1973-11-26

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT 22-23 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House oi Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
26695-IS
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 26, 1973

Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege touching an event of national significance which took place over the weekend and had its beginnings in my constituency of Ottawa Centre.
The Grey Cup festivities continue to be the athletic event that contributes most to national unity. I should like the House to join with me in congratulating the players, the fans and the Ottawa Football Club upon the Rough Riders' victory Sunday afternoon in the Grey Cup classic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: To the fans in Edmonton I suggest that if the hon. member for Edmonton Centre was still playing for the Edmonton Eskimos the fortunes of that team might have been different.
I believe the House might also wish to extend congratulations to the hon. member for Halifax, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), upon the victory of St. Mary's University in Saturday afternoon's college bowl game.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the hon. member in extending congratulations to the Ottawa Rough Riders and I thank him for his reference to St. Mary's. I did not feel it necessary to rise to call attention to the victory of St. Mary's team because we maritimers take national victories for granted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the text of the joint communique issued on the conclusion of my visit to the Soviet Union.


LEADERSHIP OF CANADIAN DELEGATION TO FORTHCOMING LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Walter Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to ask leave of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the leadership of the Canadian delegation to the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference.
This conference will be of historic importance to Canada since it directly concerns our marine resources on our continental shelves and the protection of our marine ecology on our Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts. It is essential to the national interest that Canada's negotiating team be led by a minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He is now making a speech, an argument, in support of the proposed motion under Standing Order 43. I suggest we should not follow this procedure and I invite him to indicate to the House the terms of his motion.


Walter C. Carter: I was about to do so, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House recommend that the head of the Canadian delegation to the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference be a minister other than the present appointee, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who, on his recent trip to the U.S.S.R., was criticized there for presuming to meddle in the domestic affairs of that nation.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether a motion put in those terms should be submitted to the House. It is not a motion, it is an argument, and in my view it is contrary to the spirit of Standing Order 43 as it has been observed in the House. In any event, I will put the motion pro forma. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the light of letters received from the Office of the Prime Minister by Mr. Michael J. Houlton of Can-Ad Promotions Limit-

November 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions
ed dated April 5, 1971, April 25, 1972 and April 5, 1973, is the government prepared to reconsider the answer to Question No. 1,891 on page 3563 of Hansard of May 9, 1973, that they have had no application for financial assistance from Mr. Michael J. Houlton of Can-Ad Promotions Limited to promote Canadian-owned companies?
2.	Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce prepared to acknowledge applications received from Mr. Michael J. Houlton of Can-Ad Promotions Limited for financial assistance in promoting Canadian-owned companies?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Prime Minister and Privy Council offices are concerned: 1. In early April of 1971, Mr. Michael J. Houlton delivered to the Prime Minister's office a proposal by Can-Ad Promotions Limited for a logo for Canadian-owned corporations. The proposal was acknowledged in writing on April 5, 1971, with advice to the effect that it was being forwarded to the Minister responsible for Information Canada. Mr. Houlton answered the acknowledgment on April 8, 1971, indicating his appreciation for the action taken. Mr. Houlton wrote again to the Prime Minister on April 15, 1972, seeking assistance for his proposal. That letter was answered by the Prime Minister's Office on April 25, suggesting to Mr. Houlton that he might wish to seek financial assistance from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. Houlton wrote a further letter to the Prime Minister on March 26, 1973, seeking assistance for his proposal by way of a $50,000 loan from the federal government. The April 5 reply to his letter informed Mr. Houlton that the Prime Minister's office does not administer government programs and that any request for loans or grants should be directed to the appropriate department. Mr. Houlton addressed a communique to the Prime Minister on April 16, 1973, on behalf of the Governor General. The Administrative Assistant to the Governor General had written to Mr. Houlton earlier, on April 12, advising him that His Excellency had not given permission for such use of his name.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 2. No application has been received from Michael J. Houlton of Can-Ad Promotions Limited.


Mr. Dinsdale: What is the regulation for displaying the portrait of Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada, in (a) federal courts (b) post offices (c) other federal buildings?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: The
Department of the Secretary of State has no record of a regulation for displaying the portrait of Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	Do the malting barley producers contribute to the costs incurred by the Canadian Wheat Board in the same way as do the feed barley producers?

2.	Does the government provide the malting barley producing farmer with incentives to ship his produce by modes of transportation other than rail shipment, for example, by truck?
3.	What are the numbers of bushels of malting barley shipped per year?
4.	Has the government considered the separate pooling of malting barley, for example, in the same way as is Durum wheat?
5.	Has the government considered the possibility of creating effective incentives towards the establishment of malting facilities in the Western provinces where the product is produced?
6.	If the government considers these incentives to be uneconomical, has it considered altering the present regulations and freight charges in order that the farmers producing malting barley not be penalized for their eastern shipments?
7.	What is the present premium paid by the Canadian Wheat Board to the farmer who produces malting barley?
8.	What level of malting barley production and what degree of competitive status does the government want the malting barley industry to achieve?
9.	Is the present premium paid to the malting barley farmer by the Canadian Wheat Board an adequate level of incentive to attain this degree of production and competitiveness or does it believe that perhaps this should be increased to approximately 25 cents per bushel?
10.	(a) How much No. 1 and No. 2 Feed Barley was eligible for malting (b) how many bushels of this barley were actually sold by the Canadian Wheat Board to the malting companies?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes.
2.	No. It should be noted that the malthouses located in the Canadian Wheat Board designated area do not have truck unloading facilities.
3.	39,380,526.5 bushels of barley were shipped during the 1972-73 crop year under selected barley permits issued by the Canadian Wheat Board. A relatively small percentage of this quantity would be for pot or pearling purposes.
4.	The government has considered the concept of separate pooling for certain types of wheat, oats and barley, including malting barley. Durum forms part of the wheat pool account but because durum is a recognizable variety, it has its own grade structure enabling its market returns to be reflected in its final payments. The suitability of barley for malting is not a grading factor.
5.	Incentives for the modernization, expansion or establishment of malting facilities in the western provinces are available under the Regional Development Incentives Act and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Act. It should be noted that grants have been authorized under the regional development program for two such facilities.
6.	Incentives referred to in 5 are authorized where it is felt they are needed to induce entrepreneurs to modernize, expand or establish viable facilities and in this way contribute to the economic development and social adjustment of the regions designated for assistance.
7.	A premium of 15 cents per bushel is paid to the delivering producer.
8.	The government supports the achievement by the malting industry of the maximum possible level of production and competitiveness.
9.	The present premium of 15 cents per bushel would seem to be an adequate level of incentive for the grower as maltsters have been able to obtain their required supplies of malting barley at this level of premium.
November 26, 1973

