign investments have been very useful to the federal government. It was agreed that the next conference of first ministers will give these issues a high priority. [English]
First ministers expressed the wish that matters such as these, where the question is not directly one of fiscal resources but rather of co-ordinating policies and programs in relation to national objectives, should be given increasing attention at future meetings. It was also proposed that the broad question of government responsibilities and fiscal resources should be considered at some other opportunity.
In the health field, there was a discussion in depth of the federal financial proposals which had been revised since the First Ministers' Conference of November, 1971.
I should emphasize that the original agreed purpose of this long exercise was to provide greater provincial flexibility in determining priorities, to provide incentives to rationalize the health care systems and to provide effective services at reasonable cost. During the conference, the federal government offered to leave to the discretion of the provinces the expenditure of the $640 million of thrust funds. These funds form an important part of the over-all federal proposals and are designed to enable the provinces to improve health care systems.
General agreement was again expressed on the broad objectives of the proposals. A difference of view was evident even as between provinces on the basic question of whether the federal government should participate directly in the programs or whether, in such mature programs as hospital insurance and medicare, it should contribute by providing tax room to the provinces on some agreed formula. First ministers indicated a desire to study the proposals more closely over the next few weeks and to report their conclusions to the federal government. It was agreed that our proposals would remain on the table for the time being. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that a consensus will emerge around the proposals which we have put forward.
After discussion of the new federal formula for continued financial support for post-secondary education, it was agreed that the existing plan would remain in force for a three-year period commencing April 1, 1974. Further studies will be carried out on the sort of arrangement that should come into effect at the end of that period.
Mr. Speaker, the communique reports the substance of our discussion of the economic situation including the problem of inflation and its control. It also reports our discussion of the important problem of foreign ownership of land in Certain parts of Canada, especially as it relates to recreational and agricultural land. We agreed to establish a joint committee to report on the legal, constitutional and land use aspects of the problem. The federal government made it clear it would not support restrictions on landed immigrants, or on Canadian citizens owning land outside their province of residence.
The communique also records our agreement to give permanence to the present secretariat serving the Conference of First Ministers and to make its services available, as desired, to other intergovernmental meetings of ministers and officials.
Mr. Speaker, the conference agenda covered a wide range of government responsibilities in areas of shared concern. I believe better mutual understanding of each others' goals and perspectives was achieved and important steps were taken to harmonize approaches to policies and programs in the interest of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the right
May 28, 1973

Federal-Provincial Affairs
hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for sending me a copy of his statement before two o'clock. I received it quite late, but I appreciate the difficulties the Prime Minister must have experienced in preparing a positive statement on the outcome of this conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Perhaps the greatest achievement of the conference was the success of one reporter in breaking security to hear the briefing given by the Minister of Finance on the economic position of the country. I do not know how much the reporter learned but it was at least one achievement that came out of the conference.
The Prime Minister referred to a number of positive achievements such as the agreement on family allowances and the general proposal for some degree of flexibility. I think this was assumed in advance. The Prime Minister also referred to the agreement concerning a joint review of social security programs. I would assume this would be very welcome to provincial first ministers. But we shall see how things turn out and whether, in fact, this government, if it is given continuing responsibility, has the capacity to work out a common approach with the provinces that is generally acceptable in this area.
The Prime Minister also referred to the discussion on regional economic expansion. Here again, there is no indication at all of any more effective program to attack this great problem. Shared programs in the field of health have been discussed for some years now, with the federal government putting forward suggestions to the provinces. These suggestions were not agreed upon. The Prime Minister referred to disagreement among the provinces themselves, and I think this is so. But I believe the provinces were united in their belief that the proposal of the federal government did not provide them with sufficient security against increases in the cost of the continued implementation of these programs should the provinces accept the federal proposal. The proposal has not been accepted.
The Prime Minister recently pointed out that the proposals of the federal government in regard to shared-cost programs are a different thing from any discussion or proposal generally regarding tax sharing arrangements. I accept that is so. These proposals related to specific joint programs. But I do say to the Prime Minister that the question of the allocation of shared costs between fields must be faced. The government cannot assume it can just go along on the basis of the legislation passed last year. It is particularly urgent that the matter be faced in light of the proposal of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to introduce an indexing concept into personal income tax. While I was very pleased to see him adopt this principle, I have always recognized, as I hope he will recognize, that it has an unfortunate effect on the revenues of the provincial governments and therefore does necessitate a reconsideration of the present tax-sharing agreements.
No agreement was reached in regard to post-secondary education, so the federal government is carrying on.
Apparently there was some discussion of inflation but the federal government put no proposals before the provinces that might involve some kind of joint attack or effort to contain inflation in this country. This is particu-

larly alarming on a day when we find that the wholesale price index has increased by over 16 per cent between April this year and April of 1972.
Basically important questions such as an industrial policy for this country and a policy for foreign investment were simply deferred until the next conference. The Prime Minister has not explained what the implications of this may be as far as any legislation before the House is concerned, or indeed what the implications may be in regard to the federal government taking any initiatives in the area of industrial strategy and policy to further discussions taking place.
There is no need for me to speak at greater length. The conference accomplished very little. I doubt whether any conference between the federal government and the provinces for a good number of years, called for the purpose of discussing general concerns between the two levels of government, has achieved so little in concrete results. Certainly the government, in its relations with the provinces as exhibited at this conference, has not come to grips with some very basic problems such as tax sharing, inflation, foreign investment and industrial policy. I hope that the discussions look as if they were more useful than the results because the results are certainly minimal.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the first ministers have just concluded another ho-hum conference. One of the local papers summed it up by saying that the federal-provincial conference of Canada's first ministers that began in disagreement ended undramatically on Friday after three days of talk but little in the way of concrete results. The only thing they seem to have agreed upon unanimously was to have another meeting in the future. I suggest that the reason for this lack of accomplishment is that, instead of the federal government providing the kind of leadership necessary to strengthening federalism and to- promote a sense of national purpose and set out national goals, it spent this conference in the main seeking to shift to the provinces the responsibility for very important programs such as post-secondary education and health insurance.
I am glad that the provincial governments did not buy the federal government's idea of giving up a shared-cost program for post-secondary education to be replaced by a per capita grant. As the communique indicates, the provinces recognize that these per capita grants would not meet the growing needs of post-secondary education. The same is true of the health insurance programs. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the statement he has made today, talked about flexibility in determining priorities and providing incentives to rationalize the health care systems and the provision of effective services at reasonable cost. This is simply rhetoric used to clothe his attempt to load on the provinces the federal share of the costs of health insurance in this country.
Of course the provinces agree about the need for flexibility in determining priorities, but that can be done without removing the federal government's guarantee to meet 50 per cent of the cost of health insurance. Certainly the provinces want to rationalize their health care systems, and the thrust fund could be used for that purpose.
May 28, 1973

The federal government tosses around the figure of $640 million for the thrust fund. Spread over six years, that is $106 million roughly per year and less than $5 per capita. That will be only a small contribution which the provincial governments will have to more than match in order to provide nursing facilities, community health clinics, home nursing and medical care. What the provinces require and what the federal government has consistently refused, is continued federal involvement in the guarantee that 50 per cent of the cost of present health insurance programs and additional health insurance services that inevitably must be added to the present programs will be shared by the federal government.
The attempts by the federal government to pass this responsibility on to the provinces can mean only one thing. The additional sources of revenue that the federal government is offering to the provinces will enable some of the wealthier provinces to continue to maintain a fairly high level of health services. It will mean for the other provinces lower health services. It will mean that they will have to apply deterrent charges and residence qualifications, and all the talk about uniform standards and portability will inevitably go out the window. You cannot develop national unity by fragmenting Canada's health policies so they vary from province to province, depending upon the financial condition of the particular province.
I notice that according to the communique the conference agreed that at one of its next meetings it will discuss industrial policy and foreign investment. Before that conference is held I hope the Prime Minister and his colleagues will present to this parliament what their industrial policy is and what their policy is on foreign investment, because you cannot have an industrial policy unless they also have a national energy policy, and we have been waiting for years for such a policy.
Finally, I notice that in the communique there are these words concerning inflation:
. . . there was general but not unanimous support among first ministers for the view of the federal government that it was not of a character which could be dealt with effectively in present circumstances by controls over prices and incomes.
Mr. Speaker, the communique tells us what the first ministers, or at least some of the first ministers, agreed should not be done. We have had no statement from the government nor from the conference concerning what should be done to meet the problem of rising prices in this country. We have had no statement from the government, and I doubt whether the government even raised the matter, concerning whether or not the provinces would be prepared to pass enabling legislation giving the proposed Food Prices Review Board concurrent powers to deal with unjustified price increases across the country. Did the federal government ask the provinces if they were prepared to pass such enabling legislation? We were not told. As a matter of fact, the federal government has no policy and is now seeking to pass the buck to the provinces by saying that the provinces agree with it that price controls are not necessary. This conference, apparently achieved very little in the way of concrete attainments, largely as the result of the failure of leadership on the part of the federal government to set forth concrete proposals and give the necessary leadership to the provinces and to the nation in these critical times.
Federal-Provincial Affairs
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to statements that are empty, devoid of any sense, let us speak of a statement like the one the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just made. There is no doubt that, when he read the document he was given by one of his writers, he must have laughed up his sleeve because, in fact, he brings us the results of a conference where people agreed, while the provincial premiers in fact were not in agreement at this conference and went back home, without any exception, disappointed with the way the federal authorities had welcomed them in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Quebec premier, he admitted that fact to newsmen, saying: I did not get anything tangible; I came back with principles. He went back to Quebec with principles, but without any money! The same goes for the Ontario premier. The other premiers also complained of the way the Prime Minister snubbed them when they came to discuss their fiscal problems with the federal authorities. The premiers did not come here to ask what they should do, but to get federal assistance in the fields of social security and post-secondary education.
Mr. Speaker, each and every premier went back to his province empty-handed. Three days were spent discussing the redistribution of that rarity: money. The provinces said to the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada: We do not have enough money. The right hon. Prime Minister of Canada replied: Be content with what you have. We can do no more now, but the situation may improve after 1974.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind the conference was the right opportunity to discuss the use of the Bank of Canada in the service of the provinces. Instead of allowing the Bank of Canada to lend to the provinces for periods of six months, the government should order it to make loans for periods of 60 years. The provinces would thus be allowed to settle themselves their very urgent and important problems. But no, they preferred to discuss the short supply instead of abundance.
And the right hon. Prime Minister continues on page 3 of his statement as follows:
After discussion of the new federal formula for continued financial support for post-secondary education, it was agreed that the existing plan would remain in force for a three-year period commencing April 1, 1974.
"It was agreed".
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that was not accepted. The provinces were asking for something better because they are all facing problems in the field of education, in order to help young Canadians carry on with their studies.
Mr. Speaker, this conference is no exception to what we have experienced during the last 20 years or so. First there is some bright project and then it goes flop. The one that has just ended was like the others that we have known, and so long as we do not come to grips with the heart of the problem, that is finance, so long as we keep beating about the bush, arguing about who must and who must not tax, this Prime Minister like the ones who will

May 28, 1973
Jurisdiction Over Continental Shelf Waters come after him, or the ones who came before him, will parade around making these foolish, worthless, and empty statements that do not settle anything at all, neither at the national nor at the provincial levels. Let us have a policy that will enable the federal government to be useful to the provinces and to the Canadian people in general and the results we shall achieve will be quite different from those we have achieved so far.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), a copy in both official languages of the order in council appointing the commissioners of the Food Prices Review Board and giving its terms of reference.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the minister assure us that, before the business under motions is completed, he intends to make a statement to try to justify the document he just tabled?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The merits of the document speak for themselves and I think are agreed to by the majority of the Canadian population.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I want to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I have served notice to the various parties and to the House leader of the party across the aisle who I understand has been in discussion with the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister.
Because of the public statements of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries outside the House over the weekend supporting the concept of Canadian control of the marine resources of the continental shelf, and because of the consistent position of this party and the other parties of this House on this issue for some years, and in order to get the House to express its support of such a resolution, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House supports the concept of the jurisdiction of Canada over the waters superjacent to its continental shelf and that this position form the basis of Canada's presentation at the upcoming Law of the Sea Conference.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate requires the unanimous consent of

the House. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimity. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The government blocked it.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not challenging Your Honour, but I wonder whether you could put the motion again. I am not challenging Your Honour, but the wording of the motion is such that I cannot imagine why the party across the way is objecting to it after the presentation by the minister and the consultation that has taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is required under the Standing Order to inquire whether there is unanimous consent. I have done this and there was not unanimity. The hon. member referred a moment ago to discussions that have taken place between representatives of the parties. Perhaps these discussions might be resumed later on with a view to bringing this matter before the House in some other way.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if no other member wishes to move a motion under Standing Order 43 I would like to move another motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the continued downgrading of Canadian Coastguard services, which was highlighted by recent deaths by drowning at the doorstep of Tofino lifeboat station, necessitates that I rise, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, to seek consent to move a motion. I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the petition signed by almost 400 residents of Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield demanding immediate restoration of 24-hour manning of Tofino and Bamfield lifeboat stations, which I have been requested to place before parliament, and a copy of which I now send to the Minister of Transport, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for immediate investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House in view of the fact that it is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 28, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion therefore cannot be put.


An hon. Member:: The government blocked that one too.

[Transla tion]



MANPOWER


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of extremely urgent and pressing necessity.
Indeed, since it is increasingly difficult for the elected representatives of the people to obtain information on the use of public funds and more especially concerning the carrying out of projects under the Local Initiatives Program which is a breach of the supremacy of Parliament, I therefore move, seconded by the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That a special committee of the House be established to consider the reasons which have caused the government to deny to the members of this Parliament valid information concerning the use of public funds as a result of the carrying out of projects under the Local Initiatives Program and that the said committee report to the House with pertinent recommendations before June 30, 1973.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion therefore cannot be put.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that Dr. Needier is now leading the very able Canadian delegation to the ICNAF conference in Copenhagen, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada achieved agreements at the 1972 International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fishery that all member countries work within a quota system, and in view of the fact that at the forthcoming ICNAF conference starting in Copenhagen on June 3 the Canadian delegation will present the position that Canada should have the right to harvest whatever marine resources it is capable of taking within this quota, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
Order Paper Questions
That this House support the position taken by the Canadian delegation at the 1973 ICNAF conference and that this House will further support the use of any reasonable bargaining leverage in the delegation's attempts to achieve its aims.
I gave notice of that motion also.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put at this time.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent matter. I know I am perhaps infringing a bit on the good will of Your Honour, but in view of the fact that this motion, like my first one, was not accepted I wonder whether there is some way in which the minister on motions tomorrow, or even today, can move to express the feeling of the House and give support to the Canadian delegation, which is working on a matter so immediate and so urgent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: -that if Canada's position is not accepted our fishermen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat please. He is now arguing in support of a motion which has not been accepted by the House.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: May 28, 1973
1. 1968-69
Order Paper Questions
Not available for Department
1969-70 $ 5,311.01

2.	Year	Name of Firm
1968-69 to 1969-70	 Details not available	
1970-71	 McLaren Advertising Company
Hopkin Hedlin Ltd	
Amount As above 9,716.16 107,271.05
Purpose
Details not available
Produce TV clips on Canadian Standard Size program. Assistance regarding Competition Bill.
3. 1972-73
Lawrence Marshall Productions	 4,775.68
Vickers & Benson Ltd	 54,010.92
Production of an audio visual presentation for Departmental use.
To assist the department in preparation and development of information programs.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Alexander: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to increase the recently announced amount for UIC and, if so (a) for what reason (b) by how much?
2.	What was the actual cost of administration of UIC for the years 1971 and 1972 and the projected cost for administration for 1973, and if the cost is different for the years 1972 and 1973, for what reason?
3.	How much money was spent for consultants in every aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Commission Act for the years 19681972 inclusive?
4.	(a) How many computers are used by UIC (b) where are they situated (c) what was the savings predicted (d) how many breakdowns have occurred (e) what extra funds have been spent on the computers since installation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: It has been recently announced that the Commission has set the employee contribution rate for 1973 at one dollar per $100 of insurable earnings. In addition, it was also announced that the maximum benefit rate would be $107 for 1973. The Commission is constantly monitoring the premium rate requirement and if a change is necessary, it will be announced at the appropriate time.
2.	1971	1972	1973Actual	Actual	Budget$86,098,000	$119,587,000*	$145,045,000
*The 1972 figure is not yet finalized as our accounts do not close until the end of February.
The increase in costs between 1972 and 1973 are due to a combination of factors. Escalating costs such as salary increases due to collective bargaining, postal rate increases and accommodation rental costs have affected administrative costs. Increased costs have been incurred in providing improvements in the service to the public through a more personalized approach in dealing with claimants, decentralization of offices, and improvement of the record of employment. Additional costs are also due to increasing the complement of Benefit Control Officers, Insurance Officers and Enquiry Personnel to a level commensurate with the workload.
3.	Payments of individual fees totalling $2,000 or over were: 1968-69, $120,792; 1969-70, $41,880; 1970-71, $328,301; 1971-72, $285,495; 1 April-31 December 1972, $68,018.
(Mr. Gray.]
4.	(a) and (b) UIC uses six computers under its direct control, one at each UIC Computer Centre, in Ottawa, Moncton, Montreal, Belleville, Winnipeg and Vancouver. There is also a minicomputer in St. John's, Newfoundland, which serves as the terminal of a telecommunications link connecting that city to the main Atlantic processing site at Moncton. Occasional use is made of external computer facilities for overflow and back up in emergencies. In Winnipeg and Vancouver, commercial facilities with similar Burroughs equipment are used in the same way. In Ottawa, several of the local service bureaus have been used, from time to time, for statistical and developmental work, and for the Canadian Government Annuities System; (c) the original proposal to computerize U.I. payments indicated a savings of $2,000,000. A special report prepared after implementation concluded that in 1970/71 the Commission would realize a savings of $1,841,000 based on the 1967/68 manual operation; (d) since January 1, 1971 there have been a total of 75 breakdowns; (e) starting in 1970, increases in workload and major operational changes resulting from the introduction of the new act have caused expansion of the regional facilities. The equipment rentals have increased in the past three years from $43,923 to $65,842. per month. In addition a sixth site, in Ottawa, has been added for central statistical purposes and for program development. It was contracted for in May, 1971, at a rental of $23,325 per month. The present equipment configuration in Ottawa rents at $25,485.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- BILINGUALISM POLICY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Has the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources adopted a definite policy on bilingualism?
2.	What number and total percentage of that department's employees are (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
3.	In 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 and 1970, what was the number and total percentage of employees of the same department who were (a) English unilingual (b) French unilingual (c) bilingual?
4.	By year since 1960, what was the total budget allocated for the development of bilingualism in that department?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. Departments' policy.on Bilingualism is based on the requirements of the Official Languages Act, the Public Service Employment Act, the
May 28, 1973

Translation Bureau Act and policy and directives prescribed by the Government.
2.	The number of continuing full-time employees who claim language proficiency is as follows:
	Number	Per cent
(a)	2,348	78(b)	33	1(c)	634	213.	No statistics available for the years 1960 to 1966 inclusive. The number of continuing full-time employees who claimed language proficiency is as follows:1968	1970Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent(a)	3,264	81.5	3,329	79.0(b)	20	.5	20	.5(c)	723	18.0	860	20.54.	The development of bilingualism has been carried out since 1969 within the total operating appropriations provided by Parliament and has not been segregated from other operating expenses except for the following: In December 1971, the department was given supplementary resources of $64,000.00 to assist in implementing bilingualism for the balance of the fiscal year 1971-72. Similarly, $246,800.00 has been provided for 1972-73.


RESEARCH PROJECTS
Mr. Muir: 1.	How many research projects were contracted out by the Prices and Incomes Commission between 1968 and 1972?
2.	What was each project and its total cost?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. Eleven.
2.	Total
Project	Cost
(i)	Preliminary investigation into whether there are regional
Phillips Curves, particularly in the Maritimes and Quebec	 $	800
(ii)	Preparation of a report analysing letters to the Price and
Incomes Commission in response to mass mailing		15,000
(iii)	Preparation of a report on "Fee Setting by Independent
Practitioners"	 3,000
(iv)	Preparation of a study of inflation in office building construction to determine the degree to which individual components of construction costs have increased during
the past five years	 2,177
(v)	Preparation of a study of inflation in hospital construction to determine the degree to which individual components of construction costs have increased during the past five
years	 4,250
(vi)	Preparation of a report on medical care prices	 4,438
(vii)	Preparation of studies on partial wage price models and
related research, and estimation of reduced form monetary models of the Canadian economy	 56,500
Order Paper Questions
2.	Total
Project	Cost
(viii)	Preparation of a study of the magnitude and timing of economic fluctuations in Canada and government responses to them over the past fifteen years	 9,918
(ix)	Preliminary work regarding inflation in the health
industry	 3,625
(x)	Price effects of the 1971 federal excise tax reductions on
household electronic equipment	 2,666
(xi)	Study of inflation in non-residential construction	 1,000


GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT OVERPAYMENTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement were overpaid during 1972 and of that total number, how many of the overpayments were as the result of changes in the law that made Unemployment Insurance benefits income insofar as the Guaranteed Income Supplement was concerned?
2.	Of the total number of overpayments, what was the total amount involved and how many of the overpayments were as a result of actions not being taken by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare to correct the amount received by recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement who were also recipients of Unemployment Insurance benefits?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Since the Guaranteed Income Supplement payment year is a fiscal year, the answers given are for 1972-73 and are approximate. 1. (a) 27,400; (b) 4,200.
2.	(a) $886,000 represents the amount of overpayments resulting from receipt of Unemployment Insurance benefits; (b) 3,600.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO FINANCING OF COMPOSITE HIGH SCHOOLS
Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): Does the government contribute to the financing of the construction of composite high schools in Quebec and, if so (a) how is this contribution made (b) how much has it cost in all (c) how many schools have benefited from such contributions (i) in general (ii) in the constituency of Charlevoix?


John Mercer Reid: No.


GRANT FROM CMHC TO PEOPLE OF BURKEVILLE
Mr. Reynolds: Is it the intention of the government to approve the grant from CMHC announced during the election for the people of Burkeville to do a study on the future of their community in relation to the rest of Sea Island and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: A grant of $40,000 to the Sea Island Community Ratepayers Association was approved on April 17, 1973, under Part V of the National Housing Act, to enable the Association to undertake and present, in co-operation with the township of Richmond Planning Department, the Department of Transport, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and/or the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, a plan of redevelopment of the Burkeville area, to prepare feasibility studies of the redevelopment plan, and

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
to investigate the organizational measures which would enable the Burkeville residents to participate to the greatest possible degree in the redevelopment.



Mr. Reynolds: Is CMHC going to make available the grant to the people of Burkeville on Sea Island for the study of future use of this area, that was promised as forthcoming during the last election and, if so, on what date?


Stanley Ronald Basford: See the answer to question number 1,066.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1342


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1342?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. October 31,
1972.
2.	Approved on December 6, 1972.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$35,984.
5.	Three hundred and twelve man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1249


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1249?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. October 27, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 20, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.

4.	$10,892.
5.	Ninety-four man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4747


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4747?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 21, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 20, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$23,662.
5.	Two hundred and six man-weeks of employment.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4500


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4500?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 15, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 1, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$12,987.
5.	One hundred and eleven man-weeks of employment.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4343


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4343?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
May 28, 1973

4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 14, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 16, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4312


Mr. Beaudoin: 1- On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4312?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 14, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 25, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$15,561.00.
5.	One hundred and thirty-three man-weeks of employment.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4297


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4297?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 13, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applica-
Order Paper Questions
tions were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4295


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4295?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 13, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 29, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$28,024.
5.	Two hundred and seventy-seven man-weeks of employment.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4067


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4067?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 11, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 12, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3949


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3949?

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 8, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 20, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-application for grant relating to project
No. H-3922


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3922?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 8, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3850


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3850?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 6, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 5, 1973.

3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3686


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3686?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 5, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 26, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3627


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3627?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 29, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 11, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
May 28, 1973

5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3602


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3602?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 5, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 2, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3436


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3436?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 1, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 5, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3429


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3429?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
Order Paper Questions
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 1, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 6, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$11,232.
5.	Ninety-six man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3407


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3407?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or appoval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 30, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 6, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$40,248.
5.	Three hundred and forty-four man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3369


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3369?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 30, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 6, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3368


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3368?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs wife created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 30, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 6, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3366


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3366?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 30, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 6, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2505


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2505?
2.	On what date was the application either approved of refused? (Mr. MacGuigan.]
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 21, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 3, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$59,636.
5.	Five hundred and twenty man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6109


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6109?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December
20,	1972.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of application than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4733


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4733?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December
21,	1972.
2.	Approved on February 2, 1973.
May 28, 1973

3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$16,710.
5.	One hundred and forty-three man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4214


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2414?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this proj ect?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 12, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 7, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4613


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4613?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 20, 1972.
2.	Rejected on March 8, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
Order Paper Questions
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4612


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4612?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 20, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 7, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4611


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4611?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 20, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 7, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-4308


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-4308?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 14, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 7, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6053


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6053?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 10,
1973.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6315


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6315?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12,
1973.
2.	Rejected on February 19, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applica-
[Mr. Allard.)
tions were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6316


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6316?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Withdrawn by sponsor January 30, 1973.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6284


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6284?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 20, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$9,477.
5.	Eighty-one man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6298


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6298?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
May 28, 1973

4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 13, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$21,060.
5.	One hundred and eighty man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6274


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6274?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 9, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$16,029.
5.	One hundred and thirty-seven man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-6318


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-6318?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. January 12, 1973.
2.	Approved on February 21, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
Order Paper Questions
4.	$12,870.
5.	One hundred and ten man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3964


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3964?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 8, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 25, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$29,219.
5.	Two hundred and fifty-two man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3269
Question No. 1,331


Mr. Allard:: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3269?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 29, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 29, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$103,251.
5.	Nine hundred and twenty-four man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3413


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3413?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 27, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 5, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$29,123.
5.	One hundred and thirty-one man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3156


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3156?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November
27,	1972.
2.	Approved on January 5, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$21,530.
5.	One hundred and eighty-six man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3727


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3727?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November
28,	1972.
2.	Approved on January 12, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.