10.	(a) It is not known how many samples of barley, submitted by growers to maltsters, graded No. 1 and No. 2 Feed and were considered acceptable for malting or what quantities of on-farm barley these samples represented,
(b)	The Canadian Wheat Board's selected barley permit records are not maintained in a manner that would enable a quantity breakdown by grades.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mr. Andre Roy employed by the government as a language teacher or in any other capacity and, if so (a) on what date did such employment commence (b) what is the salary involved?
2.	Was Mr. Roy, at the time he was hired by the government, facing charges relating to FLQ terrorist activities and, if so (a) what was the exact nature of each charge (b) was the government aware that such charges existed?
3.	Is Mrs. Andre Roy employed by the government and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) since what date (c) at what salary?
4.	Is it government policy to hire persons of the FLQ, former members of the FLQ or known separatists to positions in the Public Service?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Mr. Andre Roy has been a language teacher with the Public Service Commission since April 4, 1972. The salary range of a language teacher is $8,025 to $17,531.
2.	Yes. (a) The exact nature of each charge is not known because the charges were later withdrawn; (b) the Public Service Commission was unaware of such charges at the time of hiring since a police and security clearance was not required for language teachers at that time.
3.	Mrs. Andre Roy has been employed in the government as a CR 4 since November 20, 1972. The salary range of a CR 4 is $7,496 to $8,238.
4.	No.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees of the Post Office Department are classified as letter carriers?
2.	Of this number (a) how many resigned from the service in each of the past three years (b) what were the reasons given for such resignations?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. As of
April 1, 1973, 12,599 (Note: only full-time personnel, both supervisory and non-supervisory, are being considered above).
2.	Information on resignations is available for only the previous fiscal year (1 April 1972 to 31 March 1973). (Note: It is impossible to distinguish between letter carriers and mail-service couriers with respect to resignation information.) (a) Total number of letter carriers and mail-service couriers who resigned during the previous fiscal year, 620.
(b)	Outside employment, 162; Return to School, 37; Personal Reasons, 259; Number who resigned and gave no reason, 162.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many employees of the Post Office Department are classified as mail service couriers?
2.	Of this number (a) how many resigned from the service in each of the past three years (b) what were the reasons given for such resignations?


André Ouellet: 1. As of
April 1, 1973, 1,738 (Note: only full-time personnel, both supervisory and non-supervisory are being considered above).
2.	Information on resignations is available for only the previous fiscal year (1 April 1972 to 31 March 1973). (Note: It is impossible to distinguish between letter carriers and mail-service couriers with respect to resignation information.) (a) Total number of letter carriers and mail-service couriers who resigned during the previous fiscal year, 620.
(b)	Outside employment, 162; Return to School, 37; Personal Reasons, 259; Number who resigned and gave no reason, 162.


Mr. Stevens: How many bears were killed this summer in the Peace River region (a) who killed them (b) what species were they (c) for what reason were they killed?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Wildlife, except for migratory birds and fauna on national lands, is a provincial responsibility.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Has any consultation taken place between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Transport with regard to the need for additional ferry service between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques to provide for the projected increase in tourists as a result of the establishment of the Gros Morne National Park?
2.	Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development considering a direct service from North Sydney to any area in Bonne Bay and (a) if so, is consideration being given to providing harbour facilities to handle such a service (b) if not, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consider the provision of a service from North Sydney to Port-aux-Basques and Bonne Bay and the need for improved docking facilities in Bonne Bay?


John Mercer Reid: 1. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not formally consulted with the Ministry of Transport regarding an increase in the ferry service between North Sydney and Port-aux-Basques.
2.	No. (a) No; (b) No. This matter is not within the department's jurisdiction.

November 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	How many (a) forces (b) civilian personnel are assigned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with special responsibilities concerning Members of Parliament or Parliament Hill?
2.	(a) Where are such individuals posted (b) to whom do they report?
3.	What is the exact description of each of the functions assigned by the RCMP which applies to Members of Parliament or Parliament Hill?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) 94;
(b)	nil.
2.	(a) Parliament Hill. Prime Minister's official residence, Prime Minister's summer residence, and 240 Bank Street, Ottawa ("A" Div. RCMP) (b) The Officer Commanding Protective Sub-Division, "A" Division, RCM Police, Ottawa.
3.	The maintenance of law and order on the grounds at Parliament Hill and protection of the government securities vault East Block; ensuring freedom of access to Parliament Hill by Senators and Members of Parliament; protection of the Prime Minister and members of his immediate family; investigation into any threats that may be made against Ministers of the Crown.


Mr. Rodriguez: What were the total amounts and number of loans provided under the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program (AAA), by industry group, in each of the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: All loans under the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program were authorized in favor of companies in the automotive parts industry. Following is a breakdown of the number and amount of loans authorized, less cancellations, in each of the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date:
Fiscal Year	Number	Amount

1968-	69	
20	15,256,917.511969-	70	
11	8,496,673.601970-	71	
8	3,083,500.001971-	72	
13	14,050,129.001972-	73	
3	1,450,000.001973-	74 (Nov. 1, 1973)	
3	2,167,500.00


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations which received consulting assistance grants under the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP) in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 (February 1, 1973 to end) and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of the grants in each case?
(Mr. Reid.]
2.	What were the total amounts of government insured loans provided under GAAP in each of the years 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date?


Herb Breau: 1. Consulting assistance grants were provided to the following firms during the fiscal years 1972-73 (February 1, 1973 to end) and 1973-74 to date. F/Y 1972-73 (Feb. 1-March 31).
Name of Company	Amount

Percy Lindzon Furs Ltd	 3,000.00
Tweed Veneers Limited	 6,714.78
Paris Sportswear Limited	 3,657.50
Chibougamau Lumber Limited	 4,000.00
J. H. Barruch Limited	 2,275.00
Cosmos Imperial Mills Limited	 1,064.43
Consolidated Computer Inc	 6,778.13
F/Y 1973-74 (to Nov. 1/73). Nil.
2. The following is a breakdown of the number and amount of loans authorized, less cancellations, in each of the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date:
Fiscal Year	Number	Amount

1968- 69	-.	2	1,579,500.001969-	70	
6	4,234,000.001970-	71	
13	13,367,255.671971-	72	
25	15,775,021.801972-	73	
18	14,147,520.001973-	74	
10	3,363,500.00


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Commissioner of Official Languages on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


John Mercer Reid: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be put to him directly.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-1973 and 1973-74 to date by the Commissioner of Official Languages 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?
November 26, 1973

3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?


John Mercer Reid: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be put to him directly.


Mr. McKinnon: What was the total cost of the breakwaters built or extended between Turkey Point and Mary Tod Island near Victoria, British Columbia?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: The total cost of the breakwater is $527,899.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received grants under the Employment Support Program (ESP) in each of the fiscal years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	Has the Department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Herb Breau: 1. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, this information is not available. It should be noted, however, that the program was operative only during the fiscal year 1971-72.
2. No.
CONTRACT No. TOX 3-1005/1 FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES


Mr. Hales: 1.	Was a contract TOX 3-1005/1 for personnel services at Toronto, Ontario, during the period July 20, 1973 to May 31, 1974 in the amount of $10,500 awarded to Staff Builders of Toronto, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?
5.	What is the nature of the service to be provided under the contract?
6.	For which department or departments of the government is the service to be provided?
7.	If the contract provides for the referral and placement of applicants in positions with the Public Service, how many such positions are to be filled under the contract?
8.	Into what salary categories do these positions fall?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Yes.
2. (a) ESP Data Preparation, 10 Eglinton Ave. E., Toronto, Ontario; DOT Personnel Services, 30 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario; Advance Personnel, 30 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario; Office Master Services, 121 Inkerman St., St. Thomas, Ontario; Victor Temporaries, 102 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario; Office Overload, 151 Bloor St. W.,
Order Paper Questions
Toronto, Ontario; Kelly Girl Services Ltd. T.D.C., P.O. Box 322, Toronto, Ontario; Employees Overload Co., 101 Richmond St. W., Toronto, Ontario; Manpower Services Toronto Ltd., P.O. Box 510, Stn. F, Toronto, Ontario; Staff Builders, 980 Yonge St., Toronto, Ontario; Olsten Office Services, 130 Bloor St. W., Toronto, Ontario; (b) Yes.
3.	No.
4.	By an Invitation to tender.
5.	Clerks (Intermediate, Senior), Dicta Typist, Secretary with and without shorthand, Secretary Executive, Receptionist Typist, Labourers.
6.	Ministry of Transport, Toronto Area Airports Project.
7.	The contract does not provide for the referral and placement of applicants in positions with the Public Service.
8.	On hourly rates between $2.80/hour and $4.55/hour.


Mr. Mitges: What government departments are engaged in recycling metals, glass and paper?


John Mercer Reid: The Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has a contract with Florence Paper Company, Ottawa, for the removal of waste paper from some government buildings in the National Capital area. The Florence Company segregates all waste paper through a screening operation at their plant and all useable paper is delivered to companies where it is recycled.
None, however, the Department of the Environment is initiating a program for solid waste management, which will encourage and assist the development of methods to recycle valuable materials including metals, glass and paper. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports research work is in progress in connection with the recycling of tin cans as feed material for steel castings.


Mr. Wise: 1.	With what property owners along the Lake Erie shoreline in the constituency of Elgin has the government in the past ten years signed an agreement for cost sharing of shoreline protective works?
2.	What were the percentages of these cost-share agreements?
3.	What was the total amount in each instance?
4.	On what dates were these agreements signed?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
There are no signed agreements as such. The Treasury Board authorized the Department of Public Works to contribute towards the actual cost of remedial works to prevent erosion with the following property owners in the Constituency of Elgin, (a) Miss Fern Hill; (b) Miss Dorothy E. Markle, Miss D. Gunn, Mr. J. Hare, Mr. J. McManus and Mr. L. Pocock acting as a group under the title Markle & Hare; (c) Thomas Purdom; (d) Leopold
8116

November 26, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Eller; (e) Verne C. Higgs; (f) Mrs. Rose L. Gregg; (g) Village of Port Stanley.
2.	The percentage authorized in each case was: (a) 35 per cent, (b) 39 per cent, (c) 35 per cent, (d) 25 per cent, (e) 38 per cent, (f) 38 per cent, (g) 38 per cent.
3.	The maximum contribution authorized was: (a) $3,710, (b) $8,522.28, (c) $629.65, (d) $591.63, (e) $3,040, (f) $4,560, (g) $6,080.
4.	The property owners were notified that these applications for assistance had been approved on the following dates: (a) 30/9/69, (b) 30/10/70, (c) 10/12/69, (d) 10/12/69, (e) 21/8/73, (f) 10/1/73, (g) 17/9/73.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What is the position of the government concerning the rights of native people to fish for food in British Columbia?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows. The government has not restricted the rights of status Indians to fish for food in British Columbia waters except as required for conservation. Escapement through the commercial fishery is calculated to permit adequate spawning returns and also to provide for the needs of the Indians that historically have fished the runs for food. Open periods for the food fishery are established as requested by the Indians wherever possible. In the case where Indians are commercial fishermen, food fishing is permitted with commercial gear during certain periods when the commercial fishery is closed.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): 1.	In each month from January to September 1973 inclusive, how many eggs were caused to be destroyed by (a) each of the provincial egg marketing boards (b) the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency?
2.	In each month from January to September 1973 inclusive, how many eggs were sold by (a) each of the provincial egg marketing boards (b) the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency to industrial users (not for re-sale as whole eggs to consumers) and at what prices?
Hort. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture): 1. No eggs have been destroyed. (Destroyed being interpreted as junked, put in garbage, etc., and lost for human consumption.)
2. (a) Provincial Egg Marketing Boards, (each of the 10 provinces has such a Board) had total control of egg marketing in their provinces prior to early June when the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency began to function in the area of surplus removal. The exception was British Columbia which withheld participation in the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency until October 29. Thus, the records requested for British Columbia, and for the other provinces from the period January to May inclusive, are held within the provincial board offices, (b) Records of Canadian Egg Marketing Agency operations, June to September