4.	$26,442.
5.	Two hundred and twenty-six man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3966


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3966?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 11, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 25, 1973.
3.	One of the projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$20,249.
5.	One hundred and eighty-one man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3732


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3732?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. December 5, 1972.
2.	Approved on February 9, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$70,200.
5.	Six hundred man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-3414


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-3414?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
May 28, 1973

4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 30, 1972,
2.	Approved on January 25, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$55,123.
5.	Five hundred and thirteen man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-1886


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-1886?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 10, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 1, 1972.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$106,470.
5.	Nine hundred and ten man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2031


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2031?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 15, 1972.
2.	Approved on December 13, 1972.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$70,663.
Order Paper Questions
5.	Six hundred and four man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2661


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2661?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 22, 1972.
2.	Approved on January 17, 1973.
3.	One of those projects that best combine the dual objectives of job creation and a realistic and identifiable contribution to community betterment.
4.	$199,507.
5.	One thousand seven hundred and eighty-six man-weeks.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2021


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2021?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 15, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 23, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2612


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2612?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 21, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 12, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-25I1


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2511?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 21, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2513


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2513?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 21, 1972.
2.	Rejected on February 22, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applica-

tions were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.
LIP-APPLICATION FOR GRANT RELATING TO PROJECT No. H-2822


Mr. Allard: 1.	On what date did the government receive an application for a grant under LIP concerning project No. H-2822?
2.	On what date was the application either approved or refused?
3.	What were the reasons set forth by the government for its refusal or approval of said project?
4.	If the project was accepted, what was the amount granted by the government to finance it?
5.	How many jobs were created by the implementation of this project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. November 23, 1972.
2.	Rejected on January 17, 1973.
3.	The Department received a far greater number of applications than funds were available for. All applications were carefully assessed and many difficult decisions not to approve had to be made.
4.	N/A.
5.	N/A.


GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS-INCREASE IN OFFICE SPACE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past ten years, how much new office space, by square foot, have government departments (department by department) increased their office space (a) in Ottawa (b) outside Ottawa?
2.	Of this space, how much is in (a) buildings owned by the government (b) privately-owned buildings?
3.	Of the space in government-owned buildings, what was the cost of building construction per square foot, and what is the actual cost of maintenance per building per square foot?
4.	Of the space occupied in rented buildings, what is the actual rental per square foot and what is the cost to the government of maintenance per square foot?
5.	For what period is the government committed to remain and to pay rent in the buildings in which they have rented quarters?
6.	Does the government assume financial responsibility for structural and decorating costs of rented space?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: The information is not available to provide an accurate answer to this question. The costs in manpower and time to undertake the very large amount of work which would be required to gather such detailed data as is obtainable for the period covered by the question, would be prohibitive.
May 28, 1973


GRANTS TO SEA ISLAND RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION UNDER NATIONAL HOUSING ACT
Mr. Reynolds: Has the Minister of State for Urban Affairs reached a decision yet on last year's request (renewed from 1970), on behalf of the Sea Island Ratepayers Association for financial assistance to carry out studies on the future of Burkeville subdivision?


Stanley Ronald Basford: See the answer to question number 1,066.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD HEARINGS
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	(a) Of the number of cases waiting to be heard by the Immigration Appeal Board, how many of those cases arose as a result of people entering Canada as visitors (b) what countries, by numbers, were these visitors from?
2.	What does the government intend to do about the backlog of cases before the Immigration Appeal Board?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. (a) and (b)
The records of the Immigration Appeal Board are not maintained in such a manner as to provide the statistics requested. To provide accurate information would involve the physical search of each individual file for over 14,000 cases for which the hiring of additional staff would be necessary.
2.	The matter is under consideration and when a decision is made it will be announced in the usual manner.
Order Paper Questions


SALARY PAID TO MR. PETER CONNOLLY, OCTOBER 30, 1972 TO MARCH 31, 1973
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How much money has been paid by the government, before any deductions at source, in the nature of salary, honorarium or retainers to Mr. Peter Connolly between October 30, 1972 and up to and including March 31, 1973?
2.	Has any money been paid to Mr. Peter Connolly as an expense allowance of any kind whatsoever and, if so (a) what is the total amount of such expenses paid (b) what is the exact description of each expense and the amount involved in each case?


Mr.   John. M. Reid@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: 1. Mr. Peter Connolly received a salary of $689.98 from the Department of Manpower and Immigration for the period November 6, 1972 to November 17, 1972 and a salary of $4,063.19 from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for the period December 15, 1972 to March 31, 1973, based on an annual salary scale of $17,500 to $20,000.
2.	No, in so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: (a) and (b), not applicable. In so far as the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is concerned: (a) Total expenses, $435.80; (b) Travel expenses, $321.70; hospitality expenses, $114.10.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-PERSONNEL OF SECURITY PLANNING AND RESEARCH GROUP
Mr. Cossitt: Who were the previous employers during the past five years of those persons listed in the answer to Question No, 1,287 as comprising the personnel of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General and what was the nature of their work with such employers?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Information concerning employers in the private sector is personal information which may be disclosed by the individuals themselves if they so wish. In so far as government employment is concerned, the following is provided:
Name	Dates
J. Armit	 1968-72
P. Banning	 1968-71
R. Bourne	 1968-71
L. Cloutier	 1968-72
W. Dabros	 1968-71
R. Gaudet	 1968-69
R. Harris	 1968-72
L.	Lagace	 1968-71
G. McCully	 1968-73
E. Tack	 1968-73
M.	Valenti	 1968-70
N. Villeneuve	 1968-71
P. Wallace	 1968-72
G. Wilkinson	 1968-72
Employer
Private Sector	
R.C.M.P	
Privy Council Office	
Department of National Defence	
Department of National Defence	
Private Sector	
Statistics Canada	
Private Sector	
Private Sector	
Department of National Health and Welfare	
R.C.M.P	
Department of National Defence	
Private Sector	
National Museums	
Canadian Penitentiary Service	
Department of the Solicitor General Headquarters
Private Sector	
Department of External Affairs	
Nature of Work
Industrial Security Police Officer
Defence and Foreign Affairs
Security Branch
Staff Officer
Sociology
Research Officer
Economics/Business
Stenographer
Stenographer
Police Officer
Office Manager
Stenographer
Stenographer
Clerk
Clerk
Book Publishing/History Security Branch


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Since the implementation of the New Horizons Program (a) what was the total amount spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare (b) what amount was spent in each province?
2.	What were the estimates for this purpose for the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73?
3.	(a) To date, how many projects were received throughout Canada (b) how many projects were received from each province (c) how many projects have been approved to date (d) how many in each province?

May 28, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Marc Lalonde: The following answers are as of March 31, 1973: 1. (a) Since its establishment, the New Horizons Program has awarded $3,387,631 in grants; (b) See statement following.
2.	The New Horizons Program, which became operational in mid-September 1972, is a 3-year experimental program. It has been allocated a total of $30,000,000 for both project and administrative expenses; this $30,000,000 is to be spent over the 3-year period:
3.	(a) 1,629; (b) See statement following; (c) 493; (d) See
statement following.	1(b)	3(b)	3(d)$	Projects	ProjectsProvinces	Granted $	Received	ApprovedN ewf oundland	73,589	17	9P.E.I.	29,946	16	10Nova Scotia	237,853	57	18New Brunswick	207,140	62	29Quebec	848,691	565	126Ontario	984,217	402	137Manitoba	206,132	94	31Saskatchewan	176,544	112	33Alberta	240,173	105	36British Columbia	374,210	196	62Yukon	0	0	0N.W.T.	9,136	3	2


HOUSING OWNED BY CMHC
Mr. Godin: 1.	Throughout Canada, how many (a) single family dwellings (b) semi-detached duplexes (c) apartment buildings (d) rental housing are owned by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	How many dwelling units are involved in such dwellings or buildings and what is their total value?
3.	How many dwellings or buildings of each category had to be repossessed by CMHC over the past five years, owing to contractors' bankruptcies?
4.	In each province what is the total value of all dwellings and buildings seized under such circumstances and at what civic address are these houses or buildings located?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation keeps it records on the basis of the number of housing units, all of which are for rental purposes. The number owned by CMHC or administered by it on behalf of various insurance funds, under the National Housing Act as December 31, 1972, are given in the table following:
Number of Housing Units
Corpo- ration owned	Administered on behalf of Insurance Funds	TotalSingle houses	527	988	1,515Row houses	2,468	270	2,738Apartments	6,413	2,478	8,891Total	9,408	3,736	13,1442.	The number of dwelling units is given in 1 above, and their book value at December 31, 1972, was: (a) Corporation-owned, $48,455,000; (b) administered on behalf of Insurance Funds, $30,182,000.3.	All repossessions arise from financial difficulties of one kind or another on the part of the borrowers, some of which have involved the bankruptcies of contractors. It is not possible, from information available, to identify those cases of repossessions where bankruptcy was the primary cause.4.	Not applicable; see 3 above.


CORA BROWN AND McDONALD SUBDIVISION-OBJECTIONS TO EXPROPRIATION
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Public Works to table all the transcripts of objections to the expropriation of the Cora Brown and McDonald Subdivision and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the Minister accept any recommendations and, if not (a) for what reasons (b) were the people involved so informed?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
No. The Hearing Officer's report was tabled April 2, 1973 and summarizes the objections. Therefore it is not considered necessary to table the transcript, which is quite voluminous and for which translation and tabling procedures would be costly and time-consuming. The transcript is available in the department and may be examined by arrangement.
2.	No recommendations were made in the Hearing Officer's report and none is required by the Act, the duties of the Hearing Officer and the nature of his report were explained to the people who were present at the Public Hearing. The two main objections were: (a) That the municipally-owned boat launching site not be expropriated; (b) That extensive environmental studies be carried out before building a new runway. Both of these objections were satisfied. The boat launching site was not expropriated and a complete study of the effects of a new runway is being made.


MR. PAUL MASON
Mr. Bawden: 1.	Was a Minister's permit issued to enable Mr. Paul Mason to enter Canada?
2.	Did Mr. Paul Mason enter Canada under such a permit?
3.	If a permit was issued, what were the special circumstances that made it impossible or inconvenient for Mr. Mason to seek admission in the ordinary way?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. No. A Minister's Permit was, however, issued to allow Mr. Mason to remain in Canada.
2.	No.
3.	It is not in the public interest to divulge this information.

May 28, 1973


CBC AND NFB-PRODUCTION OF THIRD LANGUAGE FILMS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many films in non-official languages are presently in the
(a)	planning stage (b) production stage at the National Film Board?
2.	How many are scheduled to be available for distribution in two years time?
3.	To date, how many submissions regarding the making of films have been submitted to the National Film Board by ethno-cultural groups in Canada?
4.	Has the National Film Board prepared any short films or feature films in languages other than French or English and (a) if not, does it intend to do so this year (b) if so (i) how were the ethnic groups concerned involved in this production (ii) were they consulted?
5.	Will such films be shown with sub-titles in English and/or French and, if not, for what reasons?
6.	To date, has any consideration been given by CBC to provide films and produce radio programs in languages other than English and French and, if not, for what reasons?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) As part of the Multicultural Program, the National Film Board is producing original films about ethnic populations in both official languages only. English: 1 complete; 3 in production; 5 in planning stage; French: 1 in production; 1 in planning stage; In almost every case, members of the ethnic group involved play a key part in the planning and production. Liaison with Ethnic Associations is direct and also through the Citizens' Cultures Division, Secretary of State Department, (b) Foreign language version program: This is a long-time program at NFB in which films produced originally in the official languages are versioned into non-official languages. The titles are selected after consultation with the Department of External Affairs and intended for distribution abroad. However, under the multicultural program, the National Film Board recently conducted a survey in Canada to determine which ethno-cultural groups wish to have NFB films in their ancestral language and which subject areas were of interest to the various groups. Well over 1,000 ethnic associations and groups were contacted during this survey. As a result, prints of films already available in non-official languages will be put into distribution in Canada. In addition, as new films become available, versions will be made, on a selected basis, for use in Canada. Full scale distribution of this material should be in force in the autumn of 1973.
2.	(a) Multicultural Program, English and French, 11,
(b)	Versions in non-official languages for use abroad and in Canada-approximately 60 plus prints of 100 films already versioned in the Foreign Version Program.
3.	Approximately 10 or 12, most of them routed to NFB via the Secretary of State Department. All dealt with films about ethnic groups in both official languages.
4.	As part of the on-going version program for distribution abroad, approximately 70 to 100 versions are prepared each year in approximately 20 major languages and 30 other languages. Additional prints will be ordered for use in Canada to meet the needs of the various ethnic groups.
5.	As a rule no, because the original films will be available in English and/or French. Exceptions have been on a few films produced on Indians and Eskimos with their
Orders for Returns
collaboration. Such films carry sub-titles in French, English and Indian (Cree) or French, English, Eskimo.
6.	No, other than programs produced in other languages by Radio-Canada International for foreign consumption. Domestically, the Corporation's operations have been confined to English and French, plus a modest amount of native language broadcasting for the North. This policy is based on the CBC interpretation of the various Broadcasting Acts over the years. The Corporation believes its language policy is so firmly established and of such major importance that any contemplated change would require a clear indication to this end from Parliament. The current Broadcasting Act provides CBC with specific priorities and Corporate policies, energies and resources are devoted to the attainment of those objectives.


ALBERTA-CREAM SUBSIDY ELIGIBILITY QUOTA
Mr. Mazankowski: Is any action being taken to reinstate the 5,480,000 pounds of cream subsidy eligibility quota which was lost to the Province of Alberta, as requested in a submission to the Hon. E. Whelan by the Hon. Hugh Horner?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Subsidy quota was never allocated on a provincial basis. When the subsidy quota was originally allocated, it was allocated to producers on the basis of previous performance. Any reduction from the level originally allotted to producers in a province was brought about by: (a) producers discontinuing production and (b) producers delivering less than their subsidy quota.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of the Solicitor General on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
4150

May 28, 1973
Orders for Returns
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


EMPLOYMENT OF DEFEATED CANDIDATES BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Broadbent: 1.	Are Messrs. M. Ervin Pringle, Murray A. McBride, John Roberts, Raymond J. Perrault, Paul St. Pierre, Martin P. O'Connell and Jervis Black employed by the government and, if so (a) what were the effective dates of appointment (b) what are the duties of these positions (c) what are their salary ranges?
2.	Are there any other persons who were candidates in the last federal election on the payroll of the federal treasury and, if so, what are (a) their names (b) positions (c) salary ranges?
Return tabled.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OFFICES
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Where are Unemployment Insurance offices located in Canada?
2.	How many claims were there processed in each office since the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1971?
3.	How many public servants are there employed at each office involved in the decision-making of granting or rejecting claims?
4.	How many applicants were there in each office who had made application for unemployment insurance but were rejected?
5.	How many appeals were there to each office as a result of decisions handed down from each office?
6.	How many decisions were reversed by the Appeal Board and which offices did the original decision come from?
Return tabled.


LIP PROJECTS IN RICHMOND CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What is the list of all LIP projects submitted in 1972 for the constituency of Richmond?
2.	For each project (a) who were the co-ordinators (b) what was the amount requested to create how many jobs (c) what projects were accepted and according to what criteria (d) what projects were rejected and for what reason (e) what is the approval or refusal date for each submitted project (f) what was the acknowledgment date of each submitted project?
Return tabled.


INVESTMENT BY CMHC IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Godin: 1.	What amount was invested by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (a) in Quebec (b) in Ontario for each year 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971?
2.	In relation to private housing construction for the same years, what was the number of housing units built (a) in Quebec (b) in

Ontario broken down in terms of (i) single-family unit houses (ii) semi-detached duplexes (iii) apartment buildings (iv) rental housing?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO CIRTEX KNITTING INCORPORATED, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Jarvis: 1.	What is the total amount of grants, subsidies, or any other means of financial assistance, both direct or indirect, to be given by the government to Cirtex Knitting Incorporated, to be located in New Brunswick?
2.	What is the total amount of grants, subsidies, or other financial assistance, which the government spent in 1972 on knitting mills owned and operated by Canadian entrepreneurs and companies in each of the ten provinces and two territories?
3.	What is the policy of the government regarding the limitation of the amount of textiles imported into Canada from abroad?
Return tabled.


FERRY &quot;PELEE ISLANDER&quot;
Mr. Grier: 1.	(a) What were the costs of construction of the ferry Pelee Islander (b) to whom were the costs paid and by whom (c) what are the terms of the use of this ship by the Pelee Shipping Company Limited?
2.	What amounts of subsidy were paid to the Pelee Shipping Company Limited in each year 1960 to 1967 inclusive?
3.	What is the status of a legal labour dispute between Pelee Shipping Company Limited, and is the dispute economic and related to the need for implementation of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?
4.	(a) Was the subsidy to Pelee Shipping Company Limited increased in 1968 and, if so, was this increase to provide for the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (b) what amounts of subsidies were paid in each year 1968 to 1972 inclusive and 1973 to date?
5.	Is it consistent with government policy to subsidize employers, such as Pelee Shipping Company Limited, while such employers are subject of a legal strike by their working men?
6.	What was the operating revenue of the subsidized Pelee Islander tor the years 1970, 1971 and 1972?
7.	Are the rates charged the public by the operator of the Pelee Islander approved by the Canadian Transport Commission and, if not, for what reason?
8.	(a) Who is the owner of the Pelee Islander (b) who was the previous owner (c) is the ship being sold and, if so, by whom, to whom and on what terms?
9.	Is the Pelee Islander the only source of livelihood of her present operator and, if not, what other sources of income to this person are known to the government?
Return tabled.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the last time written questions were called I inquired of the parliamentary secretary about question No. 1,047. I have looked at the comment he made at that time. I am raising this matter again because I happen to know about the kind of statistics that are available to realize that if I were responsible I could have that question answered in a week. Would he be good enough, before the next time around, to find out why this question has not been answered and to tell me the real facts, whether or not it will be answered?
May 28, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On March 19 I put down question No. 1,661 which is of interest to all CNR employees who are making contributions to their pension fund. It is a very simple question. It asks what is the total amount of loans in each year, 1965 to 1972, made by the CNR Pension Fund to (a) Canadian companies and (b) foreign-controlled companies. It asks what amount has been loaned to Fidinam (Ontario) Limited and at what interest rate, and is Fidinam a Canadian-owned company. Finally, it asks whether railway workers have any voice in pension fund decisions that are made. There can be no reason why that question has not been answered except that the government does not want to give this information. The railway employees have asked over and over again for the information. I now ask the minister responsible for answering this question to provide an answer; otherwise I will have to take such action in this House as parliamentary procedure permits.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the news about the very alarming increase in the wholesale price index in April over March and, in particular, April 1973, compared with April, 1972. In view of the increase of over 16 per cent from year to year, does the minister still regard his anti-inflation program as adequate, or is he now prepared to take more direct action to de-escalate the increase in retail prices in Canada-and of course by "direct action" I do not mean tight money?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the wholesale price index gives us cause for concern. It represents primarily a rise in agricultural commodity and world commodity prices which would not be susceptible, since it involves a shortage of supply, to the type of action recommended by the Leader of the Opposition. As a matter of fact, when I made this analysis of the situation at last week's federal-provincial conference it was accepted by the provinces, and particularly by the Premier of Ontario.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the increase in the wholesale price index is likely to work its way through quite quickly into the retail price index, and as the development of an inflationary psychology is one of the things that menaces us, did the minister in fact predict to that conference that the rate of inflation during 1973 would be 5 per cent? Further has he any reason to believe, or does he believe in fact, that the rate of inflation will level off and slow down?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the rate of inflation in world commodities, including agricultural commodities, will level off when the supply is increased to meet the rapidly increasing demand. It is true that at the conference I said that our existing forecasts of the price
Oral Questions
deflator would run in the range of 5 per cent. As for an inflationary psychology, I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he may be contributing to that as much as anybody else.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the minister has suggested that, and it is not the first time I have suggested that he should do something to head it off.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFLATION-SUGGESTED BROADENING OF TERMS OF REFERENCE OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question since, of course, his is the final responsibility. In light of these alarming figures, will the Prime Minister at least consider broadening the terms of the body established by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? It is well recognized that I have no great fondness for that body, but I would like to know how the Prime Minister regards the problem of inflation, whether he believes the problem of inflation in Canada is largely one of food prices, and in light of these figures is he prepared to face up to what really seem to be the facts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects to that question. Replying to the last part I would say yes, the government is always desirous of facing up to the facts. Indeed, the board to "which the Leader of the Opposition refers is one which was set up along the lines recommended by a committee of the House.


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST THAT NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT BE AMENDED SO THAT PARLIAMENT MAY MAKE DECISION
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the minister's remarks over the past few weeks. They have raised widespread concern that the decision on the Mackenzie pipeline, a decision of extreme importance to the future of this country, will be made by the cabinet without prior consultation with parliament. When that concern was brought to the minister's attention, he observed that he was not in a position to do anything and he did not want members of parliament counselling him to break the law. We would not want to do that. Since the minister is of the view that the National Energy Board Act restricts him from bringing the matter of the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to parliament for debate, will he, instead, bring before parliament the National Energy Board Act so that the act can be suitably amended by parliament, to provide that the decision on the pipeline will be made by parliament rather than by the cabinet alone?
26314-45.1

May 28, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest, as an alternative, that it might be advisable to take advantage of the relief that committees will have from responsibility for the estimates in the coming month to have a discussion, perhaps jointly with the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, on the guidelines that have been put forth up to this point, and also at a later date when additional guidelines, particularly financial, are available.


Max Saltsman: I do not feel that the minister has really answered the question I put to him. As the minister seems to be reluctant to answer the question, will he at least give parliament his reasons for not letting parliament make the decision on a pipeline that is of such importance and of such concern to this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the hon. gentleman's question. Parliament passed a statute specifically to deal with pipeline questions. I think it might be more appropriate to find out whether that statute has indeed served the interests of Canadians and whether the preparations for such hearings are adequate. If there is disagreement on that point, I suppose the question of amendments to the act might then be brought forward.


Gerald William Baldwin: How would you vote, Max?


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS SUGGESTION THAT BANK OF CANADA MAKE LOANS TO PROVINCES-DATE OF NEXT FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the recent federal-provincial conference.
First, did the conference discuss the possibility of the Bank of Canada making loans to provinces to promote faster economic development? Second, has a date been agreed upon for the next conference on the same topic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, no to the first part of the question. As for the next conference, mention was made of the end of fall perhaps or of next winter, but not precisely to discuss the matter interesting the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada. There was mention of industrial development and other similar topics.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To foster industrial development, could the Prime Minister suggest that the provinces use the credits of the Bank of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems that within two years, the people in those two provinces which patiently gave the social credit system a 30-year trial grew disgusted with it and threw it out. This might explain why that system has not been carried on.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary.
Is the Prime Minister aware that those two creditist provinces did not re-elect their respective government probably because their laws have been found ultra vires by the government of the right hon. Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will return later to supplementaries on this subject, but we should try to move on.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can the minister say whether the position he has stated publicly that Canada will go all out, flat, for an exclusive fishing zone that will include the fringes of our continental shelf represents the position of his department or the position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows, I am sure, that a question cannot be asked in those terms. The question should be asked directly of the minister. During the oral question period questions cannot be asked about statements made by ministers outside the House except to inquire whether the statement represents government policy.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, that is what I am about to do, if Your Honour would have a little patience with me. I am asking the minister, can he indicate whether this has been accepted as the position that will be presented to the Law of the Sea Conference in 1974 by the government, and has the minister received clearance with respect to this position from the Secretary of States for External Affairs?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker the answer, basically, is yes. That has been my position and the position of the Department of Fisheries since 1968.