inclusive, show that no eggs were sold from the provinces of Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. Sales of surplus eggs to industrial users from Saskatchewan totalled 90,255 dozen and from Manitoba 4,833,810 dozen. Sales from Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia were respectively 3,965,065, 1,037,062 and 478,920 dozen. The prices of these sales varied over the months and depended on the grade of egg involved, whether small, medium, large or extra large size. The range in prices was from 29 to 65 cents per dozen.


Mr. Mitges: How many high school and university students were registered for summer employment in May, June, July and August. 1973, in each of the Canada Manpower Centres in the constituency of Grey-Simcoe and, of this number, what was the number who received employment from each Canada Manpower Centre?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In the constituency of Grey-Simcoe, the following activity was recorded by the two CMCs for the months of May, June, July and August 1973, with respect to student registration and placement.
Owen Sound CMC	Post-secondary	Secondary	TotalRegistrations	303	521	824Placements	187	457	044Colling wood CMC	Post-secondary	Secondary	TotalRegistrations	114	502	616Placements	133	410	543
These figures represent only the activity of the two CMCs in this constituency and do not reflect the full activity of students living in this riding with our department since they may deal with other CMCs, such as Midland for example. With respect to registrations, it might be mentioned that a large number of university and other post-secondary students register for employment in April or earlier.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Minister of Transport aware that wines produced in Canada are not available on any flights of Canadian Pacific Airlines?
2.	Since Canadian Pacific Airlines is one of our two major international air services, does the government believe that it should make available Canadian wines to the travelling public?
3.	Has the government ever discussed this matter with Canadian Pacific Airlines and, if not, does it intend to do so in the interests of promoting a Canadian-produced product?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Minister of Transport does not advise Canadian Pacific Airlines on internal management matters of this nature.
November 26, 1973


Mr. Cossitt: Was a political address made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Davenport Liberal Association on Wednesday, October 31, 1973 reprinted at public expense and distributed to a number of persons and, if so, how many persons received copies and does the Department of Agriculture intend to seek reimbursement for printing and distribution from the Liberal Party of Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: A speech, made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Davenport Liberal Association on October 31, 1973, was printed and distributed to 1,845 persons at public expense. This was not a political address. The Department of Agriculture does not intend to seek reimbursement for printing and distribution from the Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Cossitt: Was a political address made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Halton and Halton East Liberal Association on Friday, November 2, 1973 reprinted at public expense and distributed to a number of persons and, if so, how many persons received copies and does the Department of Agriculture intend to seek reimbursement for printing and distribution from the Liberal Party of Canada?


Eugene Whelan: A speech, made by the Minister of Agriculture to the Halton and Halton East Liberal Association on Friday, November 2, 1973, was printed and distributed to 1,845 persons at public expense. This was not a political address. The Department of Agriculture does not intend to seek reimbursement for printing and distribution from the Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Gleave: What was the total amount of money available for Local Initiative grants in each constituency (a) Assiniboia (b) Battleford-Kindersley (c) Mackenzie (d) Meadow Lake (e) Moose Jaw (f) Prince Albert (g) Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (h) Regina East (i) Regina-Lake Centre (j) Saskatoon-Biggar (k) Saskatoon-Hum-boldt (1) Swift Current-Maple Creek (m) Yorkton-Melville?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The allocations for the 1973-74 winter period are: (a) Assiniboia, 88,000; (b) Battleford-Kindersley, 177,000; (c) Mackenzie, 107,000; (d) Meadow Lake, 295,000; (e) Moose Jaw, 90,000; (f) Prince Albert, 186,000; (g) Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, 157,000; (h) Regina East, 372,000; (i) Regina-Lake Centre, 133,000; (j) Saskatoon-Biggar, 176,000; (k) Sas-katoon-Humboldt, 256,000; (1) Swift Current-Maple Creek, 107,000; (m) Yorktown-Melville, 182,000.
Orders for Returns


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did the Minister of Labour write the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees in Vancouver on May 8 regarding the policy of Canadian Pacific Airlines of extending air travel privileges to the wife and dependent children of male employees but not on a reciprocal basis in respect of female employees and, if so, did the Minister indicate (a) an intention to introduce a bill a amend Part I of the Labour Code in order to prohibit discrimination on the additional grounds of age, sex and marital status (b) that preparations necessary for the development of such a bill were in hand?
2.	On what date will such a bill be introduced?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes; (a) yes; (b) yes.
2. Although a precise date for the introduction of such a bill has not been set, the government intends to table it at an early date.


Mr. MacLean: Are all aircraft operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of a class or kind requiring emergency locator transmitters (ELTS) by July 1, 1974, now so equipped and, if not (a) how many such aircraft are so equipped (b) on what date will the remainder be so equipped?


William Warren Allmand: All RCM Police aircraft are equipped with emergency locator transmitters.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Laprise: 1.	For each year since 1968, how many senior citizens housing units were built and what amount, by province, was paid for this purpose?
2.	For each year since 1968, how many housing units for low income earners were built and what amount, by province, was paid for this purpose?
Return tabled.