John Howard Lundrigan: Could the minister answer the second part of my question which is so vital? I understand that certain motions I put forward today were turned down because there was not agreement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he indicate whether there has been clearance from the Secretary of State for External Affairs that this will be Canada's position at the Law of the Sea Conference?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have had a great deal of support from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister passed over my question. I wonder if he would indicate what the basis was for the presentation of the position on page 6 of his speech, which he released on Saturday and
May 28, 1973

from which I must quote, that the Conservative party is pushing for a 50-mile limit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like the hon. member to remember what I suggested a moment ago. It is a well established practice of the House that questions must be asked directly. The hon. member, I am sure, can ask the question directly without making a direct allusion or reference to statements made outside the House. The hon. member can ask the question on that basis and there will be no difficulty.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your Honour, I am handicapped in asking questions on this matter unless I can refer to the charge, if you can call it that, or allegation or fabrication which was made by the minister on Saturday wherein he indicated that the position of the Conservative party of Canada is to push for a 50-mile limit. Further, maps were included at the end of his presentation. He had a 50-mile limit drawn on the map, which he contends is the position of my party, along with a 200-mile limit. I ask the minister, what was the basis for drawing that conclusion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have just indicated to the hon. member that the question cannot be asked in those terms. I appreciate that it may be hard to find a way around the difficulty, but there should be some way for the hon. member to obtain the information he wants. Perhaps the minister will reply briefly to the question asked by the hon. member, assuming that the question has been asked directly without reference to or quotation from the statement made outside the House, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who has a supplementary to the previous question.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, my response has to be that I listened attentively to the hon. member and other hon. members opposite, and that is my interpretation of their position.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, Your Honour, it is very important that members of the Privy Council, House leaders, and leaders of parties be responsible in the public statements they make. This applies especially to people in these very responsible positions. I contend, Your Honour, that if members of the Privy Council are permitted to go outside the House, or even to do this inside the House, and make presentations that are complete fabrications, they are undermining not only the privileges of all members of the House but also the whole political process of our country. What if the Leader of the Opposition were to say today that the Liberal party supported free abortion or supported termination of diplomatic relations with the United States? I would consider that to be a very serious matter if such statements were not in accordance with the facts. On Saturday the minister proceeded to make a public statement. I suppose it was actually presented but at least it was released on Saturday with the indication that it would be presented in New Brunswick. The presentation indicated that the position of my party was that there would be-


Some hon. Members:: Order!
Oral Questions


John Howard Lundrigan: I am going to go on, anyway. The minister talks about a 200-mile limit and then goes on to ask, where do our Conservative friends stand now; they are talking about a 50-mile limit. He said that this is Conservative thinking and he went on to reflect on the Conservative party as having a policy relating to a 50-mile limit. At no time has any member of this party ever indicated that Canada should seek a 50-mile limit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, I appreciate, has risen on a question of privilege and has referred to a statement made outside the House. The hon. member has the right to rise at this time on a question of privilege, and when he does he has to be heard. When I return to the Chair every Monday, having read the newspapers and seen the many statements made by hon. members referring to the political situation and the political positions taken by members of other parties or spokesmen for other parties, it is my impression that we could spend much of our Mondays and Tuesdays discussing these statements which I am sure in many instances are felt by hon. members on one side or the other not to represent in fact the positions of their parties. The hon. member, again I insist, has the right to rise on a question of privilege, but I hope we will not get involved in a lengthy debate on the matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, I rose in the House and moved a motion under Standing Order 43. I wish to read the contents of that motion. The motion reads:
That Canada express its position to the fishing nations of the world, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the principle of ownership by the coastal state of the waters over the continental shelf be upheld.
I have stated this position about 500 times in the past five years, but the minister had the gumption to go to New Brunswick and present maps prepared by his department indicating a 50-mile limit and a 200-mile limit. This is completely absurd.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: A year ago last December 1,500 delegates from every constituency in Canada assembled at a meeting of the Conservative Association of Canada and presented resolutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he is now going beyond the assertion of a question of privilege and is debating the issue. I do not think the hon. member would want to do that at this time. There are many possibilities for hon. members to discuss issues, even issues of such importance as the one referred to by the hon. member, but the question period is certainly not the time to initiate a full-fledged debate on a matter of substance. I am sure the hon. member appreciates the position of the Chair in this respect in seeking his co-operation.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will withdraw his remarks which were lies and fabrications, absolute lies and fabrications.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 28, 1973
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: It was an absolute lie. The minister has no right to leave it on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he has no right-


John Howard Lundrigan: That is right. I know that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member confirms that he knows he has no right to accuse another member of the House, whether he is a member on the other side of the House, a member of the government or on his own side of the House, of lying. I even hesitate to use the word. I would hope that, in accordance with the long tradition of parliament, the hon. member will co-operate with the Chair and not use language that is clearly unparliamentary. For over 100 years this has formed the basis of a rule which is accepted by all hon. members. I think we set a very bad example to other parliamentary institutions in this country at all levels of government if the senior House in Canada does not conform to the long established rules of parliamentary debate.
I am sure the hon. member will allow the Chair to complete his remarks. I am referring to another hon. member, not the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.
That is one of the difficulties of referring to statements made outside the House. It is also a long established practice that members do not ask questions about statements made outside the House and that no reference is made to them. When such questions are asked they should be asked directly rather than by asking ministers to confirm what they have said and whether it is right or wrong, because at that point we get involved in a debate of the kind that has now been initiated by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. If a statement is made outside the House and another member thinks the statement is wrong, it seems to me there should be an opportunity in the House, not during the question period, to try to offer rectification of the facts, or the matter might be pursued by an hon. member outside the House in response to statements made outside this chamber.
Having said all this, I hope the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will co-operate with the Chair and seek another opportunity or another way to initiate a debate on the issue. I am sure the hon. member will agree that according to long established practice it is not correct or parliamentary to accuse another member of deliberately misleading the House or of lying. I appreciate that this is a difficult situation in that we are now referring to statements made outside the House, but I hope the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will assist the Chair and allow us to continue.


John Howard Lundrigan: I did not realize the rest of the statement contains as much garbage as it does. I thought there was only the lie that I am concerned about. It is time for us to reassess that rule. If ministers can do that kind of damage to our system, not the Conservative party, by presenting this kind of position internationally it is time that we re-assessed the rule. Something must be done to prevent ministers from presenting this kind of position to the Canadian people. These men have a great responsibili-

ty. Your Honour might as well make an example of me right now because I will not withdraw these remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the rule certainly is clear that anyone who says of a member in the House that what he has said in the House is a lie would be subject to having to withdraw, but to make that statement respecting a statement by a minister made outside the House is, I submit, not contrary to the rule. I have heard that question argued before. If that were not so, loose, idle, disorderly and untruthful statements could be made outside the House and we would be bound within the House not to cast any doubts on the veracity thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, being a freshman in this chamber I am intrigued by one of the comments by Your Honour, namely, that a member of this House is not entitled to and should not at any time use the words "lie" or "lying". If in fact a minister or any other member did state a lie in the House, would it not be appropriate to call him a liar, and if he in fact did state a lie would he not have to resign and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he might take a closer look at the rules. In any event, the hon. member is asking me a question and the Chair is not and has never been in a position to reply to questions.
What the right hon. member has said perhaps brings forth for the assistance of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the Chair a distinction which is perhaps somewhat theoretical. The Chair still feels it is conducive to disorder in the House for hon. members to rise and say that a lie has been uttered or accuse another member of lying outside the House and, I suppose, saying that he is within the rules because he is saying the lie was uttered outside this chamber.
All that confirms my original statement that it is contrary to the long established practice of this House for members to ask questions during the question period in relation to statements made outside the House. The only result that comes from transgressing the rule is the kind of debate and the kind of difficulty we now have.
I am willing to take the matter under advisement and take into consideration the fact we are dealing with matters that have transpired outside of this chamber. But in spite of what the right hon. member has said I would certainly reaffirm the general statement and principle that it is certainly not according to the long established practice of this House to use these words and make accusations along these lines, even if we are dealing with statements that have been made outside this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I must rise to say a few words in support of the observance of the long established rule of this House that one member cannot call another hon. member a liar, nor can he accuse him of lies. To suggest, as has been done by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, that it is quite all right to call another
May 28, 1973

hon. member a liar on Saturday or Sunday but that it is unparliamentary to do so on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday is quite unacceptable. The rule respecting this situation applies to the utterances of members of the House of Commons both within and outside the House.


John George Diefenbaker: No.
Mt. MacEachen: I would draw to the attention of the right hon. gentleman a very important precedent. Some years ago, if my recollection is correct, he himself rose in the House and clarified for the benefit of the Speaker comments which he had made outside the House. If he was not observing that tradition, why did he do it? It is obvious it would fly in the face of reason and human decency to suggest there is one standard of conduct that applies to members of parliament while they are sitting in the chamber, that here we maintain standards of proper debate, and another, lower standard, which applies once they leave the chamber. That is quite unacceptable-quite unacceptable to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Whatever standards apply, apply in all places, including the House of Commons, and the right hon. gentleman cannot make a defence by saying it is all right to call a man a liar if you do it while speaking in New Brunswick but it is bad if you do it in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Despite the applause with which that totally unacceptable and illogical statement by the minister has been received, the fact remains that if we on this side of the House were regularly to point out the falsehoods told by members of the government outside the House we would be busy all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Since the President of the Privy Council has seen fit to intervene in this matter in his role as government House leader, and since he has made reference to the standards that should apply both within and outside the House, I suggest that if he has not already done so he should examine the statement in question, as I have done, and perhaps indicate to his colleague in parliamentary terms that, to say the least, he has displayed a mystifying lack of knowledge of the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, since we have lost twelve minutes, he might as well lose another one to say that there is only one truth, and that it should be the same inside and outside this House, and that those politicians who have just spoken for twelve minutes have caused us to waste important minutes allotted to the oral question period.
Mr. Speaker, that problem comes back often and it should be referred immediately to the Committee on
Oral Questions
Procedure and Organization for further consideration. But it remains nevertheless that we have once again lost our time, and our Progressive Conservative friends have not yet understood the importance of the oral question period if they amuse themselves as they do.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Your Honour has agreed to consider this matter and come to a decision. But I must say we have to reject the philosophy of the President of the Privy Council which indicates that there shall be a different standard for members of parliament in the House and outside the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: As I understood him, he suggested it was perfectly competent for a minister of the Crown to follow a lower standard in a statement outside the House than in the House, and that I reject completely.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider myself to be an expert on the rules of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: But having listened to the intervention by the right hon. member for Prince Albert I realize the immense respect we all have for the precedents set by the mother of parliaments. There they are not so much concerned with a lie outside the House but they certainly have been dealing with a lay outside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


An hon. Member:: Boo!


Mr. Bell:: Same old bunch!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members can see now where this kind of insinuation leads. I would think hon. members should be prepared to accept the rulings of the Chair. I have tried since I have been in the chair to guide hon. members to the best of my ability-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -in the use of what I consider to be parliamentary language. I think that hon. members, by and large, from day to day over the years have been very respectful of the rules and that in general we have set a very good example, as we ought to do-I feel very strongly about this-to other legislatures, to municipal councils and other parliamentary bodies. I believe hon. members should always bear this in mind. They should consider that it is part of their responsibility in this House to set a good example not only to other hon. members and to the general public but also, as I have said, to other parliamentary institutions. In this sense I suggest it is fitting they should adopt the highest possible standards. When we start making distinctions as to whether we can call a member a liar when he makes a statement outside the House but we cannot do it about a statement he makes inside the House we are splitting hairs and we are not acting in conformity with the spirit of the rules. The spirit

May 28, 1973
Oral Questions
of the rules is that we should try to work together as civilized people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that members of the House are human and that they can feel very irritated, sometimes rightly so, in connection with statements made outside the House if there is provocation which might lead them to use words stronger than those they would otherwise use. I am sure this is what happened in the case of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate who feels very strongly in connection about fisheries matters. He feels the statement made by the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries outside the House was not in conformity with the facts. I think it is always possible to tell the House that a statement made outside is not in conformity with the facts, perhaps in the same way as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni did-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: -but to use stronger language and, to my way of thinking, unparliamentary language, can only lead to difficulties such as we have experienced this afternoon. I shall continue to give the matter serious consideration, but I insist that I do not intend to allow the standards of parliamentary language to deteriorate. If we were to allow the House to follow the road it appears to wish to embark on this afternoon we would be doing a disservice to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-EFFECT OF LEVEL OF INVESTMENT ON DOLLAR, INTEREST RATES AND EXPORTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to change the topic and ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question on the subject of energy. In view of the evidence that increased exports of gas and oil and the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will probably exert upward pressure on the Canadian dollar, making our other exports less competitive, as well as contributing to higher interest rates, has the minister established a system to monitor the level of investment in energy in Canada to determine how it might affect the level of the dollar, interest rates and exports?


John Napier Turner: It is my view that any energy project of the magnitude referred to by the hon. member could be orchestrated in such a way as not to produce undue pressures either on our interest rates or on exchange rates.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of possible heavy investment in James Bay, the tar sands and pipeline development in the next few years, sums of the order of tens of billions of dollars, can the minister tell us whether he is conducting

any studies of the impact of such major developments on the economy and on employment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the effect on Canadian capital markets of projects of the type and how they ought to be brought into operation without producing, as I said, undue pressure either on our dollar or on the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize for having to interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I misunderstood but I did not understand that the subject was going to change as abruptly as it did. I rise on a point of privilege because I wish this to go on the record. Since the remarks attributed to the Minister of the Environment were made in my constituency, I want it abundantly clear that at no time could he associate me in any way with any remarks relating to this limit. Any remarks made in that regard bear little relationship to the truth or to remarks I have made in my constituency, in this House and in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of which I am now giving him verbal notice. In light of the extraordinary emptiness of the terms of reference of the Board, respecting which he tabled an order today, is the minister prepared to refer this matter to the House so as to improve both the quality and the quantity of those terms of reference?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. member's premise. The concept of the board was approved by a strong majority of this House. The important thing is to let the board get down to work in the interests of the Canadian people generally.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that earlier today the Minister of Finance hinted that the first ministers conference approved the lack of policy of this government in regard to inflation, will the Prime Minister give consideration to assuring that the next extravaganza is televised so the people will know what they are getting for their money?
May 28, 1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the hon. gentleman's feelings to the other provincial premiers.


WELFARE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can the minister tell this House whether, following the discussions he had with the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, changes have been brought to the policy of his department concerning day-care centres?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to an earlier series asked various ministers about last week's conference. I address this question to the Prime Minister. In a television account of the proceedings the Prime Minister said, if I may quote him, that "the two most important provinces were against price controls". Will the right hon. gentleman allay my curiosity and identify for the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. gentleman kindly ask the question directly. I thought we had spent a little time earlier trying to find a way around the difficulties that result from asking questions about statements made outside the House.


Mr. Fairweather:: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, part of the difficulty is that it was a supplementary asked at an earlier stage and therefore I have to lay the ground. I am anxious to know which of the two provinces the Prime Minister identified as the most important, and is this part of the new federal formula? Which are the two most important provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads the communique he will see that the majority of the provinces expressed their belief that this was not-


An hon. Member:: Don't evade the question.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The television record will show what you said.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with the hon. member that I said something along those lines.


Gerald William Baldwin: Which are the two, then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Two of those that said they were opposed to it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fatuous, if not incongruous, contribution that the Canadian contingent to the ICCS finds itself having to discharge by reason of the activities of other members of the commission, has the government yet come to any conclusion regarding the removal of the Canadian force? If so, the government having made a decision and therefore being responsible for what is being done, would consideration now be given before the withdrawal to letting the House of Commons speak on this matter?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has made a decision and I intend to convey it to the House tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say what it was?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John George Diefenbaker: He won't say what it is. That means they are getting out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, but I believe the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert is rising for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the government has made a decision, surely parliament is not going to be bypassed by the announcement being made outside the House, which has happened too often in the past. I ask the minister: Will the announcement be made in this House?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is what I said, Mr. Speaker. I said that I would convey this decision to the House tomorrow.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the recent acknowledgement by Mr. J. P. Ostiguy that he is what is commonly known as a "bagman" for the Liberal
4158

May 28, 1973
Oral Questions
party and at the same time sits as a member of the advisory board to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether or not a situation such as this will be covered in the proposed legislation on conflict of interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the information conveyed by the hon. member is incorrect. The gentleman in question is not what he calls a "bagman" for the Liberal party.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is he an assistant?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are running short of time. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will be allowed to ask a supplementary question, and then we will have time for a few more questions before calling orders of the day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that, bagman or not, depending on one's choice of terms, this gentleman is involved in fund raising for the Liberal party, or has been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is prefacing his question by a statement or an allegation. I think the hon. member sinned against the long established rule in the same way in asking a question last week. I suggest to him that it should be possible for him to ask a question without making a statement or an allegation of fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have never considered fund raising as such whether for the Liberal party or not to be an allegation of a criminal offence. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Would he assure the House that the legislation that the government is preparing on this subject for introduction to this House will cover the situation where a man, no matter which political party he may be working for in a fund raising capacity, will be excluded from membership on government boards which are involved in decisions that lead to grants being given to corporations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the Prime Minister for the purpose of replying to the question, but obviously the question is wrongly put on a number of counts, despite the correction made by the hon. member. The statement that has been made is based on an allegation. If not, then it is hypothetical. In any event, the Prime Minister will be allowed to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the allegation contained in the earlier part of the question is incorrect. So far as the question of having contributed to a party and sitting on government boards is concerned, I think a lot of people who are affiliated with the NDP sit on government advisory boards. The Economic Council of Canada and other bodies have members who are connected with the labour movement.


Gerald William Baldwin: No wonder we are in trouble.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No wonder we are in trouble, as the hon. member says. This is a matter that I would find difficulty in including in the legislation to which the hon. member refers, but we will listen very carefully to proposals con-

taining any kind of constructive amendments which have already been discussed by the hon. gentleman's party.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement the minister made last Thursday concerning the murder of two Canadian girls in Rhodesia, in which the minister said he and his government were treating this matter very seriously and were not satisfied with the public statement made by Zambia, I would ask whether he has received a full report from our high commissioner in Lusaka, and has this statement been referred to the Zambian government? Has he or his department received a full report or a statement from that government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Assistant High Commissioner, as the hon. member knows, went to Rhosedia and made a report to us on his findings and conveyed these to the government of Zambia. I have received a personal letter from the foreign minister of Zambia which conveys deep felt condolences to the government and people of Canada, and particularly to the bereaved families. This is a personal letter and, therefore, I would prefer not to reveal it, but perhaps I could quote one part which says:
-the Party, Government and People of Zambia deeply regret the deaths of these innocent Canadian nationals.


An hon. Member:: You have quoted it.


Mitchell William Sharp: I might add that I am not yet satisfied with the explanations that have been given by Zambia and I am awaiting a further report.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the minister has read from this document, perhaps he would be kind enough to table it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You can't break all the rules.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the minister's assurance that he will table it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to tabling it. I felt it was important to the House to know that I had received a message from the Zambian government which came in the form of a personal letter addressed to me. I am not quite certain what "personal" means in this connection. I quoted only a few words from it to indicate the condolences of the Zambian government. I shall ask the foreign minister whether he has any objections to its being tabled. I knew he would not have any objection to me expressing these general sentiments of the Zambian government.
May 28, 1973

In addition, I wanted to assure the hon. member that we are not yet satisfied with the explanation and we are pursuing our inquiries. We expect a much fuller result from the inquiries we have made.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a long-standing rule of this House that when a member reads from a document, whether personal or otherwise, it must be tabled. I must, therefore, ask the minister to table it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has quoted the rule correctly. I think it would have been open to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs to refer in general terms to the letter. When he receives a letter and quotes from it, this does not mean he automatically has to table it. There may be a feeling among hon. members that he should not be required to do so. However, when the matter is raised by way of a point of order a ruling has to be made and the rule is very clear that when a document is quoted by the minister or whoever quotes it, that member is required to table it.
The minister states that this is a personal letter. As is well known to hon. members, the rule refers to official documents. It now becomes a question of determining whether the document in question is an official one or whether it is a personal letter. It would have been much easier had the minister not quoted from it, but I would think, in view of the fact it is a formal communication, that makes it a formal document and under the rules of the House the hon. minister would be required to table it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, I really have no objection to tabling the letter.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, table it.


Mitchell William Sharp: It was addressed to me in the form of a personal letter and I felt, therefore, that I should ask the minister whether he has any objection, and I do not think he will.


John George Diefenbaker: You should not have quoted from it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let the House judge whether it is official or personal.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the undertaking by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and perhaps he will have communication with the hon. member for Wellington, it may be easier later on, by consent of the House, to determine whether the letter in question ought to be tabled.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the hope the minister expressed on May 17 that he would be able to table before
Oral Questions
the end of May a bill to amend-don't look at your watch, look at your calendar-that he would be able to introduce a bill to amend the Pension Act so as to increase the basic rate of war disability pensions, can the minister say whether he will meet that commitment within the next three days?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to inform the hon. member that there is a calendar on my watch. I cannot give a formal commitment on this today, it being May 28, but when I have it available it will be brought to your attention.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might be allowed to ask a supplementary, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.



POSSIBILITY DELAY IN LEGISLATION CAUSED BY FAILURE OF CABINET TO AGREE ON BASIC RATE OF PENSION

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will he indicate to the House whether the Cabinet has agreed to the new formula in respect of the basic rate of pension and that legislation is to come forth on that basis? Has the Cabinet agreed or is that the reason the bill has not been presented?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I explained the other day, the item is before Cabinet, but no final or full agreement has been reached as yet.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the announcement today from Collins Bay penitentiary of yet another failure under the temporary absence system, namely the case of David Lawrence who failed to return after being granted temporary leave, will the minister advise whether the temporary absence system is on the agenda for the conference announced by the minister of federal and provincial authorities on the prison system in Canada?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will have some announcement to make perhaps later this week in respect of the temporary absence and parole system.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in connection with the announcement later this week. Can the minister advise us whether he will be making a statement on motions outlining the agenda for the proposed conference of federal and provincial governments respecting prisons, and will he table all the corre-
26314-46J

May 28, 1973
Oral Questions
spondence he has had with the provincial ministers in this connection?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the agenda becomes final I will be pleased to do that. At the present time we are thinking of having discussions on female offenders; the sharing of correctional services; the Hugess-en Report recommendations; rehabilitation programs; parole and probation services and so on. When I get a more complete agenda I will table it.



WHEAT-CONTINUITY OF SUPPLY FOR EASTERN FLOUR MILLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that eastern flour mills must have a continuity of wheat supplies to enable them to tender on flour orders in the foreign trade, can he state, in light of the present wheat situation, that provision has been made to keep a constant supply of suitable wheat available to mills in the east?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, over the years the Canadian Wheat Board has been assuring that there would be adequate supplies of grain available in appropriate positions both for the milling industry and for the domestic feed market. If the hon. member has a particular problem to which he is referring I would be glad to hear it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On Friday he indicated he would make a statement to the House in respect of the availability of drugs to treaty Indians in Saskatchewan. Is he prepared to make that statement today?	'


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have no statement to make, other than to say that the directive issued by the regional director in Saskatchewan has been rescinded, and that the previous practice is to be maintained. There has been no change in that practice.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and con-

cerns the recent escape of John McCann from the B.C. Penitentiary. In view of the fact that two of the guards assigned to check his cell were only three months on the job and had received no training, and in view of the fact there is a one-third turnover of personnel in that institution, can the minister indicate what steps he has taken to correct the situation so as to reduce the turnover and see that guards hired are given some training?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge all guards and correctional officers are supposed to receive training before they go on the job. I note that one of the guards in this instance was suspended temporarily pending an investigation into the matter. I will check into the point brought to my attention and report back to the hon. member.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST BY LOCAL UNION FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor General has received several requests from the local British Columbia union for meetings to pursue this question of security and morale, and I should like to know whether the minister has made any definite arrangement in respect of such a meeting?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning I am meeting the Public Service Alliance with regard to the Solicitor General's department. I am meeting the national union not the local.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
May 25, 1973-That this House is of the view that notice should be given to the appropriate parties of the withdrawal of the Canadian contribution from the International Commission on Control and Supervision in Viet Nam by the 30th of June, 1973, for the following reasons:
(a)	There has, in effect, been no ceasefire to supervise and the Commission has been unable to fulfil the functions for which it was appointed under the Paris Peace Agreement;
(b)	Various parties to the Agreement have disregarded its terms, in particular both the United States of America and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam have continued military activities in Cambodia and Laos and have not totally withdrawn from, or refrained from reintroducing into these two countries troops, military advisers, military personnel, armaments, munitions and war material as provided for by Article 20(b) of the Agreement;
(c)	That the spirit, if not the letter, of the Agreement has been violated by the detention of many thousands of civilian political prisoners subject to gross mistreatment; and further,
That this House urges the Government of Canada to do all in its power to arouse world public opinion to call for the ending of the
May 28, 1973
[Stage Direction]
imprisonment of civilian political prisoners and for the return of such prisoners to their own homes as soon as possible.-Mr. Brewin.
Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a word on this motion which stands in my name.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order or with the intention of moving the motion, because there are two motions now before the House and we should not have a debate on both, even if it is one word.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I want to say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) informed the House, as indeed he informed me earlier today, that he proposes within a few days to make a statement on the subject matter of the motion. In these circumstances, I do not think it would be appropriate to proceed with the debate on this subject and I am, therefore, asking that the motion be withdrawn, subject to our right to re-introduce the motion later if circumstances warrant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to suggest to hon. members that we will get ourselves into difficulty if every time there is an opposition day or supply motion, when a number of motions are listed, if hon. members rise on points of order to state reasons for not proceeding with their motion. This would lead to abuses I suggest. This is not applicable in this particular case, but this practice could lead to difficulty. In any event, the hon. member has asked leave to withdraw the motion, and I shall inquire whether this is the wish of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn. We will, therefore, proceed to the motion in the name of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and it will be put to this House.
Motion withdrawn and order discharged.


ALLOTTED S.O. 58-SUGGESTED IMPOSITION OF CONTROLS ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That this House views with concern recent increases in the prices of crude oil, gasoline and other refined products as well as the increasing quantities of gasoline being exported from Canada and therefore calls upon the government to take immediate steps to implement the following measures:
(a)	Place export controls on the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products;
(b)	Establish a two-price system for gas and oil with the export price reflecting the price in export markets and the domestic price significantly lower;
(c)	Remove the Ottawa Valley line and permit offshore oil and domestic crude to move freely in the interests of price competition.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we hear a great deal these days about the world energy crisis. I think one should recall that there is really a long-term aspect and a short-term aspect to the energy crisis. Time does not permit that we discuss the long-term aspect of this problem, but I do wish
Petroleum Products Controls to deal very briefly with the problem of the short-term aspect of the energy crisis. I would begin by reminding the House that there is no shortage of oil in Canada for our needs in the immediate future, nor is there any shortage of world supplies for the next few years. What we are facing at the present time is a situation in which the United States is running short of natural gas and crude oil. The result is that the United States is becoming increasingly dependent on supplies from outside its own borders. It cannot get sufficient supplies from Canada or from Venezuela, and consequently is more and more dependent upon securing crude oil from the Middle East.
Two things are happening today that are causing the United States great concern. The first is that the Middle East, very naturally, is very conscious of the situation and is raising its price. Second, of course, there is the political problem in that much of the oil is in the hands of pro-Arab countries and there is some tendency to bring pressure to bear on the pro-Israeli countries through the sale of oil. Consequently, the United States today is frantically trying to buy sufficient quantities of oil to meet its needs. It is paying higher prices and is seeking to obtain oil and gasoline wherever it can. This is having an effect on their balance of payments. It is stoking the fires of inflation in the United States, and is having some very serious effect with regard to our position as an oil-producing country.
The purpose of my motion is to point out that, in my opinion, the government has a two-fold responsibility. The first is to see that the shortage of oil in the United States does not result in Canada having insufficient supplies to meet its own needs. The second responsibility the government has is to see that the higher prices in the United States do not result in Canadians having to pay more for their oil than is justified, particularly when we remember it is oil which belongs to the people of Canada.
In this motion I have, therefore, suggested, first, that the government should extend the present export controls on oil to cover gasoline and other refined products. The minister, both on May 17 and again last Friday, May 25, expressed the opinion that there is no sign of any shortage of gasoline and other refined products. I hope he is right. But I also remember that last January 9, when I raised the danger of a shortage of crude oil in this country, the minister was quite sanguine about the situation. However, by February 15, the minister, through the National Energy Board, found it necessary to apply export restrictions on crude oil because there was no guarantee by any of the big oil companies that they could supply sufficient oil to meet Canadian needs for the months of March, April and beyond. As a matter of fact, since the minister applied these restrictions his action has been fully justified by the fact that the applications for permits to export crude oil for the month of May were for 200,000 barrels per day more than the National Energy Board was prepared to approve and for the month of June they were for 320,000 barrels more than the National Energy Board was prepared to approve.
Further, the justification for imposing export controls on crude oil has been fully vindicated, and I am now suggesting to the House the time has come to apply the same provisions to the export of gasoline. I do that because the figures alarm me. As I put them on Hansard Friday, in

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls January and February of this year, our exports of gasoline to the United States were 11,517 gallons, and they jumped in March of this year to 5,332,000. This compares with only
72,000	for March of 1972. If we take our total exports of gasoline for January and February combined, were 81,265 gallons, but for March our export of gasoline had risen dramatically to 12,367,289 gallons. When you realize that our total exports last year, including our exports to the United States, were only 17 million gallons and that in the month of March alone this year we exported over 12 million gallons, you begin to understand what is happening, namely, that when the oil companies found they were restricted to exporting 1,235,000 barrels per day maximum of crude oil they began to export from Canada gasoline to meet the demand in the United States. It was a method of evading the restrictions on the export of crude oil.
It is significant that the exports of gasoline did not rise spectacularly until the restrictions upon crude oil were put into effect. There will be some question as to whether or not this is affecting many people. It is certainly affecting the independent operators. I have had many telephone calls from independent operators and I will give one example. One company here, the Capital City Gas Bars which operate some 24 stations in the Ottawa-Stittsville-Maniwaki area, has been notified by British Petroleum that they will only be allowed gasoline for two stations after June 1. The result is that they are going to close all 24 stations and this will throw some 200 employees out of work in this district. It seems to me that the time has come for the government to take the logical step, which we argue they should have taken last February, of extending these export controls on oil to cover gasoline and other refined products. This would plug the loophole which the oil companies are using to supplement their oil exports by additional gasoline exports.
In my opinion it is no longer satisfactory to revert to the old formula that certain amounts of oil or gasoline are "surplus to our needs". The fact is that in Canada we must conserve our supplies of cheap gas and oil because when our present supplies run out-and that time is not too far distant-we will be required to turn to much more expensive energy resources, such as oil from the tar sands and natural gas from the Arctic and the Mackenzie delta. It, therefore, seems the very essence of common sense to be conserving our cheaper conventional fission fuels rather than to be exporting large quantities, and then at an early date having to pay much higher prices for the necessary energy to operate our economy.
The second proposal I am making in this motion is that the government should introduce a two price system to protect the consumers west of the Ottawa valley who represent a captive market as a result of the government's oil policy. Ever since 1960 or thereabouts the area west of the Ottawa valley has been reserved for the western oil companies. This gave to that area a security of supply, but the consumers have paid millions of dollars for that security. This is a captive market which was given to the western oil companies without any agreement about a price formula, and with the consumers having no form of redress whatsoever with respect to the price. The oil shortage in the United States, and the demand for oil at almost

any price, has resulted in prices going up in the area west of the Ottawa valley. Oil prices have risen anywhere from 55 cents a barrel to 70 cents a barrel, depending on grade and area-an increase of about 20 per cent.
I notice with alarm that some of the United States oil periodicals are predicting that this summer wellhead price for oil in Canada will go up by another 40 cents a barrel. During the last six months the price of gasoline and fuel oil for home heating have all increased, and we are justified in asking whether or not these very substantial increases in the price of oil and petroleum products is warranted. When the president of Imperial Oil was asked why these increases were taking place, he summed it up in one phrase. He said it was "attributable to international supply and price factors". Putting that into simple English, the president of Imperial Oil was saying that his company and the other oil companies were taking advantage of rising prices in the United States to charge Canadians more for the privilege of using their own oil.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I submit that there is no evidence whatsoever that justifies this 20 per cent increase over the past six months. The oil industry in Canada in 1972 increased its profits by 20.4 per cent over 1971, and in the first quarter of this year it increased its profits by 31.7 per cent over the same quarter for the previous year. Let me take the largest of these companies, namely, Imperial Oil, because when they raise the price all the other oil companies follow suit within a few days. Imperial Oil, which is 70 per cent owned by Standard Oil of New Jersey, in 1972 had profits of $157 million after taxes, which is up 11 per cent from the $136 million they made in 1971, which was a good year for their profits in that year were up 29.5 per cent over 1970. This price increase does not result from a payroll increase. The payroll of Imperial Oil in 1971 went down by 3.5 per cent because in that year they closed the refineries in Winnipeg, Regina and Calgary, and in 1972 their payroll went up by 3.5 per cent. So in that two year period, 1971 and 1972, their payroll was virtually stable, but their profits in that two year period went up by 40 per cent. Imperial Oil's profits over the past ten years, after paying taxes including corporation taxes, went up by over one thousand million dollars. They paid to the governments of Canada, in royalties in that ten year period, some $40 million, representing 4 per cent of what they put in their own pockets.
We have to recognize that 99 per cent of the petroleum refining industry in this country is foreign owned and controlled. Therefore, those corporations have been given a monopoly under the National Energy Board act to fleece the Canadian consumer with the supine connivance of an apathetic and timid government. I am suggesting that the government should seek legislative authority under Part IV of the National Energy Board Act to set prices for all oil produced and sold in Canada.
The minister takes refuge in the fact that he has no power to set the price with respect to imported oil, and I am not suggesting for a moment that he has. But in the same statement the minister points out that off-shore oil
May 28, 1973

east of the Ottawa valley is still cheaper than domestic oil. Therefore, Canadians are paying a great deal more for their oil than they ought to pay, and the protection which the government ought to give those who live west of the Ottawa valley is absolutely essential. The government has a responsibility to protect Canadian consumers by setting a price for domestic crude oil. We can let the export crude price be set by the international market, and if that price goes too far out of line with domestic prices then the government has power to impose an export tax on all Canadian crude going to foreign markets. In this way the Canadian people, to whom the oil belongs, would enjoy some of the benefits and not be limited to the mere 4 per cent of the profits which Imperial Oil has made over the past ten years.
The third proposal I have made in this motion is to suggest that the time has come to revise the national oil policy. Whatever merit the Ottawa valley line may have had 12 years ago, I maintain that today it represents a prescription for disaster. I notice that in the letter which Mr. J. F. Grundy, the Deputy Minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, sent to the Chairman of the National Energy Board on September 22, 1971, he said: If the "price" for unlimited access involves a rigid maintenance of the Ottawa valley line and higher costs for Canadian industry generally and the petro-chemical industry in particular, we do not believe this is in the national interest.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the rule of the House be applied to the hon. member and that he be required to table the document from which he has just quoted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be very glad to table it, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that the rules preclude a private member from tabling a document. However, if I am not allowed to table it I will be glad to give the hon. member a copy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member and the former minister that this rule applies to ministers and not necessarily to private members, and in particular it applies to official documents.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is that right, Stanley?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A private member cannot table anything.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if ministers ever read the studies which are prepared for them. I have just sent to the minister and to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) a copy of a report called "Canada's Commercial Policy and Energy," prepared by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is an excellent report.
That report predicted the growing shortage of supplies in the United States. It anticipated a drainage of the Canadian market and a drastic rise of price. That report, which the government has had in its possession for a year and a half, advocated a two price system for oil in Canada. Today, after 18 months, with prices soaring and the demand for oil increasing, the government has done noth-
Petroleum Products Controls ing to protect the oil consumers in the area west of the Ottawa valley.
In my opinion this national oil policy is now giving to Canadians the worst of both worlds. Those west of the Ottawa valley have the assurance of supply, but are completely at the mercy of a monopolistic industry with respect to price. Those east of the Ottawa valley have the advantage of competitive pricing, but they are going to be increasingly at the mercy of the oil producing nations which can cut off their supply or raise the price at will.
The people of eastern Canada cannot get Canadian crude because there is no pipeline to carry it to them. At the present time, Canada is shipping some 60 per cent of its oil production to the American mid-west. By removing the Ottawa valley line, I believe it would be possible for the government to give the Canadian people the best of both worlds, by having two way pipelines through which oil could move freely, either from western Canada into the eastern regions, or have off-shore oil move freely from eastern Canada and Montreal into the central market. The result would be that if western oil prices were unjustifiably high, then off-shore oil would provide competition. On the other hand, if imported crude supply were threatened or if prices became too high, then the people in the east could use western crude to ensure both security of supply and price competition. I readily admit that this might mean some curtailment in our oil exports to the United States, but I would point out to hon. members of this House that for years and years the United States has imposed quotas against Canadian crude oil by presidential directive, and those orders still stand. Canada has been used as a tap to be turned off and on as it suited the oil companies and as it suited the United States.
The fact is that we have not got a national oil policy. We have an oil policy designed by the oil industry of the United States, by the Americans and for the Americans. On March 19 of this year Mr. John Connally, the former U.S. secretary of the treasury, speaking in Toronto warned Canada not to be hidebound, to use his phrase, by nationalism, in considering our new trade and financial arrangements. But he went on to say, "The United States would understand an oil supply policy which might cut back exports to the United States if necessary to cover Canadian needs." In other words Mr. Connally is saying to Canadians, "For heaven's sake, tell us what your oil policy is with respect to your needs."
I think that we would be justified in placing a curtailment on our exports of oil and gasoline in order to guarantee to the people of Canada security of supply and reasonable prices. In my opinion, the quotas set for oil last February were much too high. They were set after there had been a terrific out-pouring of oil to the United States. We would be fully justified, not in cutting off exports of oil, but in tapering them down to the figure of half a million or three-quarters of a million barrels, the figure the United States itself imposed on us not too long ago. What we do in this immediate oil crisis will largely determine our ability to deal effectively with the long-term oil crisis.

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls
As I said a few moments ago, we are shipping out our conventional crude and natural gas, and the end of those supplies is in sight. We have a life index for oil of probably between 12 and 17 years, and a life index for natural gas of 27 or 28 years. That does not mean that we will not have any energy at the end of those periods. On the other hand it does mean that we will need to turn to more expensive forms of energy, such as oil made from tar sands, gas made from coal, natural gas procured from the Arctic and the Mackenzie Valley. We ought to be conserving this cheap oil, not only to give the Canadian people reasonably priced crude products, as at present, but, as well, because our whole industrial strategy in the world depends on our preserving our competitive advantage by having cheap energy to produce manufactured and processed goods for sale on the world market. This government, in my opinion, has never understood the use of energy as a tool in our struggle to win for Canada a place in the durable goods markets of the world and thereby create more jobs for Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that unless the government starts now to deal with the short-term energy crisis, we will have thrown away our trump cards when we come to deal with the long-term energy crisis, for that is the crisis which will determine whether Canada will survive as an important manufacturing nation in the world.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any significance in there not being an immediate reply by the government to the motion moved by the NDP. I think that all the evidence shows that all political parties at this moment of Canada's history are turning their deepest thoughts to this problem in an effort to find some way of grappling with the question of energy and Canada's future. I do not think it is trite to say that our future as a nation depends on our wise use of minerals and our wise use of energy which, by God's grace, we find in Canada.
I wish to commend the ex-leader of the NDP for his statesmanlike presentation of what he terms as the shortterm approach. At first he ignored the long-term approach. Near the end of his remarks he came down, I think, on the right side by suggesting that ultimately we will need to grapple with this long-term question. I share with him his concern that the government for ten years, not four, had avoided grappling with the issue of a national energy policy, a national mineral policy and a national resource policy. If one peruses the records of this House since 1963, one will find frequent questions asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and other hon. members of the House, including myself, with regard to our need to move in this area.
I am not going to spend all my time in dealing with generalities. As I say, I wish to commend the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for his speech today. It shows that real thought is being given to this question. I am glad he changed the attitude which was evident three years ago when, in this House, he commended this government for its efforts in trying to sell more oil in the United States. All I can say is that in 1970 the hon. member said

we should sell more oil to the United States and that the government should do everything it could to sell more oil in that market. Today, he has come round to another way of thinking and said that we should not do that.


Mr. Peters:: The hon. member has been reading the wrong Hansard.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member says I am reading the wrong Hansard. I have a copy of Hansard in my hand, and if the hon. member wishes, I will quote for him. I am simply commending the hon. member for his change of attitude. I am not going to go over the political history of the trapeze act that the NDP has carried on for the past 35 years in Canada. It has shifted its position whenever the wind has veered. I am glad to welcome them on board, so to speak, and commend them for their position, which I hope is constant.


An hon. Member:: And who is jumping on the band wagon now?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is an energy crisis today. Its size and scope has been outlined well and ably by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. This is not a new crisis, in the opinion of some. In 1952, the Paley report of the United States, which had been asked for by the president in 1944, was published. The purpose in commissioning the report was this: The American government wanted the experts involved to tell the American people about the huge consumption of their strategic resources during the. fighting of the war and what the future would be for their industrial complex. That report of 1952 warned that by 1980 the American Republic would be facing serious deficits in strategic resources of minerals, oil and gas.
In 1959, the Netschert report outlined this shortage in a different form and put it even more strongly. In 1963, the Landsberg report of the United States put the question in wider perspective. It warned the United States that it could get off the hook only if it used more expensive renewable resources. So, one cannot say that we have arrived at our present situation without warning.
As I say, today we face a crisis. This crisis has not only to do with a temporary shortage of supplies because, after all, there are plentiful sources of energy in the world. Rather, the crisis has to do with intermediate or shortterm supply and price. At present the United States, an industrial nation, and Japan and western Europe, also industrial areas, are desperately short of the traditional fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal. Of all industrial nations, with the exception of Russia, Canada is the only one that can look with assurance at the future in the short term and in the long term. We have proven supplies for 15 years for oil, 30 years for gas and, when you take coal, we cannot even begin to estimate how many years of supply we have. If we add up all our resources, according to conservative estimates our potential reserves of oil, gas and other energy resources will last us about 500 years at present consumption rates. So we, ourselves, are not in a precarious position.
As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out, if we take this backlog of resources and use them to correct the American mistake of the past 25 years,
May 28, 1973

our supplies will become negligible and we will join the deficit area shared by Japan, the United States and western Europe. Therefore, on the question of supply, we must be cautious. We have to move very carefully in the matter involving export permits both for oil and gas. I do not think there is any difference between any party in Canada on this score.
However, on the question of price, there are going to be slight variations. For 50 years, since the twenties, the world price has been set by an international cartel. This international cartel, more powerful than governments, had a policy that worked on the assumption of plentiful supplies at low prices. Therefore, the wholesale price of oil, which is an international commodity, has remained almost static for nearly 50 years. Naturally, price wars broke out and they squelched them, but generally speaking, the price of wholesale oil has remained constant for 50 years throughout the industrial world.
This policy of the cartel, which oddly enough worked to the advantage of consumers all over the industrial world, has come to an end. OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries, realizes that this oil in their lands is of great value to the industrial nations and, as the hon. member who preceded me pointed out, gives them political leverage. For these two reasons, oil prices in the world are no longer set by a cartel of seven major international oil companies. They are now set by the 11, 12 or 13 nations which export under the over all umbrella of OPEC. This fact of price is something that no person of responsibility in any party, opposition or government, can ignore. We will be up against a world price fact for the next 10 or 12 years, that is unquestionable. No matter how much manoeuvring we do, we cannot change this. However, I accept at once the first part of the proposal of the New Democratic Party that some consideration must be given to placing controls on the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products.
In speaking for this party, I have been very careful about being as responsible as I can. It is true I have tried to guide the minister into facing the fact that he has some responsibility to get extra supplies for the eastern part of Canada. The situation in Montreal has concerned me for over four years. Since 1966, it has been sitting on the edge of an abyss. What would happen if there were an outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East? If these nations fulfilled their pledges which they have made over and over again, Montreal and the area would have 45 days supply and then be out entirely. Naturally, the government would move fast and set up a rationing system so that the 45 days supply would last for 60 or 70 days, but there would be a lot of cold people in the area east of the Ottawa valley if that emergency arose.
We hope and pray that oil and gas will be discovered off the east coast to relieve this pressure. However, as a question of policy which is not long term, but short term, the government has to grapple with the decision of what we would do about these people in Montreal. Many of them speak a different language, but they are part of Canada. A great deal of our industrial complex is in this area, yet these people sit quite oblivious to the fact that if there were a cut-off of offshore oil, they would be out of
Petroleum Products Controls business as an industrial area immediately. As long as the rationing lasted, they would be reasonably warm.
The danger of having to rely on the tender mercies of OPEC, the policy recommendation for the short-run, is referred to in the third clause in the motion moved today by the NDP. The third clause reads:
Remove the Ottawa Valley line and permit offshore oil and domestic crude to move freely in the interests of price competition.
I would love to believe this could be done. As far as oil and gas are concerned, I would love to get the Ontario and Quebec people off the backs of the westerners. We have been carring them on our backs for nearly 15 years. Certainly, higher prices would be charged for oil, but if the Ontario and Quebec people are to be at the tender mercies of the OPEC nations in preference to the tender mercies of Mr. Lougheed, that is their choice. However, I think that choice should be arrived at by open discussion, free of partisanship, because we cannot resolve these matters by indulging in traditional partisanship. I, and I believe my party, would be prepared to move the Ottawa Valley line west if that were requested by the Ontario government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: West or east?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Move the Ottawa Valley line west, as suggested in the motion. I would agree with that because then we could move into our natural form of movement of oil south from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. However, I am a Canadian. I have to look at the problems of the people who live in Ontario and Quebec as well as those who live in the west.
This matter should be openly and seriously considered. I would move the Ottawa Valley line east and include Montreal, if Quebec asked for it. I know adjustments would have to be made in the refineries. Even though it would not be economic on the basis of costs, the westerner, as a Canadian, would have to be prepared to supply at least half the needs of Montreal. The people of Quebec should be brought into this decision making. We here could arbitrarily say we are going to build a pipeline into Montreal with a capacity of 400,000 barrels a day. This would at least guarantee that heating fuels were available. We could not keep their industry going. However, that is a decision for the province of Quebec to share. They had better come here to talk to us about this or we should go to them. I am speaking here, I hope in a reasonably non-partisan way, to try to bring light to this question.
On the first part of this question, the control clause, we do not have any choice. Look at our pipeline capacity. We had a narrow squeak last winter. One cold winter and Toronto will be in trouble. We do not have the pipeline capacity. Look at the storage capacity in Ontario and the dangerous position of the refinery capacity. Two years ago, Texaco announced it would build a refinery near Lake Erie. Construction was held up for two years. I will not go into all the reasons because they are well known. Last month Texaco announced they would be going ahead with the project. They had better get cracking because regardless of whether they make 15 per cent or 20 per cent profit, people in the industrial area of Ontario want enough oil and gas to keep their industries going and their

Petroleum Products Controls
bodies warm. That is the essential part of policy. Do not distract us entirely with this issue of how much they are making. They are not doing too badly. I simply point out that the essence of policy making at this time is to see if we can come up with some sort of decision that is clear-cut for the producer and the consumer. The national oil policy of 1961 is not the law of the Medes and Persians. It is a flexible thing and should be looked at in that way.
I condemned the minister by inference for going into this OECD deal and saying he would not make special deals with Venezuela or Nigeria. He now realizes his mistake and will look into the matter. I support him in this. Venezuela is a friend of Canada, but will only deal government to government. Nigeria is a different case. There you can deal with different owners of concessions. At the present time, 100,000 barrels a day of sweet oil is available to Canada from Nigeria, but somebody has to make the move. Ontario has to help us decide whether that Ottawa Valley line should be moved west or east, whether that area is going to stay in the Canadian supply orbit or the world supply orbit. All I can say is that that area has not suffered too badly this last number of years.
In 1961, the national oil policy was based simply on the facts of that time. We wanted our exports from the west to balance our imports on the east. Those balances were kept by private companies. The United States government was actually opposed to the import of Canadian oil into the United States. It tried to stop it in 1959 by imposing mandatory quotas. We laid down unilaterally an oil policy which said that exports should balance imports, and private industry, by trading off quotas, reached that balance. We have provided Ontario with security of markets at a slight premium over the Montreal price. At this moment in time they are negotiating in Vienna for a price increase of 30 to 40 cents a barrel and by the end of this year prices in Montreal of offshore oil will be above western oil prices or Chicago prices. A fair estimate of the price per barrel for offshore oil by 1975 is $5 per barrel. Do you want to wire those Quebec and Ontario people into that price of oil? I would like to hear more about what price will be set for western oil, to be fair.
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to remember, too, that this oil in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan belongs to the people of those provinces. They will have something to say. They can stop the export of oil from those areas if they wish. I think this Ottawa Valley line should be left open. I would like to talk to the people of Quebec and offer to them, if they wish a policy of building a pipeline right down into Montreal, via the Toronto area, but one which would back up into North Bay and Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, even. If we do discover oil offshore in the Atlantic, we could bring it up that line to under-developed parts of Canada. In the meantime, such a pipeline would be a guarantee to the Montreal people that at least half their needs would be provided. Certainly, western oil would be cheaper than offshore oil by the time that line is completed. I would like to leave that decision open, and I think the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would like to leave it that way, too. At least we want the government to move. That is the main thing we have in common.

On the question of gasoline exports, I would hate to think it is anything more than a regional policy, or a short-term policy at best. Many parts of Canada, I am talking now about Newfoundland, Cape Breton as part of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, have waited for years to get more processing and more jobs in Canada. No opportunity has come to Canada until recently. This type of policy suggest by the NDP would cut off exports completely. I think, on that point, that if you want to talk rationally with us about some sort of regional policy on gasoline there would be some sense in temporary controls. I would like to put that forward. I have a series of questions about such a policy in the long range. I believe the policy you are suggesting would destroy all that the government was trying to do, because the government was trying to get more processing in Canada. If we look after our basic needs, we can be very open about that question. I do have questions here about the licensing procedures, but they are purely housekeeping and I will let them go.
The two-price system for gas has been in effect ever since the beginning, by reason of the common carriage principle-I know that gas is not a common carrier but I am using that phrase-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Daniel):: Order, please. I regret I must interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired. Unless there is unanimous consent, he cannot continue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I shall not abuse the privilege extended to me by the House, Mr. Sepaker. I was just about finished. I was about to say we have had the two-price system for gas by reason of the common carrier principle because they used the zone system of prices, and we certainly had it on the export differential of 5 per cent. I would like to hear some discussion as to whether this export differential which is now governed by regulations of the National Energy Board, should be made 10 per cent or something like that. If you put it too high I am sure you would have a lot of static from the producer, who would feel he was being discriminated against. But that policy principle has been established and I think it should be re-opened for discussion.
Oil has always had only the protection of the common carrier price differential. There has never been any control by government in the United States or Canada on price, and the announcement made by the minister the other day is very significant. But once again this should be approached very cautiously and a lot of questions have to be asked. I would question quite frankly the wisdom of trying to keep us too far out of touch with the world price. But once again I have over-used my time and I will not impose upon the House.
I think I have said enough about the Ottawa Valley line to keep the question open until we find out what Eastern people want. I want to conclude in the same tone as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands conclud-
May 28, 1973

ed. Canada has nothing to fear either in the short term or in the long term. We have plenty of resources of the traditional fossil forms and unbelievable resources, as do other countries, in the form of renewables. But we do have a common need to work out industrial strategy, to use these great advantages of our great resources of water, of which we are only using 1 per cent, our great resources of energy, our great resources of minerals, wood and so on, to bring into Canada more processing without too many controls.
Now, with the rising prices of energy offshore, with the rising prices and shortage of minerals around the world, all these things can be turned to advantage. We have waited so patiently for this day to come. The day is now here and our decisions on this question of energy are vital to the achievement of a dream which is now becoming a reality. We pay higher wages to steel workers. We produce better quality steel today in Canada and we do it at a lower price. That is a comparative advantage. Let us exploit things like the petro-chemical industry, the steel industry and all the things made out of steel, by building this proper mix, by making those things in Canada for which we have comparative advantage and letting other nations of the world supply the things in which they have comparative advantage. I think the future we have talked about for a generation or more, or maybe longer, has a chance to be fulfilled in a very short time. I see the movement of the petro-chemical industry in Canada; I know the steel industry can expand, and that the wood industry just has to expand to meet the human problems and the shortage of fibre around the world.
My criticism of the NDP position is that it will force us on a short term basis to face frankly these issues raised by the hon. member. But obviously there has to be a future occasion on which we can discuss the broader long-range problems and solutions for Canada. I know that we in our party are looking forward to bringing in these alternatives. When the government has delivered its papers we shall see what it has to offer. We are prepared to offer our alternatives. Now, these decisions are for Canada. We shall be dealing with electricity. We shall deal with energy in its fossil form and in its renewable form, and I would hope we can put forward a type of long-range proposal, with short-term housekeeping responsibilities met, that could draw the support of every party in this House and most people in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, one could speak endlessly on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), especially in view of the present government's lack of policy in this area.
On the one hand, when one ponders over the statistics and the specialists' comments on Canada's oil resources, one realizes that this country is far from being short of this commodity. Even in to-day's newspapers Canadians are given every assurance that, at least in the near future, there will be no shortage of oil or of any other natural resources for that matter.
Petroleum Products Controls
On the other hand, one must look farther than the tip of one's nose. Although there is no risk of an oil crisis occurring in Canada to-day, it is a fact that we may be faced with such a crisis, because the volume of our exports, maybe not within the next five to ten years, but in the more distant future. Any inconsiderate abuse could certainly foster this problem in Canada.
The motion before the House is divided into three parts, the first of which is as follows:
(a) Place export controls on the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products;
We all know-as explained a moment ago by the hon. member who introduced the motion-that controls have been provided by the government for the purpose of reducing the export of crude oil (natural resources). And indirectly, these restrictions on exports have had as a result that the United States are asking for a finished product. However, I believe that we may not be in a suitable position to criticize this attitude because in a way, there have been many complaints in recent years, especially in Canada. We complain that we have only raw products, that we have not succeeded in developing our secondary industry and here, in a round about way, we have a sector where we force foreigners to come here to buy refined products. Here is an area where surely we can still improve our production, improve employment possibilities and our industrial sector.
On the other hand, the demand from the United States and other countries is growing stronger and there is an increase in prices. In other words, the United States are ready to pay a higher price because their needs are greater and indirectly the companies, especially Canadian development companies, are asking Canadians the same price that they can get from the United States, thereby pushing up prices in Canada also.
It is fine to want to restrict the export of raw products through controls and today we are wondering how we could help Canadians population avoid higher prices, brought about by a stronger demand.
In the second paragraph of his motion, the hon. member advocates the establishment of price controls or at least, indirectly, a two-price system. First they ask for export controls, then the establishment of price controls.
I believe that through control measures or through an energy commission it would certainly be possible to exercise a certain control. I do not want a dictatorial control but it remains that a government is always elected to protect the rights or meet the needs of the people. Then, it would be logical to have a national commission evaluate the country's oil supply, and consider our short long term requirements. A national agency or organization could make sure that the needs of our population are fulfilled.
Our production surplus, and our reserves-because still one must expect to have reserves-could then be sold at a high price to other countries, according to their needs. Then the situation would not be as it is now, where the Canadian population is made to suffer from whatever increase in prices that may prevail in the United States. That is one way of having prices established.
Then, how are prices set? Prices are determined in the first instance by the cost of production, plus a logical and