CIVILIAN AND DEFENCE CONTRACTS AWARDED BY DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES

Mr. Grier: What was the total value of civilian and defence contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services under DSS contracts and contracts delegated to DSS by other government departments or agencies, for goods and services in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1972-73 (October 1972 to end) and 1973-74 to date to the following corporations: Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd.; Acme Seeley Ltd.; Acres Consulting Services Ltd.; Aircraft Appliances and Equipment Ltd.; Alcan Aluminum Ltd.; Algoma Steel Corporation Ltd.; American Motors (Canada) Ltd.; Atlantic Sugar Refineries etc.; Bell Canada; Bristol Aerospace Ltd.; B.P. Oil and Gas Ltd.; Bethlehem Copper Co. Ltd.; Boeing of Canada Ltd.;
8118

November 26, 1973
Orders for Returns
Burrowes Manufacturing Ltd.; Canada Packers Ltd.; Canadair Ltd.; Canadian Admiral Corp.; Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd.; Canadian Industries Ltd.; Canadian Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd.; Canadian International Paper; Canadian Javelin; Canadian Johns-Manville Co.; Canadian Co.; Canadian Marconi Co.; Canadian Motorola Electronics Co.; Canadian Pacific Railway Co.; Chemcell Ltd.; Chrysler Corp.; Computing Devices of Canada; Consolidated Bathurst Ltd.; DeHavilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.; John Deere Ltd.; Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd.; Dominion Foundries and Steel; Dominion Road Machinery Co. Ltd.; Dominion Textile Ltd.; Domtar Ltd.; DuPont of Canada Ltd.; Dyer & Miller Bros. Ltd.; Eddy Paper Co. Ltd.; Eddy Match Co. Ltd.; Ford Motor Co.; Foster Advertising; General Foods Ltd.; General Motors Corp.; Gordon Hill Advertising; Gulf Oil Canada Ltd.; Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Ltd.; Honeywell Ltd.; Hudson's Bay Co.; Husky Oil Ltd.; Imperial Furniture Manufacturing Co. Ltd.; Imperial Oil Ltd.; IBM Canada Ltd.; International Harvester Co. of Canada Ltd.; International Nickel Co. (Canada) Ltd.; Irving Oil Co. Ltd.; Kates, Peat, Marwick Co.; Kodak Canada Ltd.; Litton Systems (Canada) Ltd.; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.; Massey-Fergu-son Ltd.; McCain Foods Ltd.; McFarland Construction; McLaren Advertising; Micro-Max Products Ltd.; Microsystems International Ltd.; Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing of Canada Ltd.; Molson Industries Ltd.; National Sea Products Ltd.; Northern Electric Ltd.; Orenda Ltd.; Pacific Petroleum Ltd.; Peat, Marwick Mitchell Co.; Petrofina Canada Ltd.; Proctor and Gamble Co. of Canada Ltd.; RCA Ltd.; North American Rockwell of Canada Ltd.; Rolland Paper Co. Ltd.; Shell Canada Ltd.; Simpson's Ltd.; Spartan Aero Ltd.; Sparton of Canada Ltd.; Sperry Rand Canada Ltd.; Standard Aero Engine Ltd.; Steel Co. of Canada Ltd.; Sunar Industries Ltd.; Swift Canada Co. Ltd.; Texaco Co. Ltd.; Union Carbide of Canada Ltd.; Uniroyal Ltd.; United Aircraft; Westing-house Canada Ltd. Xerox of Canada Ltd.?
Return Tabled.



EXPENDITURES BY DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES UNDER CONTRACTS

Mr. Grier: 1.	How much has the Department of Supply and Services spent under contracts delegated to it by other government departments or agencies, purchasing goods and services (a) in each province (b) in foreign countries, by country, during each of the fiscal years 1968-69 to 1973-74 to date?
2.	How much has the Department of Supply and Services spent under DSS contracts purchasing goods and services (a) in each province (b) in foreign countries, by country, during each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
Return tabled.



GRANTS UNDER DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIP), in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What was the date of the latest evaluative study of the program conducted by the Department?
Return tabled.



VISITORS TO CANADA 1971-73

Mr. Paproski: 1. How many visitors were officially recorded in Canada in 1971, 1972 and 1973?

2.	What was the total number of arrivals at all Canadian ports (including airports) in 1971, 1972 and 1973?
3.	How many persons listed as visitors applied for landed status in 1971, 1972 and 1973?
4.	Of the above applicants, how many received landed status?
5.	Of the total number of persons, by country, applying for landed immigrant status in Canada both abroad and as visitors in 1971, 1972 and 1973, how many were (a) accepted (b) turned down?
Return tabled.
CONTRACT TOX 3-1005/2 FOR PERSONNEL SERVICES 
Question No. 2,994-Mr. Hales:
1.	Was a contract TOX 3-1005/2 for personnel services at Toronto, Ontario, during the period July 5, 1973 to May 31, 1974 in the amount of $14,500 awarded to Kelly Girl Service Ltd. of Toronto, Ontario?
2.	Were tenders called and, if so (a) what are the names and addresses of those who tendered (b) was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Were there any extra charges over and above the above figure and, if so, what were they?
4.	How were suppliers notified of government requirements?
5.	What is the nature of the service to be provided under the contract?
6.	For which department or departments of the government is the service to be provided?
7.	If the contract provides for the referral and placement of applicants in positions with the Public Service, how many such positions are to be filled under the contract?
8.	Into what salary categories do these positions fall?
Return tabled.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning question No. 3026 which sought information about the number of professional athletes receiving unemployment insurance benefits and the amount of benefits paid. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, replied to the question recently, stating that the Unemployment Insurance Commission does not maintain statistics that would make it possible to answer the question.
That reply is not accurate. The question could have been answered wholly or at least in part. I do not want to say that the parliamentary secretary or the minister responsible was trying to mislead the House, but it appears that neither gentleman is familiar with the workings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I am told that there is a separate code kept for professional athletes, the code number being 3373. I am further informed it would be simply a matter of writing up a program for the computer, feeding it to the computer and a print-out with the information would be made available.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the minister whether he would like to withdraw the previous answer and reconsider providing a correct answer, with unanimous consent, if that is necessary.