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls reasonable profit. This basic price could easily be met on the Canadian market.
When a variation originating in other countries occurs and leads to a loss for Canadian producers we could, not by setting up a price control system but a compensated discount system, compensate the producer or a given product for a possible loss resulting from a sale on domestic rather than foreign markets. That is a way the government could use and certainly it would not be up to the government to determine prices. Free competition within this country could easily set prices, as is partly the case presently.
Such is not the case, for instance, in the oil sector because the third paragraph of the motion-and I think the hon. member made it quite clear a while ago-specifically refers to an obstacle which adversely affects competition on the Canadian market, that is to say the frontier created by the Ottawa Valley which impedes the distribution or sale of oil between eastern and western Canada. So by doing away with such a frontier we would really create in Canada a possibility for real competition in oil prices.
It is known that western oil producing or manufacturing provinces can sell their oil profitably to the United States. However, we in the province of Quebec or the Maritimes can buy oil cheaper from the Middle East or Venezuela than from Alberta. Why? Simply because the west wanted to set up an imaginary limitation to control and get the highest price while the east has to deal with an international market, which does not do anything for competition in Canada. So by doing away with that frontier of the Ottawa Valley we would give back Canada a chance to establish competitive prices between domestic and foreign products.
And I am not thinking about a possible production in Quebec. It is known that many industries, many experts on oil products undertook drilling operations in the province of Quebec and on the east coast of Canada. But nothing is said or done about it. Those are possibilities which could be developed.
As I said before, according to the studies of a board, we would determine the real potential, the immediate and long-term potential or the reserve needed in Canada.
In this global context, it is important that government take positive action. It would be possible to set up or guarantee a competitive price for oil-since it is the example used today-based on production costs as well as a normal profit within a sound competitive situation in Canada and, as I mentioned before, pay an indemnity to those who might lose money selling surpluses, which I doubt. As demand from the U.S. and other countries increases rapidly, I am sure we could get the best price for it. Then, the sale of those surpluses could even be included in an international market where we could bargain over a product that, for us, has a set price based on our needs, but that could have a much higher value for Americans according to their own needs. Then, trade would be subject not to international price controls as now but to our needs and those of the U.S., for example.
If the United States have huge oil requirements and we, on the other hand, have a strong appetite for oranges we

could easily bargain on the market on the market according to the value of products and to our requirements, assess the volume of trade according to our requirements and not only to prices established by international or multinational corporations which ask us, in fact, a price that is not dictated by our requirements but that they establish arbitrarily to make inflated profits in some cases.
The government must change its whole policy, its whole attitude towards foreign trade. First of all, we must take into account our requirements and surplus that we will have produced, then we might bargain with other countries in need and establish prices as we see fit. Thus, we will have much higher profits.
It is important that the government look after Canadians first and, if possible, deal with other countries after.
We should not forget either than even taxes are included in price increases. As I said earlier, prices have gone up not because of stronger demand in Canada but as a result of larger requirements in the United States, which have an indirect impact on Canadian prices.
One realizes that we have a strange way of doing things in Canada. A gallon of oil or gas is sold at a given price in the west and at an other price in the east and, similarly, the tax differs in the east and in the west because it is deducted from retail prices.
Those are situations that might be readjusted in order to reflect not necessarily the requirements of large corporations but those of the people, according to the cost of production and not to arbitrary decisions taken by various corporations.
I have here statistics showing the increase in exports of oil products to the United States. Whereas in 1969-70 our sales of crude oil to the United States amounted to $525,780,000, in 1970 they reached $649,075,000 and in 1972, $1.8 billion.
If there is such a growing need for oil products in the United States as shown over the past years, I feel we are now in a good position to bargain with them and to apply restrictions on exports of crude products while increasing exports of refined products.
In the past, the Americans were importing crude oil from Canada and were having it refined at home, thus creating new jobs and improving their own economy.
Today we are able to put restrictions on production and export of crude oil; it is equally important to maintain those restrictions so as to provide for the development of our secondary industry, namely refineries, and then sell the surplus of those refineries to the United States as well as other countries wishing to have some.
That is what I wanted to say on this motion and I believe the fact of thinking about a general energy policy already represents in the attitude of politicians and Canadians a fresh and, I hope, lasting outlook for all Canadians as compared with the restrictive and arbitrary approach we now favour.
Again, that is what I wished to say and in concluding I would like to point but that prices are based on operating costs and profits and that if there is a need to increase prices or losses because price or consumption are not in
May 28, 1973

accordance with the demand, there is only one possible way then of readjusting prices, namely the establishment of a compensated discount for the Canadian people and not for other countries.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-National Defence-request for retention of the kilt for Highland units; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-National Revenue-request that the government not seek return of over-payment to farmers under Wheat Inventory Reduction Program; the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis)-Agriculture-taxation of marketing quotas-Possible revision in light of representations by farm groups.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
[ Transla tion]
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to refer to one of the issues raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette). It was a repetition of the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to the effect that one of the reasons for the considerable increase in Canadian gas exports in March was the control over crude oil exports set by the government in February.
I would like to emphasize that there is no relation between those facts. Most of the refined oil exported from Canada in March originated from Quebec and Nova Scotia refineries and not from Alberta where crude oil controls were in effect. So, the crude petroleum imports from overseas are used in Canadian regions. We note that the increase in exports is larger in those areas. So there is no relation between the larger gas exports and the control set on crude oil by the government at the beginning of February.

Mr. Speaker, the motion put by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), in essence, has two parts to it. In effect, there is a reference
Petroleum Products Controls to the short-run and immediate problem of motor gasoline and, secondly, in parts (b) and (c) it has reference to the longer run issue, namely the kind of structure we should create for the Canadian oil market given the somewhat changed circumstances of our petroleum situation in the mid-1970's. I should like to take a little time dealing with the motor gasoline question because of the legitimate special concern on this point, and after that my remarks will refer to the long-run situation.
The hon. member referred in his question on Friday to a number of independent dealers who had been suffering problems concerning the supply of refined motor gasoline. He made particular reference to one firm in respect of this situation. We are familiar with the situation regarding this firm and are hopeful that through the informal assistance of the National Energy Board this problem might be met. I might put to him and to others, both in the House and out, who are familiar with similar situations, that particularly when we talk about the independent distributors of gasoline I wish to be familiar with their situation, to see in what way the government and particularly the board might be of assistance in dealing with the problem.
I think it might be of some assistance if, really in response to the gentleman's question of last Friday, I put some figures on the record which I now have from the National Energy Board with regard to exports during the month of March. I am advised by the board that gasoline exports to all countries during the month of March were
12,367,000	gallons which is at the rate of just under 12,000 barrels a day. Since the very large bulk movement occurred in that month, and as exports were expected to rise sharply in any case, I think the events of April may have more significance. The board estimates that April exports of gasoline were lower than those of March, that is, something under 10,000 barrels a day. It is still a significant figure in comparison with previous years, but bear in mind when we are talking about 12,000 barrels daily, with the daily Canadian production of motor gasoline of around 500,000 barrels, we are talking about 2 per cent of the Canadian production.
In the present volatile situation, of course, it is very difficult to make a prediction with regard to the current market. However, officers of the board have been in constant contact with the refiners and I can assure members that the gasoline situation is receiving day-to-day surveillance. I would, however, like to emphasize to the House, and repeat what has been indicated privately to the major refiners in Canada, that the government has the same expectation with regard to refined products as was expressed earlier in this year with regard to unrefined petroleum, namely, that the needs of the Canadian market would receive priority and that if we find that informal arrangements of the kind that have operated for many years through the agency of the board are not effective in protecting the Canadian market, I will not hesitate to recommend to my colleagues the extension of the export control system to refined as well as unrefined petroleum.
I think it might be useful to mention a number of factors which have contributed to the very substantial increase in petroleum prices internationally since 1970. There has, of course, first, been an increase in taxation by the overseas producing countries brought about primarily

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls
by the efforts of OPEC, the organization of petroleum exporting countries. There have, in the same period, been changes in exchange rates, particularly in so far as they effect North America and, through negotiations again by OPEC, the cost of overseas oil coming to this continent has been increased. There has been an attainment by overseas producers of the right of participation in oil production which was formerly exclusively controlled by private companies and this, too, has contributed to the price increase. There has been a continued pressure of rising demand on available oil supplies which also has effected tanker markets, particularly in recent months, and has therefore affected the cost of transporting overseas the oil imported into this continent.
It is impossible to give a precise indication of the extent of this price increase as it affects the cost of crude oil delivered to our import dependent eastern market because the increase is still working its way through the system. However, estimates tabled by the board and placed before the standing committee earlier this year suggest that between 1970 and February of this year the average cost of imported crude increased by at least 85 cents a barrel or some 30 per cent. Imports of refined oil products in to eastern Canada have decreased in recent years with the coming on the scene of new refinery capacity. But the structure of the eastern Canadian market still has been that substantial refined petroleum products are required by the Canadian market. Indeed, many of the independents who are now so much feeling the pinch of the changed international situation were able to operate in this area where it was possible to buy offshore at cheap prices refined gasoline for resale within the market east of the Ottawa Valley line, the eastern Canadian market.
What has now occurred, of course, is that with the increased pressure on oil prices generally, the substantial increase in the prices of refined oil products and because of the very heavy demand due to the tightness of the supply internationally, the supplies, which formerly were available to the independents particularly but to the eastern Canadian market, have now very substantially dried up and the situation therefore which has been created for the independents is not so much one of shortage resulting from a diversion of refinery capacity in Canada, from which they were formerly drawing, but rather from there not having available to them from overseas the supplies of the refined products which they had before. I think we must expect that with or without export controls, that is to say with or without the control on export of Canadian refined products to the United States market, we will feel an attenuation of the supply of refined products to the Canadian market and for this reason I think we can expect, through this year and so long as these prices remain, not to be importing as much of the refined product as we did previously, with the economic consequences that that has had for certain firms.
More specifically, I am advised by the board that in 1973 almost no motor gasoline has been imported into Canada. I should explain that the import of the refined product is subject to licensing. In the previous year, while 140,000 barrels a day of refined products came into Canada, of which 10,000 barrels a day, was motor gasoline, there has been virtually none of the latter come into Canada since the start of the year. I have already mentioned the fact

that in April the board contacted all the refiners who might be selling their product for export. The board has sought and received assurances that the product would not be exported at the expense of the necessary supply to the domestic market. The emphasis again is put on the fact that the March export figures reflect one large shipment and a number of smaller spot sales and, as I already mentioned, the expectation is that the figures will be slightly lower for the month of April.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? I am interested in the figures which he just quoted, and I have them here. Does it not give the minister concern that at the same time that our exports of gasoline have gone up so dramatically, our imports of gasoline have almost dried up? Does it not point to what could be a serious situation requiring gasoline rationing this summer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly, there is need for serious consideration. My advice is that there is no serious shortage of supply at this moment, but I would have to agree with the hon. gentleman that without a very tight restriction on further exports from Canadian refiners the position of the Canadian market certainly would be more precarious, particularly if there was a refinery accident or if there were an abnormal increase in the demand during the present period, so that the supplies in eastern Canada in particular would be very much a matter of concern. I would agree with the hon. gentleman that with the phenomenon of the reduction of foreign supply of refined petroleum products we should be very concerned about conserving all the possible domestic refined product for the Canadian market, recognizing that this is apparently going against the policy which we have been fostering of trying to find a market for the refined product. I would say that we are hopeful that the efforts made informally with refiners to achieve this purpose would be successful, but I repeat that if they are not, the government will have to take action similar to the one it took with regard to export of crude.
The second aspect of the hon. member's motion is with regard to a restructuring-and this is my characterization-of the Canadian oil market, given the substantial change in the external facts since the national oil policy was first announced by the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in 1961. I think it might be useful to reflect for a moment on the nature of the system that was set up at that time, and on the motivations of the government at that time. The Canadian oil industry in those years-and here we are talking about western Canadian producers of oil and natural gas-was in a situation of being basically in a buyers' market, of having difficulty in getting access to the United States for oil and in having great difficulty in getting access to the United States for natural gas at reasonable prices. For that reason, governments in the late 1950's and early 1960's sought to create systems in Canada whereby Canadian needs would be supplied by Canadian sources, as much from the motive of making markets available for the producers as to provide sources for consumers.
Over a period of years, and particularly in the last decade since the situation was changed from an exclusive-
May 28, 1973

ly buyers' market to more of a sellers' market. The national oil policy system on the whole, I think, has served the country well. It put us in the position, at least in so far as exports from western Canada are concerned, of selling the Canadian product at a high price to the United States and, in so far as the population east of the Ottawa valley line was concerned, of buying the product cheaply on the international market. The consumer, of course, who bore the cost of this was the Ontario consumer, but the argument has been made, particularly by western producers, that in the same period of time the Ontario producer had the advantage of low cost natural gas which somewhat equalized the situation for him.
Whatever may have been the merits of that system, I think we can recognize the fact that this situation has substantially changed. In the first place, as all previous speakers have indicated, the United States has ceased to be a net producer of petroleum and has become a very substantial net importer. At the same time, because of this situation, Canada has not only achieved the objective which was talked about for many years in this House of having full access to the United States market, but we have achieved the objective of being able to sell as much of the oil to the United States market as the existing conventional Canadian systems can produce following good conservation practices.
On this basis, we are now in the situation where we have reached a ceiling on our production from Western Canadian sources, and at the same time the international scene has changed. What started out basically as a system to provide a protected market for the western producer in Ontario through the national oil policy has now become a system which provides for the Ontario consumer security of supply which the consumer in eastern Canada, east of the Ottawa valley line, does not have and which indeed very few consumers have anywhere else in the world
This brings me, therefore, to the two points made by the hon. gentleman, and I put them in the form of questions. First, should we shift from the national oil policy system and the Ottawa valley line which we have had for the last 11 or 12 years and, as the hon. member suggested, open it to the full competitive system; and, second, should we create a system of price control within the market so that, as he said, the price for oil and petroleum products in Canada will be significantly lower than the going international price? These are two difficult questions, and I would agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) that they are the kind of major questions with which we should be involved, not only in debate in this House but in debates between the various regions of Canada which will be affected.
I do not presume to lecture the two gentlemen who are both natives of the prairie region and spokesmen for western Canada, but certainly I think they would recognize the viewpoint of western producers that far from being in the situation of, in effect, selling their product at a lower cost on the Canadian market than it would fetch internationally, they should get the highest price obtainable for oil or gas in any market, domestic or international.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The question is, whose oil is it?
Petroleum Products Controls


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There was some reference to the premier of Alberta. He thinks definitely that it is his oil. I suppose his arguments are twofold, and he can make them much more eloquently than I. To repeat them, the first is that in the form of economic rent by way of royalties he and the residents of his province will get more from the exploitation of what is, after all, a wasting asset if they get a higher price for their product. The second argument is that because of higher price there will be encouragement for greater exploration for oil within that province and in the vicinity of the province which will have benefits both for the provincial treasury and the economic opportunities which it will offer residents of western Canada.
This is one of the questions we have to consider on a national basis in weighing the regional interests of western Canada and getting the best possible price for this product while recognizing the interest of the consumers in other parts of Canada in getting the product at the lowest possible price. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman's proposal of establishing a two price system would not, at least immediately, find support in western Canada. Obviously, it will have to be a matter of debate.
The second of the points that I would have made, and which was made effectively by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, regards the security of supply. It is with regard to the location of the Ottawa valley line. An eloquent argument can be made-and the hon. gentleman certainly advanced it well-that rather than removing the line altogether serious consideration should be given to moving it, not west or removing it altogether, but moving it east to protect the substantial Montreal refinery markets, thereby ensuring to that market the security of crude feedstock which the Ontario market already enjoys. That too, of course, would be in contradiction of the hon. member's proposal. I would have to say that that too offers obvious problems, both from the point of view of the refiners in the Quebec market and from the standpoint of the western producers who feel they could probably get a better price for their product if they sold it in the more proximate market than in the Montreal market.
These are the kinds of questions we as a country will have to face in dealing with the changed situation that has occurred since we first established the national oil policy back in the early 1960's. These are the kinds of basic questions, along with other questions, that are dealt with in the energy policy studies which have now, as they say, gone to press, and which we hope will be available before the House rises for the summer. These are the kinds of questions with which the House and the country will be involved, the kinds of questions with which the government, in dealing with provincial governments and in dealing with the viewpoints of individual citizens, will be very much involved later this year. These are the kinds of difficult questions that require some kind of national consensus, such as we had a decade or so ago, and the process of establishing that national consensus will start with the analyses we have made and which we hope will assist in arriving at a change in policy.

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), I will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on a question, since the minister has much time remaing for his speech.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do I
understand that these reports or papers on energy policy will not be available until near the end of June?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really be certain of this because the matter is now beyond my control, in the sense that the translation and the printing of the documents are now in process. I would hope they would be available within the coming month, but I cannot be precise as to time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I
wonder if some of the staff would leak me the documents ahead of time, just as they leaked the one to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to insist that if there are to be any leaks that they be in both official languages.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister talked about moving the Ottawa Valley line east or west. My suggestion was that, rather than doing that, we should remove the line altogether so that off-shore oil, if it is cheap, could come further west, and western oil if it is cheaper could come east by extending the pipeline to Montreal. Is this aspect being studied by those who are preparing the national energy report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In general terms, the question is debated. This is one of th factors I would like to be specific about because the hon. gentleman talked at some length about it. This concerns the security of supply situation so far as opening up the market at some future date to full imports is concerned.
While we have a present tightness in the international supply situation this is not, as several speakers suggested, because there is not a very strong base of supply in the ground or available in the producing countries, but rather is due to shortcomings in the producing system and in the transportation system. It is conceivable that we would move from the present situation of tight supply to one where there would be significantly full supplies. One of the considerations we have to bring to bear would be, if we opened up the full Eastern Canadian market, the Toronto as well as the Montreal market to off-shore imports, the effect this could have in backing out western feed stock from these areas and thereby creating a larger problem of insecurity with respect to supply. This is one of the concerns we would have to take under consideration before following the hon. member's suggestion.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if there is some significance in the fact that all these leaks have been taking place since we established Information Canada.
The matter I should like to raise with the minister is one that I raised earlier this afternoon during the question period about bringing pipelines and national gas and oil

policy to parliament. It is becoming quite obvious that this is a political question. I do not think any better statement on its obviousness could be made than that made by the minister this afternoon. It is not a technical question. Every speaker who has talked about the problem of gas and oil in Canada has highlighted the point that some kind of political solution is required if we are to have a new national policy.
I agree with what the minister said when he indicated that the old national policy has served us to some extent up to a point. But the basis on which that policy was created has gone. It was created to take account of the fact that Alberta needed a guaranteed market for its out-put at a time when the United States would not take any oil at all, or was very reluctant to take any. I think it is a credit to the administration in power when the national oil policy was formulated that it was able to get such a deal for the country. In those days it looked as though the problem was going to be one of a surplus. Therefore, the solution was to get rid of supplies. Perhaps the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) may have been somewhat more prescient than others in foreseeing that there was going to be a shortage, but in those days all the talk was about getting the oil out as rapidly as possible.
That day is over. Therefore, we have to take an entirely new look at the situation. As I say, it is a political question. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) asked: to whom does the oil belong? He and the rest of us are socialists. Therefore, we say the oil belongs to Canada. We are talking about a national responsibility, a national obligation for sharing. In very sharp contrast, both the statements of the minister and of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain show their conservative tendencies. It would not bother me as much if, in fact, Alberta was getting that much benefit from the oil industry. But what often seems to be the case is that Alberta is running interference for the private corporations, and the maximum benefits are not going to the people of Alberta but to the major international oil companies. This is a pretty unhappy situation.
It is facile to say that people in Ontario are now raising this question because oil is in short supply and therefore they are interested in getting cheap oil from western Canada. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain summed it up by saying, "Get Ontario off our backs." Did he say that ten or 12 years ago when he brought in a national oil policy which has cost this country, Ontario and all the consumers of Canada, something like half a billion dollars a year for gasoline, or 5 cents for every gallon sold in Canada? It worked two ways. The price of western crude was more expensive than the international price, and the people in Montreal were paying higher than the internationally posted price. The price in Montreal was somewhat lower than that of western crude, but the fact remains that it was not the international price. Every country in the world, France, Germany and England, were paying less for crude oil, less taxes, than Canada. Canada was paying a premium price not only for its own oil but for the crude it imported, because that was the pricing policy of the international companies. They based the price at Montreal on the cost of bringing western crude by
May 28, 1973

pipeline to Montreal, and that was higher than the posted international price.
The report referred to today by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out that in fact we have been paying 30 cents a barrel more for crude than the international price. It is not just the people of Ontario, but the people of all Canada, no matter whether they have used domestic or offshore supplies, who have paid for the national policy. We have been willing to pay for it because we all recognized that the western oil producing provinces of Canada needed consideration at a time when they could not find outlets for their oil.
As an aside, let me say that when we start talking about restricing supplies of oil to the United States and someone gets up and says, "Isn't it terrible; just look at what you are doing to our American neighbours," we should look back 10 or 15 years to the time when we could not sell our crude in that country. They did not want our oil. There was not a greal deal of outcry in Canada. The time may come when we will not be in a position to sell western Canadian oil to the United States because we will have to ensure our own supplies. When that time comes, let us not talk about how bad a neighbour we shall be: if that time ever comes, let us think back to the way we were treated when we thought we desperately needed that market for our crude oil.
I think Ontario, along with the rest of Canada, has been willing to pay higher prices for gasoline and for the chemicals that come from crude petroleum. Higher petroleum prices have had an important bearing on the performance of our petrochemical industry which is an important and growing industry. The performance of that industry in this country depends to a great extent on the price of Canadian crude. So for years not only has the average consumer had to pay more for gasoline, but the entire petrochemical industry has had to pay higher prices for its supplies. Those supplies were maintained at higher prices by a tariff that was imposed on supplies imported into Canada. Consequently, we substantially disadvantaged that industry.
As I say, on balance we probably had to do it. The national oil policy, despite all its faults, probably created the opportunity for the accelerated development of the whole industry. But let there be no talk about Ontario being on Alberta's back; such statements would imply there are short memories in this country. Ontario is not guiltless. Westerners have many grievances against the east and some of them are legitimate; and we recognize that. When the people of Ontario look at the national oil policy they should bear in mind the grievances of westerners. They are willing to accommodate themselves to those policies in the hope that it will help western Canada.
Western grievances involving tariffs and transportation are legitimate and real. Let me repeat the point I am trying to make in my remarks, that there is a need for adequate solutions in this whole area. Obviously, we are not going to find an answer, because the entire policy is breaking down. The people of this country, so rich in raw materials and natural resources, are in danger of facing supply shortages. That is an incredible situation. We are in
Petroleum Products Controls danger of having to pay enormous prices for those things which are to be found in our own country, because of the arbitrary marketing decisions of international oil companies acting in collusion with a province.
When the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands spoke of the west, he had a right to speak about it. After all, he was for many years premier of a great province. I am sure when he says that the oil belongs to Canadians, he will find a harmonious echo of his remarks in the great province of Saskatchewan. That province has oil. I hope that the attitude in Saskatchewan is somewhat different from the attitude in another province.
This difficulty must be resolved. It will not be resolved simply by saying, "We are going to take over all the oil, and Alberta be damned." I think Alberta can produce good arguments in support of its position, and these must be taken into account. Parliament must take the initiative to deal with these questions, and not the National Energy Board. Although the National Energy Board may be competent in a technical sense to make decisions about pipelines or about export arrangements under our present national oil policy, it is not competent to review or bring in a new kind of oil policy that is required in this country.
What can the federal government do in this field? First, it must say unequivocally that matters of energy and transportation are so vital to this country that they must come under federal control, and that the federal government alone is in the position to establish national priorities. We have done this before. Unless there are assured sources of energy supplies both in terms of quantity and cost, we will not be able to overcome some of the inherent disadvantages this country faces in the provision of jobs for our people. We developed a national transportation system in response to the same kind of dilemma and problem. We now need a national oil, gas and general energy policy as well. We will need to make some tradeoffs; we will need to make some arrangements with the provinces which will make this acceptable.
What are some of the things we can do in this area? I find it hard to understand, with all the oil and natural gas we have in the west, with the intelligent population we have and with the funds at our disposal, when we have to bring crude petroleum into Ontario and refine it in Ontario, or why we should be selling crude oil to the United States to be refined there. If there is a disposition on the part of the western provinces to do more processing, then it is highly advisable for that processing to be done there in order to encourage refining as a major industry in the west.
I am talking not only of fuel oil to be turned into gasoline but also of the creation of feedstocks. We need feedstocks for the chemical industry. In the west, plants that would be significant on a world scale ought to be constructed. If we are to do any selling internationally of oil and gas, why should we not sell it in a more processed form instead of simply shipping out so many barrels of crude oil? Why should we do this in a most elementary and simplistic way? I think a policy could be developed that would be satisfactory to the west. Certainly it is something we ought to discuss with them.
There is another aspect of policy that we must examine. Newfoundland obviously wants to get into the refining

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls business. We must consider the question of Quebec's relationship to the refining industry. There could be allocations of capacity. There ought to be over-all federal control as to where these refineries are to be built. We ought to ensure that refineries are built in such a way that they do not interfere with our balance of payments, with the capital flows in this country, and that they are of optimum size in order that we can produce gasoline and feedstocks at the cheapest possible price.
Some members may ask what we will do with the feedstocks. The United States obviously has adopted a policy of excluding our chemicals from their markets. In earlier days it was their policy to exclude our crude petroleum from their markets. Therefore, I think it is about time we made a firm statement saying that we are not prepared to export our products to that market, and if the United States want our assistance in the field of petrochemicals, they will have to take them in the form of manufactured feedstocks which are at a higher point of processing than crude oil. We ought to enforce that kind of policy or do something along that line.
I think Ontario, as well, will have to recognize some of the grievances of the west in the field of transportation and of tariffs. If we resolve the other difficulty to which I have referred, then it seems to me the question of tariffs and costs can also be resolved. We must also look at the question of freight rates, especially at equalized freight rates, to make sure that the disadvantages, under the present system, in the maritime region are removed.
Mr. Speaker, I come back to what I think is the central point in any discussion of oil and gas. If we are to talk about a two-price system, if we are to talk about how we allocate markets and about our pricing policies, then Parliament must make a political decision, in the best sense of the word. It must take into account the various grievances that exist in this country and find a way of resolving them. For that reason, I hope the government, particularly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), will stop hiding behind the National Energy Board and using it as an excuse for not letting Parliament come to a conclusion and making a decision on this important item.
I congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on his most timely motion, because of its urgency to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion, which is probably one of the most important subjects to come before this House, I feel I should begin with a word of caution. It is unfortunate that a subject as important as this has been coloured by a tendency on the part of hon. members to my left to become exercised and extremely negative on the question of the American nation and so-called big business.
I followed with interest the address by the mover of the motion before us today. I was rather startled to note what I feel was an unhappy, anti-American tone in much of his comment. Having said that, I believe the record should be put straight on a few points. In his motion the hon.

member states that recent increases in the price of crude oil, gasoline and other refined products are viewed with concern by himself and, hopefully, by this House. We in the Progressive Conservative party also view with concern the rise in price of these products. It is time the hon. member and his colleagues accepted the fact that we should be agreeing that rising prices in this country generally are of concern to all of us. Members of the NDP, who have been exercised for some time about rising food prices, as of today has discovered that the price of gasoline, oil and other refined product is rising, yet to date they have consistently refused to co-operate with this party in suggesting, and in fact demanding that the government bring in wage, price and dividend controls in this country.
Let us try to solve the over-all problem of inflation in this country, as opposed to the nit-picking that the members to my left seem to like to get into. Let us be specific. The products to which they are referring were, at the end of April-these figures were released at one o'clock today by Statistics Canada-as follows: petroleum refining products had an index of 122.2. That is a little over an increase of one percentage point since January. Various fuel oils have been static so far this year, at 138.8 in the case of No. 1 fuel oil-kerosene stove oil and tractor fuel-and 143.3 in the case of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 light fuel oils.
Surely it behooves this House to accept the fact that the petroleum price increase is not the cardinal reason for our cost of living rising as sensationally as it has but, rather, many other rising prices are involved to which we have been pointing for some time. In April the index for all consumer goods stood at 147.3. We in this party have consistently drawn attention to the high cost of housing and shelter in this country. We believe this is a disaster, certainly in the Toronto area, for many people who have the worth-while and proper objective of wanting to own their own home. The issue of petroleum prices has two beautiful ingredients as far as the NDP are concerned, and that is why we are discussing it today. I suggest they look upon it as a red flag in the sense that it is American and, in their minds, big business.
I wish to deal with a few of the references made by the hon. member in the address on his motion. The hon. member who preceded me made the same type of references. They like to conjure up the image that international petroleum companies are among the worst devils in the capitalistic world. I am not particularly defensive of any of these companies, but I think it is wrong for the members of this House to hear and not object to certain misinformation. Among the 500 largest corporations in the United States, the profit picture with regard to the petroleum refining field was the least attractive in 1972 of any of the companies listed, with the exception of three categories-beverages, tobacco and mining. The petroleum refining industry, contrary to what the hon. member suggested, did not have a good profit increase in 1972.
It is wise to bear in mind that the petroleum refining industry has more assets per employee than any industry listed in the directory of 500 put out by Fortune. In 1972 it had $126,775 invested per employee, compared with the next highest, the mining industry, with $84,291 per employee. I hope the record will be set straight with
May 28, 1973

regard to the question of these huge corporations when it is suggested that they are making uncalled-for profits.
The next point I wish to deal with is the suggestion raised by the hon. member in paragraph (a) of his resolution which reads:
Place export controls on the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products-
In this category, the hon. meipber offered what appeared to be rather alarming figures When he quoted the current amount of gas exports compared with earlier periods. The minister touched on this matter, but I think it deserves to be mentioned again. I believe the hon. member deliberately chose not to make it clear that the main increase in gasoline exports was not of refined Canadian products, but gasoline that had been refined in eastern Canadian refineries mainly from crude that had been imported to eastern Canada from other sources.
Surely it is wrong to conjure up in this House an image that Canadian fuel is being taken from our reserves, refined and exported to the United States in its refined form. The fact is that at the present time 51.8 per cent of the refining capacity of this country lies east of the Ottawa River. It does not have access to the Canadian crude to which the hon. member referred so frequently in his remarks. Is he suggesting that the refining expansion contemplated in eastern Canada should be discontinued? Is he hinting that it is wrong that some of the refineries which have come on stream and which are exporting gasoline products should be restricted in this type of exportation?
I should like to make it aboundantly clear, as did my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), that we believe there should be export controls, if necessary, provided Canadian crude oil is involved and there is a suggestion that the refining companies are circumventing the regulations by simply taking Canadian crude and refining it with a view to increasing their exports. It should also be made clear that we do not feel the actual increase of refining capacity in eastern Canada, with a view to taking crude from other areas and exporting it in a refined state to the U.S. or elsewhere, is necessarily wrong.
The hon. member referred to a two-price system. What he chose to neglect was the answer to the question: Who pays for it? Is he saying that the producer has to accept a lower price if he sells to a domestic concern in Canada than he would receive if he exported his product? Is he saying that the producer must pay, or is he hinting that the federal government should end up subsidizing sales to domestic consumers in this country?
Let me turn, now, to the most interesting point in the resolution, one which I believe most hon. members would find inconsistent with the terms used at the beginning of the resolution itself. I am referring to item (c) which speaks about moving the Ottawa valley line and permitting offshore oil and domestic crude to move freely in the interests of price competition. There is the suggestion in this motion that somehow we should not allow petroleum companies to take advantage of international markets because, presumably, the price is higher and this in turn
Petroleum Products Controls
would raise domestic prices. Yet at the tail end of this resolution the hon. member places a reverse twist on the proposition, saying that if we removed the Ottawa valley line then somehow that same foreign product would result in reduced prices in Canada. Is this not an inconsistent line of reasoning? I heard the hon. member's remarks on this subject and I must say they undermined greatly my own confidence in his proposal.
I believe there should be no suggestion that we in Ontario be left in a situation in which we might become dependent on foreign sources of oil or related products. At the present time we feel we have our troubles in negotiating prices with the province of Alberta. However, let me assure hon. members that we in Ontario would prefer to deal with the province of Alberta than to deal with foreign concerns with which we have no possible relationship.
I believe the one point which should be emphasized in our debate is that we in Canada are today seeing the results of the absence of any proper national resources policy at the national level. This is where the fundamental problem lies. There would be no need for a debate of the sort we are conducting today had the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) already proposed a national energy policy for Canada and had Parliament agreed to it. The type of innuendo the hon. member is attempting to put forward in his resolution would not be possible if there were a firm and all-embracing national energy policy established in this country.
Tied in with such a policy we need an industrial strategy. It is unfortunate that we are looking at the pieces instead of the over-all situation. In devising such a policy, rather than make statements which may not be helpful and which, indeed, in some cases may even be harmful in our trading relationship with the United States, we should accept the fact that the Americans are the best buyers of our products. Rather than being hostile, we should seriously consider what steps we should be taking, if not in the short-term then certainly in the medium- and long-term, to ensure that certain measures now being taken in the United States will not have unfavourable repercussions in this country at a later date. We should consider the possible effects, for example, of statements made by President Nixon to the United States Congress on April 18, 1973. I should like to itemize those points, but I see my time is running out. Perhaps on a later occasion I shall be given that privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member places the Chair in a quandary. Obviously, he could continue if he asked for and were given extra time, but such a request is not normally dealt with at six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock was called I had just concluded my remarks on the motion before the House, moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). If I could summarize the

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls
four points that I had made to that point in time, first of all I indicated that I felt it was unfortunate that the hon. member had taken certain items and had pointed to the fact that the price of these items had increased, while totally ignoring the fact that in the over-all inflationary spiral of consumer prices in this country the petroleum products that he referred to were of comparatively little significance. For example, in April the consumer price index stood at 147.3, having risen 1.1 per cent in April alone, compared to petroleum products which are in the 120 to 130 price index range and which in many cases have been relatively static in price for several months. In short, we in the Progressive Conservative party foresaw the problem of rising prices and advocated that the government bring in wage and price controls. The government has refused to do so, and the NDP has aided and abetted them in that refusal.
Secondly, the hon. member is suggesting placing controls on the export of gasoline and other refined petroleum products. However, he did not mention to hon. members, when he quoted certain figures showing the rise in the export of gasoline products, that the bulk of the increase came from eastern Canadian refineries which in most instances were established to take in crude oil from foreign countries, refine it and export it to the United States in its refined state. I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member chose to make that point and to suggest that the export of this type of refined product should be controlled. The fact is that 51.8 per cent of the refining capacity of this country is in eastern Canada, and the hon. member is indicating, perhaps unintentionally, that he is proposing to kill the growth of this refining and exporting business.
If I may deal again with the two-price system, the hon. member also ignored the question who is going to pay for this two-price system. Does he intend that the producer shall pay, the federal government, or the provincial governments? I feel this was an unfortunate omission on his part.
Finally, may I deal with paragraph (c) of his motion in which he suggested removing the Ottawa valley line and permitting offshore oil and domestic crude to move freely in the interests of price competition. This, as I mentioned, is surely totally inconsistent with the hon. member's approach. On the one hand he is suggesting that we stop exporting petroleum products because prices internationally are higher, and on the other hand he is suggesting the removal of the Ottawa valley line to take advantage of those competitive international prices. You cannot have it both ways. If export prices are higher, I think the hon. member has a lot of explaining to do as to why he feels we would have lower prices in this part of Canada as a result of that line being removed. In fact, I believe it would be very detrimental to Ontario in particular if through inadvertence or lack of planning we became totally dependent upon foreign producers for our petroleum products.
It has been seriously suggested that the price of gasoline could go as high as $1 per gallon in this country. Surely the hon. member does not wish to contribute to bringing about that situation. As I said before, I would much prefer to continue to negotiate with the Premier of Alberta than deal with the sheiks of the Middle East, which could well

be the end result of his suggestion in paragraph (c) of this resolution.
In proposing this resolution I think the hon. member and his colleagues have been opportunistic. They have taken certain items which they feel suit their purpose and have chosen to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue, however, if he has unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimity. [Translation]


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, let me start my speech by referring to what was said by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).

Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in the stress the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) placed upon the controls he thought should be imposed on the exportation of crude oil, and the position taken by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) that there should be encouragement in respect of the exportation of products refined from crude oil. Indeed, that flies directly in the face of the proposal of his colleague.
I also take exception to the statement of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge to the effect that indeed there was consideration by United States authorities to put quotas on the importation by that country of oil products from Canada. Let me advise the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, that in his mid-April energy message President Nixon contemporaneously issued an oil import program proclamation in which power was given to the Secretary of the Interior to increase at will the importation of products from oil, including crude oil, unfinished oil and finished products from Canada.
When we look at the latest count in respect of weekly consumption by the United States in barrels, we see that the United States consumes at the present time approximately 45 million barrels per week, the maximum capacity of their refineries. They foresee that within a very short time the increase in the demand for gasoline will be in the order of 4 million barrels a week. Indeed, it becomes evident that with the capacity of 45 million barrels a week being completely used at the present time, in a few months the United States will face a considerable shortage of gasoline, and it would be silly of them at this particular stage to commence the imposition of restrictions on the amount of oil products imported from Canada. I would suggest that at this particular juncture it might be wise for the National Energy Board to consider imposing increased controls on crude oil in lieu of controls on refined products.
In the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) there was no indication of the capacity of Canadian refineries. I suggest that if the
May 28, 1973

United States is going to be short 4 million barrels of oil or gas per week, that refining capacity could be found in Canadian refineries. This is particularly true in view of the minister's statement in this chamber this afternoon that the whole of the increase cited by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was the entire production of eastern refineries, representing only 2 per cent of total Canadian output.
It is staggering to realize that this substantial increase represents only that small percentage of total Canadian production involving only refineries in eastern Canada. If there were greater imposition of controls on crude, we could perhaps employ the additional capacity of western Canadian refineries to our advantage. As stated by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, we should carry out more refining of our crude oil in Canada.
I also take issue with the statement that the present government hides behind the National Energy Board. Let me simply reiterate what the minister has already said, that the National Energy Board was constituted by an act of Parliament, with specific powers, and this government has an obligation, until otherwise advised, to give that board its support. Indeed, in view of the way the board has acquitted itself of its obligations in the past, it should be commended.
I should now like to turn to the subject of guidelines referred to by the minister this afternoon. He indicated he was ready, notwithstanding the powers of the National Energy Board in respect of the Mackenzie valley pipeline, to review those guidelines for the board in its determination of the advisability of this pipeline. The minister indicated his willingness to refer the guidelines to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works in order that it might study the problem. I commend the minister for that statement and hasten to add that I am sure hon. members of that committee are ready, able and willing to review these guidelines.
Let me now turn to the comments of the hon. member for York-Simcoe. I take strong issue with the entire content of that hon. member's speech. I have been present during all speeches on this matter and not once did I hear the expression of any anti-American sentiment. Not once was the United States attacked in the House this afternoon, nor was anything said which might lend credence to the thought expressed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe to the effect that the speech of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was an expression of anti-American sentiment. We have heard this sort of demagoguery before, and I suggest it has no place in this House. Our dealings with our neighbour to the south have always been on friendly terms, and we have always sought to protect our national interests. I fail to see at this time how the comments of the hon. member for York-Simcoe fit that endeavour.
The plea of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was that we should abandon our partisan stance in order to analyse this very serious problem. He indicated that all parties were very concerned about this problem and were busy studying it, considering its various facets. I suggest that plea was completely neutralized by the attitude of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, expressed in sensational rhetoric. He then pro-
Petroleum Products Controls ceeded to use his best efforts and most tortuous logic to protect the interests of big oil companies. All I can say is, bully for him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) rises on a point of order.
e (2020)


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we do not have the benefit of today's Hansard, but I would remind the hon. member that in moving the motion the statement was made that we do not have a national oil policy, that it is designed by the Americans, that we do not export to the United States but that Canada has been used as a tap by that country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not a point of order. It is a point of debate, and the point of debate has been made.


Mr. Blais:: As for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, as well as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands they made most informative addresses in which they sought to review the past and the reason we are in this particular situation. They sought to offer some solutions. They ought to be commended for that. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands agreed that the solutions proposed are short-term. He was well advised in this regard.
It seems evident from the nature of the solution expressed in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the motion that the hon. member was attempting to engage other hon. members in debate and to seek the ideas of others. Undoubtedly he did not propose those particular solutions as being conclusive, because I am sure if he had known the ultimate conclusions he would not have resorted to the type of motion that he presented. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, in paragraph (A) speaks about the government taking immediate steps to implement the measures he cites. Yet I suggest he has not provided any evidence, with reference to paragraph (a), that there is a direct relationship between the incidence of exports of gasoline and, indeed, the takeover of known reserves in Canada of crude oil. The evidence as adduced by the hon. member in this particular instance is to the contrary. Really, all the gas which has been exported has been exported from refineries in eastern Canada. That oil was offshore oil, in accordance with the Ottawa valley policy adopted by the former government.
In the second step which the hon. member proposes, he states that there should be a two-price system. But he did not indicate, at least to my recollection, what sort of a two-price system he thought should be imposed. Is it a two-price system by way of an increase at the wellhead, with subsidy to the domestic user? That is one solution. Or is it an export tax or export duty imposed by the federal government? That would be another solution. Or, indeed, is it by way of a two-price system established by the Alberta Energy Conservation Board and, if so, what would be the role of the National Energy Board in that case? The

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls hon. member does not consider the various alternatives. This leads me to the point that he must have been attempting to engage in debate.
With reference to the removal of the Ottawa valley line, that policy was adopted by the former Conservative government under the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) more than a decade ago. That has been, and is, a way of life in Canada. The matter was before the Supreme Court of Canada 18 months ago, I believe, at which time the Supreme Court upheld that particular policy.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowiehan-The Islands has not reviewed how western refineries would feel in the event that the Ottawa valley line was removed as the demarkation point. How about the interests of the provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia-which are now very seriously considering accommodating huge ocean tankers at their seaports? I understand from the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) that New Brunswick is also considering this.
With the increased traffic by means of oil tankers, what would be the effect in respect of the price of oil in Canada? With the increased volume, what would be the effect on western oil prices? What about the offshore, continental shelf finds? I feel there is here a situation which requires a great deal of consideration. From reading one of today's evening papers we learn that the leader of Libya has indicated he will nationalize his country's oil industry if the OPEC negotiators are not successful in their negotiations with the particular companies involved. So we must consider the situation in the Middle East.
With all these uncertainties, we have a member of this House who suggests that the protection which is afforded to western producers should be removed. I suggest, again, that we can only conclude that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was not serious in suggesting that these are solutions which the government should adopt but, rather, he was really leading with his left in order to obtain a response. I hope I am providing that response for him.
In this context I suggest that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands have advised this House that they are giving consideration to the problem and that they recognize the historical context. I suggest they know there is a need in Canada for more exploration capital in order to get into the area north of the sixtieth parallel, into the Mackenzie delta and into the Arctic Island. I suggest they know, also, that there is a need for capital expenditures in respect of transportation from those regions, that there is constant pressure from the environmental agencies, that there are serious questions of regional inequalities and disparities, that the provinces are indeed in competition one with another and that there are offshore, political considerations.
In addition to this, all members know there is the question of monetary difficulty and monetary stability. I suggest that all members who have debated this matter today are aware of the difficulties and know that the suggestions put forward in this motion are made in order to encourage debate. The debate is now officially under way. We hear comments by members of the opposition to

the effect that we should have a national policy, notwithstanding the fact that the minister indicated we are protecting our national interests through policies adopted by the government.
Opposition members are calling for a national policy in an effort to get the public involved. Surely they are attempting to engage in debate on this subject, having recognized all the difficulties cabinet faces in respect of the offshore situation, the monetary situation, the difficulties in respect of access to national resources, and the need for exploration capital. Surely they are not serious, in this particular context, in suggesting that the federal government could proceed with a national energy policy which would resolve all these difficulties. Of all the suggestions I have heard, that would be the most ridiculous. I have heard this not only from members of this House; I have heard it from the parliamentary assistant to the Premier of Ontario, who on two occasions stated the same thing.
That province has not seen fit to give sufficient importance to the subject of energy by naming a cabinet minister with responsibility for this particular topic. There is a parliamentary assistant in charge of energy. That is how serious that province considers the problem. When he took the question of energy under consideration he attempted to impose an energy tax. However, some of my constituents reacted to that particular attempt quite directly and quite articulately, and it was withdrawn.
I suggest energy is a very interesting and very essential part of government policy. It has to be analysed and reviewed. The plea of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain that we abandon our partisan interest in this situation should be considered with all its merits, and I hope we will endeavour to do so.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me most with respect to the crux of the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) is the basic premise which he appears to have adopted, that the posture of Canada toward our neighbour to the south should be that of protectionism in the form of severe restrictions on hydrocarbon exports, the creation of a two-price system and the elimination of the Ottawa valley line, on the assumption that these steps will operate to protect the security of supply of cheap fuel for Canadians.
I suggest that this is essentially a negative approach. I submit that in reality the so-called energy crisis, from Canada's standpoint, in fact creates opportunities for Canada which, if well managed, will result in short-term and long-term economic benefits for all Canadians, but if mishandled will result in the loss of opportunities for Canadians. In this respect I think it behooves us to analyse and draw conclusions from the initiatives proposed by President Nixon on April 18 and to consider the implications from our point of view of President Nixon's so-called energy message.
I suggest that this message makes it clear that sharp changes in United States energy policy are under way which will affect Canada and have the potential to seriously disrupt our domestic industrial strategy. Accordingly, any attempts to develop domestic energy policy initia-
May 28, 1973

tives must now seek as their primary objective the minimization of these changes.
It is quite apparent that some of the paramount, shortterm objectives of the new U.S. policy are to decrease American dependence on increasing amounts of imported oil and gas while at the same time seeking to expand domestic hydrocarbon reserves and production to meet rising energy consumption. Of course, the Americans would continue to take all the Canadian oil and natural gas that we are prepared and able to sell them on a short-term basis, but I suggest it is obvious that the Americans have written off Canada's oil and gas reserves as a potential major source of supply for their long-term needs and are evolving new policies and programs as alternatives to the use of Canadian hydrocarbon reserves. Such an over-all policy direction appears to be consistent with American objectives of continuing to have access to secure energy supplies while at the same time seeking to eliminate an annual import trade deficit of $1.25 billion.
Over-all, the Nixon message makes it clear that Canada's previously favoured position in the American market will be diminished and could be eventually eliminated. Furthermore, Canada will in the near future not only have to compete with other countries seeking to enter the United States evergy market including, I suggest, the Soviet Union, but will also have to face competition from American energy companies operating in a favoured domestic environment.
While the United States is under pressure to reduce annual expenditures for foreign oil, corrective measures taken against this trade imbalance will no doubt start gradually and build up over several years. This, taken together with many of President Nixon's proposals, is directed toward speeding up these corrective measures. Higher gas prices, prorated import tariffs on all oil by 1980, 12 per cent tax credits on intangible expenditures for successful drilling ventures, relaxation of environmental regulations governing resource extraction and use, and initiatives to bring Alaskan oil to market all suggest the urgency with which the Americans view this trade imbalance.
Other long-term objectives of the Nixon energy message, taken collectively, will have potentially even greater effects on Canada's energy position. I am referring to the continued and better protection of the United States petrochemical industry at the expense of foreign oil importers, more favourable domestic tax laws that will favour redirection of exploration funds from Canada's frontier areas to more intensive exploration in the United States, elimination of oil import quotas which may redirect Middle East oil to the large U.S. markets there to challenge or possibly replace traditional Canadian markets for oil, and the establishment of deep water facilities in American waters at the expense of similar facilities planned for our maritimes.
But perhaps the most significant effect of the Nixon message on Canada is also the most intangible one, namely, that any bilateral trade arrangements between the two countries will of necessity and inevitably involve some commitment of Canada's energy resources, particularly natural gas which, if unwisely managed, could disrupt our own national industrial development strategy. I
Petroleum Products Controls mention these conclusions in support of the proposal that it would be shortsighted and unwise to invoke hasty, precipitous and unnecessarily harsh or unreasonable measures which in the weeks and month ahead could create an unfavourable environment and attitude in respect of our trade relations vis-a-vis our neighbour to the south.
Instead of regarding the current situation from a negative standpoint, I suggest we regard it as a situation creating great opportunity for Canada. Certainly we have problems which cry out for action in the energy field in this country: such matters as federal versus provincial ownership of our offshore oil and gas resources, the routing and environmental impact of future proposed pipelines, the cost of transportation, royalties and taxes, prices in the field and in the marketplace, equity participation by Canadians, foreign ownership, and similar matters. However, I submit that one thing we should not, and need not, be concerned about is the long-term adequacy of our energy supplies.
Current production limitations may well require some restriction of our export of crude oil to the United States and there are certain limits to the quantities of natural gas available for export. However, for the long term I submit that the overwhelming weight of scientific and expert opinion establishes that Canada's present and future energy resources are vastly greater than it is anticipated will be required well into the next century.
What are Canada's energy opportunities? Canada has substantial supplies of all the common fossil fuels such as oil, gas, bitumen, coal and lignite, and of hydro energy and uranium. There are very large proven supplies of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and there are enormous prospects for further discoveries and growth in these three provinces and even more so in the frontier areas of northern Canada.
Alberta's Athabasca and related oil sands deposits represent one of the largest sources of bitumen and synthetic crude oil in the world. British Columbia and Alberta have tremendous proven reserves of bituminous and subbituminous coal. Saskatchewan has large reserves of lignite suitable for electrical energy generation. The enormous hydro resources of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador are well known. Canada possesses one of the world's largest reserves of natural uranium in the provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.
Most of Canada's energy supplies come from its own resources, but we do benefit in eastern Canada from imported crude oil supplied from overseas sources. Similarly, eastern Canada benefits from the import of substantial quantities of coal presently available from the eastern United States. Canada's trade in energy resources has, and will enable it on the one hand to benefit from lower cost supplies to eastern Canada, and on the other to market surplus supplies and help to maintain a satisfactory balance of trade, offsetting essential imports in other commodities.
It is of fundamental importance, however, that we manage our energy resources so as to maintain and develop the health and vigour of our energy resource industries and make sure that they work for the benefit of all