Mr. Stevens:: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. Again I should like to request that questions I put on the order paper on April 18, namely Nos. 1986, 1989, 1991 and
November 26, 1973

1993, be answered. As I pointed out before, these questions deal with the expenditure of public funds. I feel there is no reason for such a time delay as has taken place in answering these questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his remarks on energy last Thursday evening when he referred, to quote him, to "the question of an agreement with the Atlantic provinces on offshore development". His previous references have always included the province of Quebec as well as the Atlantic provinces. Was it simply an oversight that the Prime Minister did not include Quebec along with the Atlantic provinces in his remarks on Thursday when he referred to an agreement, or is an agreement now being sought separately with the Atlantic provinces?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. The agreement we would hope to reach would, of course, be applicable to all of Canada because all provinces except two do have some seacoast. It is a matter of knowing how we would reach such an agreement. In the last couple of years we have been working with the five easternmost provinces, Quebec plus the Atlantic provinces, and it would be our hope to continue to work in that direction. I certainly did not want to convey any contrary impression by my statement on Thursday. I think it may be known that one province, which is not Quebec, may not want to be part of the group of five, but I really should not be speaking for them. Our desire at the federal level is to reach an agreement with the entire five.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the obvious significance of offshore development of probable petroleum resources, can the Prime Minister give us an indication as to his timetable in respect of the resolution of this matter leading to an agreement on offshore mineral and petroleum rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, say what the timetable is because this involves the five provincial governments. Our desire would have been to solve this a year ago, and last summer I thought we had come very close to doing so when we reached agreement that we should not spend too much time arguing about the constitutional question of ownership but should address ourselves to the problems of administration and division of the proceeds. The discussions did proceed from a year and a half ago until a point last spring when we put before the provinces a scheme we thought would have their agreement for solving this difficult problem. However, I am told that one of the provinces did not want to go along with the
Oral Questions
others, and I think at this stage they are trying to work it out among themselves. I have had some correspondence in the last two months with some of the five easternmost provinces, and I have asked them quite bluntly: Do you want to negotiate as a group or do you want to go it alone, because we want to proceed with this thing? I am waiting for their answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the Prime Minister's answer to my first question that the government was seeking an agreement with virtually all the provinces, although discussions were active with the five eastern provinces, am I to assume that an agreement between the government of Canada and Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces would still involve further discussions with other provinces such as British Columbia before any settlement could be considered final?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, depending on the nature of the agreement we would reach, it might vary, but I think it would be fair to say that generally our position is that we will want to discuss this with all the provinces. The Leader of the Opposition will remember that in the fall of 1969 the position we put to all the provinces was that we wanted to reach a settlement out of court by political discussion and arrangement. That is still our desired position. When we found that our 1969 proposition was not making enough progress-some provinces had accepted it but certainly nothing like a majority-we accepted to deal with the five Atlantic provinces, the idea being that the case of British Columbia had already been settled in the courts. After that settlement, both Mr. Pearson and myself said that we were still prepared to seek a political arrangement and not just act on the Supreme Court decision. This is still our position, but we are certainly not giving a priority now to discussions with British Columbia as the courts have already settled the law in that case. Such is not the situation, of course, with the easternmost provinces.


Mr. Forrestall:: What about the 50 per cent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you have a problem?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point may I remind hon. members that we have only a 20-minute question period today pursuant to an order of the House. That being so, we should use the 20 minutes for questions and answers as much as possible. I will recognize the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain for a supplementary question, but we should try for the remaining time to have as few supplementary questions as possible.


OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCES-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES-NECESSITY OF AMENDING CERTAIN PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES ACTS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the federal government offer to the provinces in these negotiations include an amendment to the Quebec Boundaries Act, the Ontario Boundaries Act and the Manitoba Boundaries Act?

November 26, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. That aspect of the problem has been set aside. As I said a moment ago, we have agreed with the easternmost provinces to set aside the question of boundaries, jurisdiction and sovereignty over certain offshore areas of the country. We are now discussing the problem of administration and division of the proceeds.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the report made last Friday by the President of the Housing and Urban Development Association that housing starts will fall and prices rise further in 1974, can the minister tell us what his department is doing now to head off the anticipated housing crisis next year exceeding the one we have this year?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, our predictions are still that we will exceed our medium term target for housing and that housing next year, 1974, will exceed 250,000 units per year. In addition, we are endeavouring and I am endeavouring to ensure that the provisions of the National Housing Act and the programs provided by it are used to the absolute maximum to provide social housing for those who are least able to afford housing.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact it is the 250,000 figure that is too low, in view of the anticipated demand, and in view specifically of the forecast increase in family formations next year, following the baby boom right through the cycle that began some 25 years ago, there is going to be a slack. There is going to be an absence of construction compared with the demand. My question relates also to the report last Friday that starts in apartment construction are going to fall off and we will see not only a drop in single family units-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask the question?


John Edward Broadbent: It is important to get it clear for the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of this slack, what does the minister plan to do now to increase production beyond the
250,000	unit level?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the National Housing Act is primarily concerned with social housing for those who can least afford housing. Thus we are pressing forward as hard as we can to ensure that those people who can benefit from the social housing programs under the National Housing Act have housing available to them. The rate of construction next year will certainly exceed the rate of family formations in this country, and has for some years.


John Edward Broadbent: Can the minister inform the House whether, following the dismissal recently of Mr. Rudnicki, CMHC has now followed this up by abolishing the policy

planning division of CMHC, and can he also inform the House whether or not a senior planning officer concerned specifically with native peoples' housing has resigned as of last week?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is not correct. There is, as has been going on for some 18 months, a reorganization study within the organization and any reorganization that takes place will always maintain a strong policy planning concept development agency. As to the second part of the question, I have not been so informed.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the great number of lay-offs in the Lauzon shipyards, could the minister say to the House whether grants awarded by his department to that firm for shipbuilding which he mentioned in the House a couple of weeks ago, will allow additional jobs during the winter?
[ English]


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the shipbuilding program and the shipbuilding temporary assistance provisions are working very well and, indeed, have helped to put the Canadian shipbuilding industry on a world competitive basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore. Order, please. This is becoming too confusing.