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls Canadians. In order to accomplish this we must recognize certain fundamental factors. We must ensure that we can generate and attract the necessary investment capital for further resource development. Some of this will undoubtedly come from outside Canada, but there is no reason why we cannot ensure Canadian control where it really counts and Canadian equity participation to the extent that Canadians really want it.
We must ensure that realistic prices are paid for our energy products whether they are sold in Canadian or export markets, prices which reflect true commodity values. We need realistic transportation policies which will enable the economic movement of energy products to the market. We must as Canadians be prepared to benefit from imports where these are logical and, by the same token, we must be prepared to benefit from the export of energy resources surplus to our own requirements. What is needed are firm but positive policies to provide incentives for growth, opportunities for investment and employment of Canadians, fair royalties and tax rules, and stern but rational environmental controls.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a timely resolution. There is no problem holding the attention of the Canadian people as much as that of energy resources at the present time when answers are sought for sources of supply.
We note a deep concern about protection of environment. At times, coupled with regional conflicts of interests, both seem to be so incompatible that trying to undertake comprenhensive planning in that field is an impossible task.
However, without pretending to be an expert and most humbly, it seems to me that if we make a survey of the problems which we must tackle, there is no possible solution without comprehensive planning of our national interests with respect to the development of those resources.
I was saying that the concern with environment seems to be such at times that it could be at the root of conflicts in the development of our resources.
I understand very well, if I look towards western Canada, that the citizens of British Columbia are worried about the transportation of crude oil from Prudhoe Bay, through Anchorage and along the coasts to Seattle. In fact, the residents of this province who face the possibility of ecological risks without any economic reward or any benefit suggest that this crude oil be transported in the way outlined in their book The Way Out which, incidentally, is very good. This means transportation by railway which appears to me very logical since there is the advantage of increased protection for the environment and also the possibility that building this railway from north to south could open access not only to countless resources but it would be possible to develop the whole province which, as we know, has a wealth of mineral, lumbering and other resources.
I may be qualified as utopian because I support this project but let us remember that when there was a propos-

al to build a railway from east to west the Prairies were then considered as an unproductive area and that after that, with the sense of vision and of risk of the pionners, the Prairies became not only the world's granary, but huge oil, gas and potassium resources were discovered and today they benefit the provinces concerned and the whole country.
I say that this same concern of the people of Alberta who pleaded their cause by referring to the protection of the environment to get the oil out of the north as against through Valdez and their ambition to have oil and gas pipelines also seems to me very justified.
I think that these policies can be reconciled with the interest of the country and with those of the Americans. This was brought out and I think it is good to recall that Canada does enjoy a wealth of raw and other products that can be considered as energy sources such as uranium. In fact we have so much that finally we have a bargaining power with our wealthy neighbours to the south, a negotiation power that we should be able to use skillfully so that in North America we will be able to reconcile our interests for our development while keeping in mind that our first concern which is also included in the present resolution must be to serve the Canadian consumer in the best way possible. And I think that if we begin with this policy of wanting to serve the Canadian consumer, it is really possible to reconcile what we thought was impossible.
We know that the pipeline extends into Ontario. At the committee on National Resources and Public Works, I heard Mr. McKeough, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ontario Prime Minister, complain about the fact that being at the end of this pipeline was costing Ontario between $70 and $80 million a year. His province was doing that rather than taking advantage of imports. In fact, I asked him if he considered that this was the price to pay to protect the Ontario refineries and the petrochemical industry rather than remove the "Borden barrier", the Ottawa valley boundary, and extending the pipeline to Montreal, provided supply and demand came into play and the flow went both ways.
As long as we will be able to get foreign products at a better price, good for the Canadian consumer and good for our own resources as well. How are they endangered at this point? And are our markets not good and big enough that in fact we will only have to plan what we really want to sell, in the interest of manufacturers, of Canadians and of those who will be our customers? But even with this first concern, we must not forget Canadians.
I see the Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) in the House, and recently I heard him say that he would have the same concern for both eastern and western harbours as far as environment is concerned. I say to the minister that we must agree on this policy and this concern for environment. However, there is quite a difference between ships that would come to get a product in Anchorage or Valdez to go to Seattle, and a sea harbour in the St. Lawrence Valley that is built to accommodate the new generation of ships and develop all our territory. A child could see that difference. We must agree on the same
May 28, 1973

policy and the same concern for environment, but as regards environment if the same reasoning should be followed on the eastern and the western coasts, I think something is wrong and does not make any sense.
I now come to the concern of Quebec and Ontario which depend on foreign supplies for 80 per cent of their supply; Ontario gets it from Alberta and Quebec from imports. You know that the Quebec minister of natural resources, (Mr. Masse), when stating the objectives of a Quebec policy on energy, has indicated some priorities: building a supertanker harbour to handle raw products from overseas, rationalizing distribution and building a pipeline from Gros-Cacouna et Quebec, Montreal and the United States.
Does this appear as still being irreconcilable with Canadian interests? If is quite reconcilable, and it is even in our interest. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, as long as we can profitably get our supply from foreign sources I do not see why we should not draw benefits from it.
We must accept the fact that Quebec is now at the end of the natural gas pipeline. Now, when it comes to extending this gas pipeline, the government is requested to pay the entire cost of the extension and furthermore, as it still is at the end of the pipeline, the product becomes more expensive. It is obvious that the situation would be the same if we only adopted this policy extending the pipeline. The Montreal refineries would then be in a non-competitive position with those of Ontario. This would be a fool's deal that Quebec would not accept. Unfortunately, there are people who think that the true vocation of Quebec is to remain in the field of crafts, folklore and leave to other provinces the responsibility of developing their more advanced, more industrialized resources.
Some people are quite sincere and earnest about environment. However, they did not make a single move about the Golden Eagle Canada Limited in Quebec City. They never even thought of refineries in Montreal, stating high principles about pollution. The city of Montreal dumps its raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River through four 18-foot pipes; nobody says a word about it. But at a time when a region which suffers an annual average unemployment rate of 31 per cent tries to get out of its misery, to industrialize its part of territory, all these famous thinkers who would not have made a single move to help it, appoint themselves as experts and geniuses in the field of environment. Everyone of them comes and gives us a lesson and shows us the path to follow.
In this House, some hon. members have proved themselves to be so unacquainted with the conditions of the environment and even with port and maritime conditions, that I wonder whether it is worth answering them. But since this has been said in the House, let me only remind them that all the experts who have carried out studies not only stated that there was the necessary depth of water, that is 100 feet or more-this is also found in the English Channel where traffic is ten times heavier than here-but also that this is the most accessible place in the whole St. Lawrence River, and that this was recognized as a result of many studies and surveys which would take too long to mention.
Then, the common good, the good of the province of Quebec, requires that most profit be taken out of it, and
Petroleum Products Controls
not only as far as oil is concerned. Let me remind our friends who are sitting in this House that we must take advantage of it in the context of the four big vocations of development of the whole St. Lawrence Seaway. It is quite obvious that the province of Quebec is separated by this Seaway which constitutes the real "entrance door" to it. The province must take full advantage of it. It can profit by it and the Gros Cacouna port is the only one to have the four major benefits required. It can benefit from the fact that it can accommodate the latest lines of ships closer inland. It can handle the loading and unloading of special ships on the Great Lakes which cannot leave the St. Lawrence River, which cannot, for example, go to the Maritime ports because they are not built for it. They would not be insurable and for them it would mean a route extension involving five to ten days more of navigation. In addition to handling, loading and unloading in other ships to develop our whole St. Lawrence Seaway, there is pipeline loading and unloading and shipping by the shortest route to supply Quebec, and railway transport which would allow access to the port 12 months a year and the transport of goods to the inland. Transport by a four-lane highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, which goes up to that place, can be found nowhere else and it facilitates the development of the whole St. Lawrence Seaway. There will be projects which will be developed at Thunder Bay as long as we are intelligent enough to build that sea port and accommodate the new generation of ships. And there is no conflict between different sea ports along the Seaway. The question is which of the United States or Canada will be more intelligent to get there first to handle in the most economical way all primary resources which make our country an industrialized country. And that is how the problem shapes up.
And I ask people concerned with environment: Is it more logical to have three thousand ships go up to Montreal or to have 300 go up to Gros Cacouna? And that is the situation of the problem.
Anyhow, Quebec needs 30 million barrels of oil a year. Right now, small ships flying a foreign flag-about this read the report of the inquiry on pilotage-and without any radar or radiotelephone in good order sail up the St. Lawrence River and no one is shocked about this. However, they are shocked about the fact that some people want to build a super harbour on the lower St. Lawrence. They say: Wildlife must be protected. We are not allowed any more to gather shells along our shores, because that is forbidden. Eel fishing has been forbidden. We are not allowed to catch any salmon because that fish is threatened with extinction. Finally, it is certainly not this super harbour which has caused all these problems concerning the environment since the Minister of Environment has already been forced to ban fishing in this area. Several other cases could be given.
It is obvious that it would be far less dangerous for the environment to accommodate this new generation of ships to the most inland places and thus take full advantage of this development. That, they will tell me, comes into conflict with the interests of the Maritimes. I say it will not. But even there there can be conciliation. How so? On the one hand, the potential of the continental shelf of the Maritimes has not yet been developed. If and when it is developed, the building of a pipeline reaching the Mari-
4182

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls time provinces ports, to take advantage of all the resources of the continental shelf will make sense. However, it is clear that if the sole purpose is to receive imports, it is more profitable to move the products further inland because the ports of the Maritimes are well placed to serve the Atlantic coast. They do, and this is a source of satisfaction; in fact we wish them well.
However, the Maritimes do not want to take ecologic risks without benefiting from economic fall-outs because they do not want to ship crude oil, but the refined product and here again-I return to the example I gave a while ago-this would correspond to limiting Quebec to crafts and folklore, leaving peak industries to others.
But after the continental shelf is properly tapped, the pipeline should be extended to Gros Cacouna, and then there will be a link between Alberta and the Maritimes. Then a comprehensive and continental policy can be established to serve all Canadians and, because it is such a huge market, we shall see to it that our resources are developed fully and profitably. In short, with such a large demand, our industries do not run the risk of being unable to operate at full capacity; the greater problem will develop as we expend this non-renewable commodity. We shall have to make new discoveries as economically as possible, and maintain our priorities in this country full of resources and promises.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible to reconcile all our interests in this respect. We must have the honesty and courage to say things as they are; the blame must not be put where it does not belong, nor should the progress and development of our country be jeopardized meanly because of small camouflaged interests one does not want to reveal.
A war is being waged against me now about the seaport project, because a citizen has land and a cottage on that site. The whole problem of environment is being brought up, and Isle-Verte is being dubbed "Isle-Noire"; a witchhunt is being drummed up, and dramas made out ot the situation. I say we are much more concerned about environment than any stranger with recently found new vocations.
We have homes there and live there. We want to develop that area and we know what problems have to be solved to do so. We are constantly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He can, however, continue with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rosaire Gendron: I thank the House for its indulgence and I shall not abuse it.
Still, I would not like to close on a pessimistic note. A sincere, honest survey of our needs, our aspirations should be made. I feel it has been proved generally that the dangers to the ecology have not been added to; on the contrary, they have been decreased. I feel that we are still

capable of conciliating the efforts to conserve beautiful sites, our wildlife and our touristic vocation, with modern technology and the vastness of the territory; those various interests can be reconciled.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the arguments from both sides of the House when debating a question as fundamental as the energy crisis in Canada and in the world generally. I was very amused by some of the arguments put forth by the last two speakers from the Conservative party, particularly the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who was very eloquent in coming to the defence of the oil companies. He said the socialist hordes of this party would frighten off the oil companies, that the United States for sources of supply would turn elsewhere, and that we in this party are anti-American. He criticized us for being so tough on the poor little oil companies.
I remind the hon. member that these poor little oil companies have a gross income approximately three times that of the Canadian government. They are the seven largest companies in the world. The largest, Standard Oil of New Jersey, the parent of Imperial Oil, has a gross income equal to that of the Canadian government. These are the companies the Conservatives, particularly the hon. member for York-Simcoe, seem to be so concerned about and so afraid that we might injure by raising this question in the House.
Another member of that party asked about the terrible NDP, socialist idea of a two-price system. He asked who would pay for this. Would it be the producers? Would they not receive the benefit of increased prices in the United States by increasing the price to Canadian consumers? The oil companies are able to produce their product in this country at a really big profit. I see no reason why the consumers of this country should not have the benefit of the lowest possible price. I maintain that the oil does not belong to the oil companies; it should belong to the people of Canada and the provinces wherein it is situated. It is amusing, and perhaps very revealing, that certain members of the Conservative party should exhibit their true colours and come to the defence of these poor little weak sisters, the huge multi-national oil companies of the world.
During the past few months we have witnessed in this country increasing prices for gasoline, farm fuels and home heating fuels. We have actually seen a shortage of some of these fuels in parts of the United States. This is because the Americans find themselves in a situation where they are running short of cheap energy supplies. This is not only true of that country but of other countries in the world. There is not a shortage in Canada; we have enough reserves of cheap fuel in this country to last for several years. The price in Canada has been increasing because the multinational companies which control our oil are milking Canadian consumers for as much as possible as result of what is happening in the United States.
The issue of energy, gas, oil and pipelines is very important, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said earlier, not only in the short term but the long term as well. If we play our cards right, if we have a national energy policy and move with real controls on behalf of the people of Canada, energy could
May 28, 1973

become our trump card. It could make our industry much more competitive and create jobs. There could be literally billions of dollars in profits for the Canadian people. This is the situation at its best. Taken at its worst, without any planning, I can visualize the ruin of our economy. Because of the balance of payments problem which the United States will have in 10 or 20 years, without a controlled or planned energy development program I can visualize the ruin of the Canadian economy, and perhaps annexation by the United States. These are the two extreme options we should bear in mind when talking about a fultime energy policy for Canada.
My concern is that the huge, multinational oil companies, with the complicity of this government and the United States government, are orchestrating the public of Canada to the fact that there is an energy crisis. If we do not do something about it there will be a real crisis in this country, and therefore they say we need a confidential energy plan. The United States does face a crisis in terms of cheap energy. According to United Nation's statistics of 1969, the United States, with 5.7 per cent of the world's population, consumes approximately 34 per cent of the world's energy. Canada is almost as bad: with 0.6 per cent of the world's population, we consume 2.9 per cent of the world's energy. India, with 15.2 per cent of the world's population, consumes only 1.5 per cent of the energy in the world.
Until the end of World War II, the United States was self-sufficient in terms of energy needs. Today the United States imports approximately 25 per cent of its energy and that percentage is rising every year. By 1980 they will be importing approximately 50 per cent of their energy needs. The Americans have many options. We have spoken about a number of these today. One is the Middle East. They can expand their take of energy from Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. However, the United States does not feel these countries are secure; there are many political problems. This makes the situation very dicey and shaky as far as the United States is concerned.
The second source of energy available to the United States is Canada, but Canada could not supply what is needed by the United States even if we did have a continental energy policy. Today we export to the American market about 60 per cent of what we produce, and this accounts for only 5 per cent of the crude oil consumed in the United States and 3.6 per cent of the gas consumed in that country. If you take the current situation and project it into the future, you will see that the situation does not differ much even if the Mackenzie valley pipeline is constructed and in full operation. If it is constructed and in operation by 1977, for example, and producing two million barrels of oil a day for the American market, about all that would do is make up for the drop in production in the lower 48 states of the United States.
The same is true of Alaska oil. If Alaska oil is developed to its potential, the Americans by the time 1980 comes along will still be producing about the same amount of oil as it is producing today. They would still find themselves in the position of having to import about half their energy. By that time the price will have gone up to at least $5 a
Petroleum Products Controls barrel, if not higher, compared with about $3.40 in 1972. And, as I said, Canada cannot fulfil the American demand for energy; we do not have the reserves, and if we did develop them our economy would be in serious trouble.
In 1972 there were proven conventional reserves of eight billion barrels of oil and 53 trillion cubic feet of gas in Canada. The Canadian Petroleum Association estimates that the conventional reserves in Canada which are recoverable amount to about 120 billion barrels of oil and 725 trillion cubic feet of gas. This would not be sufficient to satisfy American demands even if we wished to do so.
The world is currently using oil at the rate of about 20 billion barrels a year, increasing at an annual rate of 7 per cent, or doubling every ten years. By the year 2000, about 1,330 billion parrels of oil will have been used-that is, between the present year and the year 2000. Canada will have consumed about 30 billion barrels, the United States 300 billion barrels and the rest of the world about 1,000 billion barrels. Proven conventional oil reserves in the world at this time, according to an American geological survey, amount to about 634 billion barrels.
This, in a nutshell, is the situation which faces us at the present time. What will the solution be? There is extra oil and gas available, but it will be much more expensive to produce. For example, there are the tar sands in Athabasca, Alberta. Oil reserves there could amount to as much as 300 billion barrels. Other tar sands in Canada hold estimated reserves of 145 billion barrels. It is, as we all know, much more expensive to refine this oil, get it out of the ground, and so on.
In the 1980s the Colorado oil shale might become competitive, but here again we are into a much more expensive operation. The reserves in the oil shale show about twice as much as the reserves of the tar sands in Canada. But if a sequence of this kind occurs, we can see what is likely to happen to the price. Canada, if we are not careful, will have priced herself out of her own market; we shall find our energy resources are much too expensive for our industrial needs.
Canada can meet its energy needs until the end of the century, with cheap energy, only if the government steps in and exercises certain controls and restraints. But this is not happening. We find ourselves, instead, accidentally step by step moving toward a continental energy deal of one kind or another. We find, for example, that 99 per cent of the refining capacity in this country is foreign-owned; 82.6 per cent of the gas and oil industry is in the hands of foreign companies and corporations. And this is only part of the situation which concerns me. These are all capitalintensive industries; they do not provide much employment.
Moreover, Canadian tax laws reinforce foreign ownership in this area and encourage investment of capital in this area. Eric Kierans, when he was a member of this House, pointed out many times that in the three years between 1965 and 1968 the oil companies showed a book profit of $795 million. Their taxable income, after accounting for all exemptions, amounted to $45 million. This means they paid taxes on 5.7 per cent of their book profits. Compare this with the level of taxation applied to manufacturing industry-63 per cent-or with that paid by the retail trade, where small businessmen and others pay tax
4184

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls at the rate of 90 per cent on their book profits. This illustrates how distorted our priorities are when it comes to industrial planning and the direction of capital to areas where it should be going.
Imperial Oil showed a profit of $1 billion in the last ten years. This fact was referred to earlier by my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. They were taxed at the rate of 4 per cent. This is a lower tax rate than is levied on a girl who is working for the minimum wage at an all-night truck stop, if she is single, with no dependants. Thus, basically we are subsidizing, at the expense of the Canadian people, a commodity which is vital for the growth and welfare of the United States, Japanese and European economies. This policy will eventually be to the detriment of the people of Canada.
Consider the argument one step further. Industries in the resource area are highly capital-intensive. Eric Kier-ans quoted figures to show that $100 invested in resource development would provide about $6.50 in wages, while $100 invested in manufacturing would provide between $30 and $35 in wages. You can see right there why we have the highest unemployment rate of any industrialized country in the world. We in Canada import more manufactured goods than any other industrialized country in the world. We import $463 worth a year per capita, compared to manufactured goods worth $116 per capita imported by citizens of the United States. This imbalance will become increasingly severe in the years ahead if we continue with an energy policy such as the one we appear to be stumbling into.
I think we should be operating in the opposite direction. We should be carrying out more refining and processing right here in our own country, instead of exporting the raw material in its crude state. But if the people who represent the oil companies get their way, this position will probably get even worse by 1980. Here I am talking about the possible development of the Mackenzie valley gas and oil pipeline, other gas and oil pipelines, the development of the tar sands, and so on.
It has been estimated by many economists that the cost of a gas and oil pipeline down the Mackenzie valley would be about $12 billion by 1980. Some people are saying that by 1980 there might be as much as $30 billion invested in the tar sands, and another $6 to $8 billion in the James Bay project. Just think what effect this would have on inflation in this country, on our exchange rate, on interest rates, on our export markets, on Canadian industry or on Canadian agricultural and farm goods. It would have a negative effect on this whole area of our economy. With this type of investment in the tar sands, the Mackenzie valley and other Canadian oil and gas producing areas, we would be in a position to export five, six or seven million barrels a day of crude oil to the United States, resulting in an inflow into Canada of $11 billion or $12 billion in U.S. currency.
Let me carry that a step further. The United States balance of payments deficit today is around $4 billion. By 1980 it could go up to $20 billion or more due to their energy shortage. The United States is going to find itself in a straitjacket so far as its balance of payments problem

is concerned, and thus will want to sell us even more manufactured goods and finished products in exchange for the oil and gas that we sell them. This will mean even less jobs for Canadians, perhaps an even greater inflation rate in this country, along with higher interest rates and difficulty in selling our exports, which in turn will mean we will be unable to develop any secondary or manufacturing industry in this country. The value of the Canadian dollar will probably go up once again we will go through the cycle of economic problems.
So far as the Canadian dollar is concerned, a United States economist from California has estimated that a 5 per cent increase in the value of the Canadian dollar over the U.S. dollar would result in a negative trade shift against Canada of $715 million. A 10 per cent increase in the value of the Canadian dollar over the U.S. dollar would result in a $1.6 billion negative trade shift between the two countries against Canada. These, Mr. Speaker, are some very real factors that could very well be valid if we are stampeded into a continental energy plan, construction of the Mackenzie valley gas and oil pipe line and development of the tar sands without regard to the real needs Canadians face, not just in the field of energy but in our whole economy.
The solutions must be radical ones; I do not think we can just tinker around. Our oil resources belong to the people of this country, not to the big oil companies and multinationals. For this reason we must establish immediately a number of priorities for this country. The first is a marketing agency which would be responsible for the marketing of gas and oil, an agency that would not be afraid of establishing a two-price system such as that advocated in the motion put forward today by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Secondly, we must not be afraid to regulate production and export of gas and oil in Canada. Thirdly, I suggest we must begin seriously to consider the possibility of public ownership of our gas and oil resources.
Let me remind the House of a Gallup poll that was conducted a few weeks ago and which showed that the majority of the Canadian people now thought that the option of public ownership of our energy resources should be considered. These resources are very profitable. For example, in the province of Saskatchewan it is anticipated that $117 million will flow out of the province this year in the form of profits from the gas and oil industry, and in Alberta the amount leaving the province will be roughly $868 million.
If our energy resources were placed under public ownership we could then increase our refining capability and our petrochemical industry would become more sophisticated. We would be able to direct the profits therefrom into establishing additional manufacturing industry in this country and into a whole wealth of industrial, resource and energy planning the likes of which this country has never seen, but which it will have to see if we want to remain a united and free country into the twenty-first century.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has expired.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to debate the energy problems facing Canada over the
May 28, 1973

next few years, may I say that if one were to adopt the proposal put forward by the previous speaker you would have to suggest that if we all traded less, we would be better off. I do not think that is true. I do not think that we as a nation can escape the fact that there is an energy shortage throughout the world, and especially in the United States. I do not think we can dodge the changes that are developing throughout the world any more than we can escape food shortages, vast famines and political events that occur.
In the discussion of what our relations should be with the United States-which after all is the only country that can afford to buy our expensive energy-from the point of view of the export of gas and oil, it seems to me some historical events should be noted. For most of Canada's life we have been an oil deficient country. Only in 1954, with the discovery of Leduc, did Canada approach anything like energy sufficiency in gas and oil. The energy needs of central Canada and the western prairies were dependent upon imports from the United States. Had the United States not allowed oil exports to Canada, the Canadian economy would have been seriously retarded for a long time, and I suggest we might well have had only one-half or two-thirds of our population. For example, western Canadian agriculture would have developed at only a fraction of the rate it did.
Canada has now become one of the few western industrialized nations that has an adequate oil and gas supply for its immediate use. Bearing in mind that less than 20 years ago we had practically no oil and gas production, it is wise to remember that times change, and not always in our favour.
In his motion the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) speaks of the curtailment of gasoline shipments to the United States. I suggest that this curtailment of gasoline flies in the face of the many attempts to increase the export of more refined products, which has been the goal of many governments for a long time and the goal of the NDP. In the province of Manitoba, the NDP government has pledged itself to export more processed materials. Let us all also consider that oil from offshore that is surplus to our needs we can refine and re-export. Any oil we require, we can get from the Middle East, which does not deplete our own resources. So for a while, at least, we can benefit from the shortage in the United States.
While the Canadian public has to be protected, this placing of export controls on refined petroleum products means that we are negating much of the effort we have made to export refined products. It also places in jeopardy the large refineries at Come-by-Chance and Melfort Point, the production of which is beamed to the American market and is considered surplus to Canadian needs.
Furthermore, we cannot be unaware that the President's message to Congress has an evaluation content that must place the long overdue energy policy of the Canadian government into perspective. The important item in the President's message is that all existing tariffs on imported crude oil and oil products have been removed, and has direct control over the quantity of such crude oil and refined products. This is being replaced with a licence fee import system starting May 1 of this year. Under this new
Petroleum Products Controls system, tariffs are only paid on the amount of oil over the amount imported in April. These tariffs will increase from about 10.5 cents a barrel initially to 21 cents per barrel by November 1, 1975.
In addition, between 1973 and 1980 the amount of oil already covered by this fee will decline progressively until in 1980 all oil will be eligible for fee. The fees themselves vary as between crude oil and refined petroleum products. For residual fuel oil the import fee starts at 15 cents per barrel, rising to 63 cents per barrel by November, 1975. For gasoline, fees will start at 52 cents per barrel, rising to 63 cents during the same period; and there are proposed import fee exemptions for 75 per cent of crude oil imports during five years for new or expanded refinery capacity in the United States. In other words, the president has anticipated the motion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the United States is already going to substantially increase the import tariff on gasoline in the next two and a half years.
In regard to natural gas, the President has proposed that gas from new wells or gas newly dedicated to interstate markets, and continuing production from expired contracts, should no longer be subject to price regulation at the wellhead. Thus, the future price of gas will be related to a mix of regulated and unregulated natural gas. In other words, the United States is anticipating rises in prices that will no doubt make for more efficient use of their energy resources, in the short term, to bias the import tariff so that crude oil will be favoured for importation over refined products. The United States has anticipated this motion and regards it in its interest not to import gasoline and other refined petroleum products.
The action of the President in respect of natural gas also indicates a departure from that which is proposed in this motion. It has long been felt that the price control of natural gas in the United States has stimulated its uneconomical use by being abnormally cheap. It is being used in the production of generating plants that could well be fuelled by other forms of fuel such as ooal. This would result in a saving of this very highly desired fuel. In other words, the United States has tried a price system and has discarded it in favour of the market system. This in itself should bring an end to the wasting of high quality products such as natural gas. For instance, it is stated that one-third of the energy used in an ordinary gas cooking range is consumed by the pilot light.
It is clear from President Nixon's message that these changes will have an effect on Canada in a very direct way and will tend to disrupt our domestic industrial strategy. We must develop our own domestic energy strategy in order to compensate for this change. The President's objectives are as detailed by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour). They include continued and better protection of the United States petrochemical industry at the expense of foreign oil importers. This means curtailment on the importation of gasoline into the United States in favour of crude oil. Domestic tax laws in the United States are being changed to promote a redirection of exploration fees which have been going to Canadian frontier areas, to move intensified exploration in the United States.