I think that the hon. member for Bellechasse who was waiting for the simultaneous translation of the minister's answer could ask a supplementary question, followed by the hon. member for South Shore who wishes to ask a supplementary question on this afternoon's first question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You have understood well my hesitation, for I was indeed waiting for the interpretation.
My supplementary question is the following. I understand that the department's policy has helped maintained Lauzon shipyards in operation, but I would ask the minister, when grants are given to this corporation, if certain conditions are imposed so that the company continues operating, mainly during periods in which the government goes all out to maintain employment at the highest level.
I would appreciate more details in this regard.


Alastair William Gillespie: Perhaps I could clarify it by saying that assistance to the shipyards is not so much in the form of grants as it is in the form of a subsidy to the shipbuilding firms in seeking and getting foreign business as well as
November 26, 1973

domestic business. That is one level, 17.5 per cent. The second assistance that the federal government provides is through the Export Development Corporation with respect to the financing of the purchase once it is made by a foreign buyer.


EAST COAST OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESOURCES- FEDERAL POSITION ON DIVISION OF ROYALTIES WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister's reply to my leader indicate that he is now dropping his claim to 50 per cent of the royalties on offshore gas and oil development which he has stated would accrue to the federal government and only 5 per cent would accrue to each province and, if so, what new formula is he now putting forward to which he now hopes the provinces of Atlantic Canada will agree?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are proceeding in a way which we hope that the government of Canada, speaking for all the people of Canada, will get what we expect is a fair share of these proceeds in view of the fact the courts have held, at least on the west coast, that these offshore hypothetical products would be under Canadian federal jurisdiction. This is the position we are taking. As to the exact percentage, I think the House will understand if I do not reply to that aspect of the question. It is a matter of negotiation and I would not want to state any figure which would put the federal government in a worse position than it would otherwise be in bargaining.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary question, but there are less than five minutes before the end of the question period and we are still on the first question.


EAST COAST OFFSHORE OIL RESOURCES-NOVA SCOTIA PREMIER'S REQUEST FOR FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN PIPELINE TO MOVE SABLE ISLAND OIL
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is half past six according to the clock, and I recognize your difficulty. I wonder if I might direct a supplementary question past the distinguished member for Winnipeg North Centre to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is there a substantial foundation on which the premier of Nova Scotia is basing his call and plea to the federal authority for participation in the development of a pipeline from Sable Island to the mainland or to a collection point for the collection of oil for the purpose of distribution to refineries for processing and subsequent distribution?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, one of the options for further supply in the supply shortfall situation in eastern
Oral Questions
Canada had been to consider the early possibility of bringing the east coast fields into production. That has been studied by my department.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that my difficulty is not that it is six-thirty according to the clock but that we have a 20-minute question period today. That is not my difficulty but that of hon. members.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The province of Nova Scotia through its distinguished premier has indicated to the people of that province a real desire to involve the federal authority in a multimillion dollar project on the basis of information the federal minister is not prepared to discuss. My question of privilege is simply that either the premier of the province of Nova Scotia or the minister responsible for energy in this parliament is deliberately misleading the people of Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Now, hold on. There is a section I can quote with respect to the right of a member to be heard in this chamber. I do not very often have recourse to that. Our hopes have been so raised by half information, half truths and partial stories that we can no longer, as residents of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick and P.E.I., continue to have this question unanswered. What I am asking the minister to do is to have some concern for these high hopes and expectations. If they are justified, let him say so. If they are not, I am asking him to caution our people not to raise their hopes when they cannot be realized. I am asking him to answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: -does the premier of Nova Scotia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. To ensure that there are no artificial obstacles to energy supply, has the minister sought from his colleague, the Minister of Transport, a report on the apparent substantial over charging by the railways on the delivery of Alberta coal to central Canadian markets? If he has received that report, can he tell the House what the facts are in that case?


Alastair William Gillespie: Was that to me?


Charles Joseph Clark: Whoever has an answer.

November 26, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have been studying with the interested provinces the possibility of bringing Rocky Mountain coal to the consuming centres of central Canada. At the moment the figures on that are under careful study. We have also been studying other means of bringing it east, such as a coal slurry in crude oil.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my department is now studying the Patent Act, and I shall bring the very interesting question asked by the hon. member to the attention of the officials concerned and try to determine whether this study can be completed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Perhaps I might be permitted to preface it by saying I am glad to see him back in the House after his trip.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, a week ago last Friday the minister told the House that teams were being sent to Santiago, Panama and Honduras for the purpose of examining the question of Chilean and other refugees from Chile and their admission to Canada. Can the minister now tell the House what report he has received from these teams and what steps are being taken to carry out his undertaking, given then and previously, to deal with these refugees in the same humanitarian manner as refugees from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Uganda were previously dealt with?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the team that went to Chile, Panama and Honduras has now made a preliminary report by cable. The team itself, or at least the head of the team, Mr. Geoff Pearson, is returning to Canada tonight, and the reports that they are making will be considered this week by the cabinet.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the minister report to the House after he has received these messages from Mr. Pearson and the others?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


WILDLIFE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence in connection with the question I am about to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has to do with the survival of some of our most wonderful animals in the north. The United States Congress has given approval to do everything it can to assure survival of these animals which face extinction unless action is taken. I may say that this matter was raised earlier by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre but nothing complete came from the discussions regarding polar bears. From all over this nation members are receiving letters, and fears are being expressed concerning the future of these animals, the most wonderful animals of the north. Will the minister advise what action is being taken and, in particular whether any arrangements have been made with the armed forces to assure transportation of these animals into the far north whenever they come down into areas that are inhabited?