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls
A further objective is the elimination of oil import quotas with a redirection of Mid-East oil to the large U.S. market, to challenge or possibly replace traditional Canadian markets. I suggest that Mid-East oil is not nearly as unstable as many would seem to suggest. The President's message refers to the establishment of deep water facilities off the east coast of the United States at the expense of similar facilities which are planned for our maritimes. This indicates that the United States regards it more important to build refineries and ports in the United States than in Canada. The effect of President Nixon's message is that trade concessions or bilateral arrangements between our two countries will of necessity involve Canada's energy resources, and we cannot get away from that.
Having regard to a two-price system for gas in Canada, as I understand it we already have this in effect for the export market, which is the United States market, in that gas must be priced at least 105 per cent of the price of fuel comsumed in that area. Does this motion intend to change this situation? What do the NDP expect the domestic price to be? The motion states that the domestic price should be significantly lower, but how much lower is not said.
If the domestic price is lower than the cost of production, or at least the cost of bringing gas not now found into production, or to make economical the production of gas not now considered viable under the price structure, this would indicate that the price of natural gas should rise in order that we can exploit the discovery of natural gas in the field to the fullest. In other words, the industry says there is natural gas that cannot be exploited as long as the price is low. If we are to cut back on our exports to the United States to the extent of $1.25 billion in respect of oil and gas, how will we fill that gap in the immediate future?
Recently the United States closed the trade gap with us as far as the merchandise account is concerned and is now showing a surplus trade account. Inevitably, a discussion about the restriction of energy, particularly oil and gas, with the United States brings forth the idea that Canada could with impunity shut off the supply of oil and gas and suffer no untoward effects. We have complained bitterly that the United States sees and treats Canadians as hewers of wood and drawers of water. However, my analysis would indicate that of all the highly finished industrial products we sell abroad, by far the greatest amount goes to the United States.
Let me give the House an example. On September 7, 1971, a former minister of finance, Mr. Edgar Benson, said in the House of Commons that 85 per cent of Canadian finished, export goods were sold in the United States. In 1969 we sold only 13.2 per cent of our finished products manufactured for export outside the United States. This amount totalled more than one-third of our total exports. In 1969 Canada sold about one-third of its exports as processed industrial material, with the United States providing 70 per cent of our total market. I would doubt that these figures have changed a great deal. If we complain about Canadians being treated as hewers of wood and drawers of water, we must remember our export of raw material to Japan and the European common market, such as coal, wood, and so on, used there for the production of finished products.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands mentioned that Canada needs low-cost gas and oil for its own manufacturing industry. Surely the widespread shutting off of gas and oil to the United States would be interpreted as a direct blow to that country's industrial capacity. We could not embark on this course without expecting substantial changes in the United States regarding its dealings with us. To keep its industrial machines going, the United States would have to import oil from other sources, and it is not likely it would allow the export of our high-priced manufactured goods into their markets. Indeed, the United States would be required more and more to export only finished goods while restricting imports. The United States would have little sympathy if it could not import energy from Canada. As the balance of payments grew worse, the United States could not continue to import high-priced Canadian goods without some compensation.
Perhaps there is good news as far as the basic economy of the western world is concerned in the fact that the United States balance of payments has improved in the past year, particularly in the past month or two. I think it is interesting to note that this is largely due to an increase in exports to world markets. This is something for the House to think about in considering Lift programs, and so on. To replace the United States market for our Canadian manufacturers with either the Japanese market or the European Common Market would involve a problem that I think would concern even the most avid Canadian nationalist.
It is already widely apparent that United States investment in our oil and gas exploration is being severely curtailed and we will have to shift Canadian investment into these fields. This will cause heavy demands on the Canadian economy if we wish to sustain new finds. It seems to me that the radical setting of a domestic price for oil and gas that is greatly lower that the world market would only store up problems for the future and would do nothing to solve our problems in the long run. Perhaps there is some need for regulation of local, unusual circumstances.
With regard to paragraph (c) of this motion, I think it is very much in conflict with the attempt to establish a two-price system for gas and oil. It may well be that now is the time to consider a more flexible Ottawa valley line. Prices east of the Ottawa valley are bound to rise. It seems there will be factors that will prevent their rising to abnormal levels. First of all, the OPEC countries can only raise the price of energy to a degree before they bump into competition from other fuels.
It is widely recognized that in North America, which includes Canada, much of our energy needs are dictated by our high standard of living. Inevitably, the gasoline rationing in the United States will reduce the demand and increase the trend to smaller cars, with perhaps more efficient use of public transport. This should cause a levelling off of energy demands. All these will modify the Arab demands in respect of oil. But the hon. member's suggestion that the Ottawa valley line be removed is in direct conflict with the two-price system for oil which he has suggested.
May 28, 1973

In the matter of oil, generally speaking Canada has remained with the price at the world market level. Unless conditions change significantly, this still seems to be by far the best policy for us to follow. I foresee great overtones of trouble developing for us in the future in moving into a two-price system.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate on the motion moved on behalf of our party by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). To my mind, no question outlined in Parliament today is more central to the very future of our country and the future needs of the consumers of this country, regardless of whether they are farmers on the prairies or consumers of natural gas in Toronto or wherever they may live.
I listened to some of the debate today with great interest. I think it has outlined the position of the different parties in terms of their stand on the energy crisis as it affects the people of Canada. I am appalled at the position and the attitude of the Tory party on such a fundamental question. First of all, this party which has historically taken the position of advocating a sort of nice Canadian nationalism of the days of Sir John A. Macdonald is now the greatest proponent of a continental approach to the use of our oil and gas resources.
The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) seemed to apologize for the U.S.A. and the position in which it finds itself in terms of energy and energy needs. He seemed to be suggesting that we really must not start to control our export of oil and gas and must not begin to plan for the needs of Canadians. I want to point out that before the committee of the House of Commons dealing with the price, cost and supply of oil and natural gas it was pointed out, in terms of the charts, that in fact if all the known reserves of oil and natural gas in Canada today were turned over lock, stock and barrel to the United States, those reserves of oil and natural gas would supply the United States market for less than one year. That is the kind of situation which exists in respect of Canada and the United States. There is less than one year's supply in terms of known reserves. The Tory party talks about a wide open field between the United States and Canada in terms of a continentalist policy in respect of oil and natural gas.
The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) and one of the Toronto members cried crocodile tears for the oil companies. I believe it would be written in the history of this country, if a Tory government were formed and allowed a free flow of non-renewable resources into the United States market, that it would be one of the greatest sell-outs, comparable only to the sell-out of the rest of our industries by those sitting across from the Tories. Let me point out that if we continue to operate on a philosophy of allowing the free flow on a so-called open market among multi-national, United States-owned and controlled corporations, and keep working under this narrow and outdated philosophy presented by the oldline parties in this House, we will be in the position of putting the price of our oil and gas at a level which is inconceivable in terms of the farmer on the land and the consumer in the town or city.
We must begin now to look into planning the use of our natural resources. For whom are those natural resources
Petroleum Products Controls there? Are they there for the large, United States multinational corporations, corporations which when they face a certain restriction, a very minor move by the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) about which the Tory party complained, switch to another angle to protect their own private interests? They export out of Canada by moving gasoline across the border.
Members of this House listened to the independent dealer, not a representative of the monopolies to which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) referred but, rather, a representative of the independing suppliers in the Ottawa valley who had to close down most of his independent operations while the monopoly corporations had a greater market supply. He told the newscaster on television at six o'clock, during the news program, that one of the major reasons he was closing down was that the large, United States-owned monopoly corporations in this country were now in fact moving gasoline across the border in order to avoid the import restrictions on oil.
If the government, in the interest of the people of Canada, cannot now see the absolute necessity of considering the public interest in respect of the production and supply of our oil and natural gas, I believe the philosophy of the old-line parties is outmoded and outdated in terms of the development of our resources which are needed by the people of Canada.
The resolution points out the concept of a two-price system for oil and natural gas, or energy supplies in Canada. I believe it is of considerable merit. Surely when out population is so dependent on these resources, and the industrial world is so dependent on the supply of nonrenewable resources, it is incumbent upon us as the representatives of our people to find it in the public interest to control the price they must pay for their energy. I believe we must begin to prod the government into directly intervening in the activities of the oil and gas industries, which is a policy I do not believe we will see followed by either old-line party, in terms of meeting the real and desperate need for energy supplies in Canada.
I heard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain earlier today cry out for non-partisanship in dealing with this issue. If I had to speak for the Tory party and some of the representatives within it who represent the oil cartels, I would cry for non-partisanship as well, because surely there is no defence of the position being taken by the Tory party. I recall a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works when officials of the National Energy Board came before it and clearly outlined, by chart, the discrepancy between the supplies we had in Canada for our domestic consumption and our needs in the coming decades. One of the officials pointed out very clearly a problem which was raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, namely, that the supply in a decade or more from now will not be there.
I remember a spokesman for the Tory party saying at that time that he was glad the National Energy Board had shown there was no problem in terms of oil and gas supplies. Either in protecting their friends in the oil indus-

May 28, 1973
Petroleum Products Controls try, or in sheer blindness, they cannot see the fundamental question we are facing in this country. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands pointed out the possibilities of a dual pipeline system so as to bring about some kind of competition between domestic oil and offshore oil.


Mr. McKinley:: Capitalism.


William George Knight: The hon. member says "capitalism". I want to point out that the first word they forgot in terms of the oil and gas industry was the word "competition". I am referring to the creation of a situation in which the entire Canadian economy east of the Ottawa valley is not dependent on offshore oil supplies, and this is fundamental.
If we can create such a situation, we will not be trapped should the Americans find their supplies in the Middle East or other parts of the world tapped, and they continue to get a limited supply from other foreign markets and decide that they have to restrict the offshore oil which is going to meet Canadian needs, through their multinational corporations. So I believe it is in the public interest that we move into a two-price system as it relates to energy and that we move into an area of marketing agencies, as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) pointed out.
We should establish eventual ownership of all the pipeline systems and distributions in this country as an initial step in order to keep control of this movement. As a result of control of the pipelines we can bring an end to the ludicrous position of TransCanada Pipe Lines which, in all the years of its operation, has not paid corporate income taxes to the public treasury. The income of TransCanada Pipe Lines should not go to a privileged few; it should be used for the public interest.
From there we should move to the eventual position of complete public ownership of the gas and oil industry, in the public interest. The resources in the Northwest Territories and the Mackenzie region should not be confined to private industry and multinational corporations. People in the Northwest Territories represented by my colleague should have a say in the kind of development that takes place there, in terms of the relationship to large, multinational corporations. These corporations should be restricted. This should be done in the public interest. Exploitation of the resources should be carried out by public entreprise and a publicly-owned corporation.
I want to point out how this energy crisis relates to the ordinary people of Canada. In my constituency at present we have the culmination of the seeding season and every producer on the land needs gas and oil for his machinery. If we as Members of Parliament do not solve the energy problem in terms of the kind of price the producer will have to pay on the domestic market, the price for that commodity will continue to rise unendingly. It is not the only cost with which he is faced.
May I quote a few statistics. The cost of running a farm in the first quarter of 1973 was up over 10 per cent from last year, according to Statistics Canada. The farm input price index was pushed up by an 18 per cent increase in the cost of livestock, a 15 per cent increase in the cost of feeder cattle, and a 31 per cent increase in the cost of seed.

Add to this major increases in the price of fuel which came this spring. Some farmers point out to me that it will cost them an additional $400 or $500 this year to operate their machinery.
The index of 100 in 1961 in respect of costs to eastern farmers shows an increase to 119.2 in 1970 in the cost of petroleum products compared to 125.8 for 1972. For western farmers rose to 113.5 in 1970 and to 120 in 1972, not including the increases since Christmas in their costs. The consumers of Canada who want cheap food will have to pay the ever rising costs of the producer unless we answer the fundamental questions related to energy costs in terms of oil and natural gas.
I believe that the program outlined by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on behalf of this party provides an approach to the energy question in our country which will ensure a reasonable price for both consumers and producers, and which will protect a steady supply of oil and gas to meet the needs of the Canadian people.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is not here this evening to hear my representation. I presume he is engaged on something which he considers more important. On April 10 I asked the minister if he would reconsider the decision to force the Highland units to give up their cherished kilts, and if he would reinstate the maintenance grants for Highland dress for those units. The minister gave the totally specious reply that "there is no regulation preventing the Highland regiments in the reserves from wearing the kilt".
The question, as the minister well knew, was about the cutting off of maintenance grants to Highland units. The people concerned are well aware that Highland units may continue wearing the kilt, the change being that the minister now demands that the troops involved pay for their own uniforms.
Since April 10 I have received petitions from the St. Andrews and Caledonian Society of Victoria, the Regimental Association of the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa, and the Soltire Society of Victoria requesting the retention of Highland uniforms at government expense. There are some 4,000 signatures to these petitions, and I will be requesting permission tomorrow to table them. One is left to ponder upon the reasons for this move on the part of the minister. Highland units have been a proud part of the Canadian military for over a hundred years. I

am informed that 35 per cent of the militia order of battle are Highland units. I wonder if the minister wishes to alienate such a sizeable proportion of the militia.
On a dollars and cents basis there is little ground for the curtailing decision. It is estimated that the life expectancy of the new green trousers is approximately two years, at a cost of approximately $10. The Highland units suggest that the minister should save the $10 and instead restore a kilt maintenance grant of $5 per annum for the Highland militia and cadets. I might mention now, Mr. Speaker, that I am glad to see the minister has taken his seat in this chamber and will reply to my presentation. I might also mention that the $10 for the green trousers does not include payment for certain undergarments, which it is well known Highland units do not need or wear.
It seems strange that the forces are advertising for recruits and at the same time are giving up the best kind of advertising they have. In this respect I note that in the estimates there is an increase of $2 million in defence expenditure on information. I hope that tomorrow I will also have a chance to inquire into the spending of that large amount of money.
It is the negative approach that the minister seems to take to recruiting people into militia that I believe is particularly unsuccessful. Field Marshall Montgomery established as a principle of war that we should reinforce success. The Highland units have always had success in attracting recruits. Why not reinforce their successful ways?
This government adopts the attitude of the born loser. In "Defence for the 70's" it stated, "The government intends to maintain the reserve force at the current authorized size." In "Defence 1971" it stated, "The average militia strength in 1971 was approximately 18,000." In "Defence 1972", at page 91 it states, "As of October 1, 1972, the militia strength was 16,583." Obviously, the government is failing to attract recruits into the militia; and I do not wonder, when it takes away the things the militia feel most seriously about.
The government pretends to encourage groups to remember their heritage. The very fine Royal 22nd Regiment wear on their cap badges "Je me souviens"-a fine motto, and I agree with their wearing it. Pride of past, race, family and self are all intertwined, and the proud regiments are the best. Perhaps I might close by recommending to the minister that he should not choose Highland units to be the next victim of his policy of anonymity for all units in the forces. Instead, he might consider Sir Wilfrid Laurier's enlightened comment in a speech delivered in Toronto on January 5, 1893, when he said, "If I were not French I would choose to be Scotch."


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided by the ten o'clock debate to reply to the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I know that since he entered this House after the election of October 30 last he has had a very keen interest in the armed forces, both the regular and the reserve. I might say that my awareness of his interest has resulted from personal conversations as well as from questions he has directed to me across the floor.
Adjournment Debate
The subject of dress for Highland units that he first raised back in April, and which he has addressed himself to again tonight, is a matter which I like to think is of as much concern and importance to me as it is to many members of the House and many Canadians. First of all, I would like to clarify any misunderstanding that may exist with regard to the present policy. There is no regulation of any kind which prevents the Highland units from wearing the kilt. I am well aware, however, that there was a change of policy brought about before I became Minister of National Defence. This change in policy had the effect of eliminating financial support from the department for the purchase and, particularly, for the maintenance of the kilt.
I have the responsibility, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows, as have other ministers, for reassessing the decisions made by my predecessors. At this point in time the most I can say to the hon. member for Victoria is that I believe he has brought forward for public attention and consideration a matter of importance. It is important to the department, particularly important to the Highland units, and I like to believe it is of importance to Canada.
I say to the hon. member that there are a number of matters, and this is one of them, which I am still evaluating as Minister of National Defence and upon which I am still reaching my own conclusions. I have not yet had an opportunity to fully assess the implications of the proposals that he is suggesting. However, it does not trouble me to say to him that I am in general agreement with the sentiments and representations that he has made on behalf of Highland units.
It should be pointed out that in matters of dress of all federal employees, including the armed forces, the approval of Treasury Board is required. With this in mind, and also having regard to the numerous other financial demands on my budget, it is my personal belief that the Canadian armed forces-I will conclude in less than one minute, Mr. Speaker, if I may.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The rule of the "late show" is applied strictly. I am ready to let the minister go on but I am afraid that this will set a precedent for another evening, and we are already in difficulty in that the minister has now taken one minute longer than he should. I will let the minister continue, but I would not want this occasion to create a precedent.


An hon. Member:: One minute.


James Armstrong Richardson: What I want to say, and this is really the main point I wanted to bring before hon. members is that it is my personal belief that the Canadian armed forces would be well served if the payment for some part of the capital cost of kilts for the Highland units, and an annual grant per member for the maintenance of kilts, was reinstituted as our policy.
I will conclude by saying that I welcome the representations by the hon. member for Victoria because, as I have said, the sentiments he has expressed are very close to my own. I wish to assure him tonight that I intend to move
4190

May 28, 1973
Adjournment Debate
our policy concerning financial assistance to the Highland units along the lines which I have just described.


NATIONAL REVENUE-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT NOT SEEK RETURN OF OVERPAYMENTS TO FARMERS UNDER WHEAT INVENTORY REDUCTION PROGRAM
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, on May 25 I asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) relating to the long-outmoded policy of the Lower Inventory for Tomorrow, or Lift, as it relates to the western producer. It appears that under this program the government overpaid some 4,000 farmers to the tune of $365,000. It has collected some of this money; the farmers concerned now owe about $288,000. According to the Auditor General's report, the government can write off moneys to the tune of $6 million owed to the federal treasury by such illustrious individuals as United States automobile manufacturing companies.
The Auditor General further pointed out that this government, according to its philosophy, is prepared to ignore joint-owned corporations in joint ventures to save corporate income tax. The essence of it is that the government is trying to collect $288,000 from 4,000 farmers. This amounts to between $40 and $50 per farmer. They are also trying to collect overpayments under the old age security program in the neighbourhood of $1 million. I understand they have made a recovery of half that amount. While trying to collect these overpayments, the government is willing to allow a United States automobile manufacturing company a forgiveness of $6 million owing to the federal treasury.
This government has a philosophy of free enterprise- free for the rich but not for the poor. If that is their philosophy, there are two points that should be made. They ought to forget about the overpayments under the LIFT program. It was disastrous; it was an act against humanity to tell the farmers not to grow food while millions were starving. Second, the government will present figures which probably will not add up to $288,000. If they keep at it each year, it will probably cost more to try to collect than it is worth in terms of money owing by these thousands of farmers. If the government is going to operate with the philosophy that it can write off $6 million for their large corporate friends, they should be prepared to write off the $288,000 owned by western farmers.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the question which was asked by the hon. member of the opposition to the Minister of National Revenue is the same as the one he asked exactly a year ago to the Minister of Justice. In view of the pertinency of the reply given by the then Parliamentary Secretary, may I be permitted to quote this reply as recorded on page 2874 of the Debates for June 5, 1972. Here it is:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in directing his original question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) sought to draw a parallel between two distinctly different circumstances. The situations mentioned were the Canada-United States automotive agreement on the one hand and the Operation Lift program on the other. The minister in his reply stated that he could see no connection

between the two situations and frankly, Mr. Speaker, neither can

Although the Canada-United States auto agreement is not administered by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, perhaps I may still reply to that part of the hon. member's question which pertains to this agreement. It is my understanding that this agreement was based on the principle of free trade. As such it did not envisage collection of duty or sales tax by either party. The amount the hon. member interprets as being a direct liability is, in my understanding, what has been referred to as a contingent liability, not a direct liability nor an outstanding debt owing.
The overpayments to farmers are examples of direct liabilities and as such are quite different both in terms of accounting principles and of actual fact. Under the terms of the Lift program, farmers who elected to participate in the program were paid a specific amount for each acre taken out of wheat production, with an additional payment made when this acreage was diverted to perennial forage production. These payments were made subject to a definite set of governing regulations.
I am certain the hon. member is well aware of the reasons behind the Lift program and I need not go into them in detail. However, I should like to mention the fact that the government, in an attempt to put needed cash into the hands of farmers as soon as possible, made advance interim payments to farmers who submitted claims. Final payments were made when on-farm inspections had been made. Some overpayments did result. Some of these overpayments arose out of arithmetical errors and misunderstanding of the regulations. In other cases there were definite inconsistencies when the actual farm inspections were made.
In conclusion, and to answer the hon. member's question, the government does not intend to forgive or writeoff these overpayments. Rather, we have already collected much of the amount owing and have been and are, judging each outstanding case on its own merits. Where, according to the regulations, recovery is justifiable we shall attempt to collect the full amount owing.


AGRICULTURE-TAXATION OF MARKETING QUOTAS- POSSIBLE REVISION IN LIGHT OF REPRESENTATIONS BY FARM GROUPS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, the capital gains tax provision respecting farm merketing quotas is bad legislation and this, I suggest, is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). There are two fundamental principles of these capital gains tax provisions: first, capital gains tax shall not be retroactive, that is, the cost of acquiring an asset before valuation day, January 1, 1972, is not material. Second, this tax applies only to capital assets. These are sound principles and should lead to little or no confusion but somehow, between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the whole area of farm marketing quotas has been turned into a hopelessly complex system of unfair and retroactive taxation.
The two ministers to whom I have referred have agreed between themselves that these quotas are the same as goodwill and should be taxed accordingly. This must mystify thousands of farmers who have purchased these quotas at auction sales, for example, just as they might purchase a piece of machinery; the purchaser was buying a capital asset worth, in the case of many milk quotas, tens of thousands of dollars. The purchaser would be astonished to hear from these ministers that he was purchasing goodwill. Similarly, when a broiler producer purchases a barn with a broiler quota, will the Minister of Agriculture tell him he is not buying a capital asset?
May 28, 1973

Third, the marketing quota tax is retroactive, as I have said, and this is not hard to demonstrate. In January, 1971, group one pool milk quotas in Ontario sold for an average of $25.05 per pound. Let us assume farmer A purchased a 1,000-pound quota which cost him about $25,000. The same day his next door neighbour turned his farm over to his son and gifted to the son the same sized quota. Under the budget provisions, neither farmer can have a valuation day value for their quotas. Farmer A gains a hollow victory because he can on disposal, ten years hence, for example, deduct his original cost. But even he can place no valuation day value on this asset. The neighbour's son, according to this legislation, has incurred no cost and is taxed on the full amount of disposal proceeds, subject of course to the usual provisions affecting all gains and to the transitory provisions respecting goodwill and similar assets.
The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance say this is fair because it cost the son nothing. Their attitude is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker. I and thousands of other estate planners spent years transferring assets by way of gifts, including real estate, shares in companies and other assets. Let us assume that on the same day the farmer's son received the $25,000 milk quota, his cousin in the city received from his father $25,000 in shares in the family business. The cousin in not subject to capital gains tax on the whole proceeds of disposal because he can deduct from such proceeds the value of those shares on valuation day. Will the Minister of Agriculture tell us the difference between a $25,000 milk quota and $25,000 in shares in an incorporated company? Of course he will not, Mr. Speaker, because insofar as capital gains tax is concerned there can be no difference if we are to be fair and equitable.
Since the first week of March I have been asking the minister to have the legislation changed. What has been his response? He says the legislation is good. I have pointed out to him that every farm organization concerned with the problem has been diametrically opposed to this inequitable, complex and retroactive taxation.
On March 6 I quoted the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's position. The minister replied that he had met with the federation and he said: "I am not of the opinion that they are that dissatisfied." Subsequently I received copies of briefs to the minister from farm organizations, and in light of the universal condemnation in these briefs of this taxation I asked the minister what steps he would take to correct the inequity. I quote his reply on March 20: "I am still of the same opinion as I was before".
Adjournment Debate
Finally, I raised the matter on May 17 and pointed out the overwhelming criticism of this retroactive taxation. Again the minister said he disagreed that there had seen such strong criticism, and he went on to say that the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had told him: "You are doing one hell of a good job, Mr. Minister". I do not know in what context the president of the federation made those remarks. He may have been speaking in general terms or, more likely, he may have been talking about the quantity of speeches that the minister has been delivering across the country. One aspect of farm life that the president was not referring to was the capital gains tax on farm marketing quotas, where he could have been accurately quoted as saying. "You are doing one hell of a bad job. Mr. Minister."
I say this without qualification or reservation, because exactly five days after the minister's reply in this House to my latest question there appeared in the May 22 edition of Farm and Country a feature story by the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The heading is: "Next target: no gains tax on quotas assigned before V-day". Let me quote briefly from this article:
However, there are many major inequities that still have not been removed. Capital gains tax on marketing quotas acquired before January 1, 1972, is still retroactive and unjust. . .
Obviously this must be corrected immediately.
Will the Minister of Agriculture again try to tell the House that the Ontario federation is anything but absolutely opposed to this legislation? This position is echoed by a multitude of farm organizations and marketing boards right across this country.
I referred earlier to the many speeches that the minister has been giving across Canada, and I hasten not to condemn him for this. But it surprises me that I have to remind the minister that he has an obligation not only to speak to farmers but to speak for farmers as well. If it had not been for the energy and determination of agricultural groups and the opposition parties in this House we would still have a capital gains tax on the transfer of family farms. I for one am going to do battle again on this unjust, complicated and retroactive taxation on marketing quotas; but it seems to me that if the Minister of Agriculture paused even briefly between his speeches to tell the Minister of Finance the truth about these positions, we would all save a lot of time and the farmers of Canada would receive no more than they deserve-fair and equitable capital gains tax legislation.


Léopold Corriveau: On May 17, 1973, the honourable member opposite referred to "overwhelming criticism" of the Capital Gains Tax provision respecting farm marketing quotas. The minister has and does reject as an exaggeration the statement that the Federation is overwhelmingly critical of this provision as it now stands.
26314-48}

May 28, 1973
However, much has been done to change other provisions contained in the February 17 budget which were of even greater concern.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself specifically to the Capital Gains Tax on marketing quotas. The quotas most commonly referred to in this connection are individual milk quotas. These quotas were
made available to producers at no cost. Since the original allocation quotas have been bought and sold between producers with the result that quotas have now acquired a value. The tax would then be applied to the appreciated value. The real concern of the Federation, however, is that it is not possible to assign a valuation day value to such quota, and it is in this connection that this organization has expressed dissatisfaction.

Tuesday, May 29, 1973