Hon. dean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that there is no danger for the polar bear in Canada. I am informed there are approximately 10,000 polar bears in the north and they are closely supervised by the Wildlife Service of Canada. The Wildlife Service permits the Eskimo people to kill a quota of about 400 polar bears per winter. Everything is under control. I am satisfied at this moment that there is absolutely no danger of extinction for that great animal.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is not the view of those who understand the problem thoroughly. Although, I do not belong to that group and I never, in all the hunting I have done, killed any Canadian animal.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Could he tell the House whether he intends having a serious study made of all patents for devices aimed at reducing energy consumption, especially as regards oil products, in order to avoid the useless spending of gasoline and gas and to make the necessary savings during this pseudo-shortage period?
[Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain).}


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just fish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Except Grits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They do not require protection, but we would under the game laws if they had the power to deny it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister to look further into this matter and put an end to trophy hunting of the white bear in the north, even though he is most optimistic that
November 26, 1973

with only 400 a year being killed, and with 10,000 living there, there is no danger at all. The United States House of Representatives thought otherwise. Would the minister advise whether the government intends to close the season on these animals?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to close the season because it is not 4,000 polar bears, it is about 10,000 polar bears. The population is controlled by the Canadian Wildlife Service. I have confidence in these experts. I know the hon. member thinks he is an expert, but I have been in the north in the last six years and I have talked with the Eskimos. I am sure the Eskimos will co-operate with the government if there is a need to close the hunting. So far there is no such danger, and I want to retain for the Eskimos their traditional right to hunt polar bears.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw, following which I will call orders of the day.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister notified all relevant companies of the assessment, collection and other guidelines with regard to the export tax and, if so, what are the general terms of agreement?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, if they have not been notified they will be very shortly. I do not think this is the appropriate time to outline what the notices are, but I will be glad to discuss the matter with the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, at the close of debate on Wednesday I was quoting from the
Foreign Investment Review Act Globe and Mail of November 20, 1973, the comments of Mr. Kniewasser made at a seminar at the University of Toronto Faculty of Administrative Studies. Some further comments were made by Mr. J. A. Perham, Chairman of Canadian Oxygen Limited, Toronto, a company that employs 1,000 Canadians, to the effect that at its inception that company could not have met the test of proving that it would provide a positive benefit to Canada.
I think this is an example of the difficulty that will be faced by the tribunal. This company, which is owned by British Oxygen Company, has made 17 acquisitions since it was formed. Some involved a few thousand dollars and one was for $8 million. The latter was the acquisition of a United States controlled company. I take it this is an indication this company feels that the acquisition of a U.S. controlled company is in our interests, particularly as its parent company is British.
The article in the Globe and Mail states that Mr. Perham noted that many of the small acquisitions might not have been approved under the new takeover legislation because they involved the purchase of small Canadian welding supply distributors. Yet, according to him, without these purchases they could not have taken over the largest acquisition, the American company. He went on to say that governments are overly concerned today about what they loosely call social justice and he felt they should be equally concerned about business justice so as not to inhibit the long-term economic growth of our country.
The president of Canadian Motorola Electronics Limited of Toronto had this to say:
Many of government's doubts about multinational firms are based more on theory than fact.
He went on to say that no one can find fault with the legitimate concern that foreign investment should meet Canadian standards and objectives but that the problem is to define what these standards and objectives are because they have not been made plain.
The need to interpret vague words like "national industrial and economic policies" or "the effect of the acquisition of establishments on the level and nature of economic activities in Canada" makes it very difficult for business to make decisions. I suggest that it is going to be extremely difficult for this tribunal to interpret the words "of significant benefit to Canada".
I submit that virtually every small business will have to be sold once the owner retires or is deceased. The present level of income taxes, the federal government's capital gains tax, and the fact that all provinces except Alberta are inflicting estate taxes on their citizens mean very heavy tax payments when the owner of a business is deceased or a business is sold. Most businesses in Manitoba of over $300,000 capital are facing the problem of raising almost half that amount for capital gains tax and death duties should the owner die. This will mean that virtually every small business will have to be sold within the lifetime of the owner or at his death. I should think that this group of businesses, up to say the $5 million range, will be hard hit by this new tribunal. The tribunal will obviously have to disallow many sales of businesses on the basis of the requirement that they produce "significant benefit to Canada". Most often the business would be of significant benefit to a local area but would not be of

November 26, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act benefit to other regions of the country, particularly when it introduces a new competitive firm in that part of the country. This is one of the complaints. Companies sold to Toronto-based firms and Montreal-based firms will probably be closed down and the plants moved to those cities. One cannot blame them for this, but the problem is very real.
The centralizing role of this tribunal is obvious. Sales of firms close to Ottawa, in Ontario and Quebec, will receive favourable consideration. Those in the periphery of Canada, in the Maritimes and in the west, are certainly not going to receive the same consideration. The levying of the oil tax and the discounting of barley and wheat to Canadian consumers by the federal government just recently are a case in point. These actions would never have been taken against the provinces of Ontario and Quebec just because they are too powerful and their voices are heard in Ottawa. The role of this tribunal will obviously be to discourage investment in western Canada and the Maritimes.
Finally, the fact that the ultimate decision is to be made by cabinet means that the guideline, "of significant benefit", will be disregarded and in the final analysis the decision will be absolutely a political one of the moment, not a very good thing on which build a foreign investment policy. The failure to introduce a means by which the provinces would have something to say about investment being made within their jurisdictions is a major weakness of this legislation. Until the provinces can have a role in deciding what is important in their areas this tribunal will not function adequately.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in the debate on the motion before the House and at the outset indicate that it is my intention to support the legislation despite its many deficiencies. It is at least a step in the direction of controlling foreign takeovers. It is a sad commentary, indeed, that legislation such as this was not placed on the statute books years ago. It would have been far more effective 20 or 30 years ago than it will be today simply because at that time action could have been taken with regard to all the key corporations that over the years have passed to foreign control.
Last year the majority Liberal government introduced a foreign investment review bill in the House of Commons. It was a weak, indecisive piece of legislation. Fortunately, it died on the order paper when the election was called in the summer of 1972. The present bill, C-132, is a considerably improved piece of legislation. It deals not only with foreign takeovers but also with new businesses sought to be established by foreigners and expansion of existing corporations in unrelated areas.
The minister has accepted a number of changes from committee members, including suggestions from my NDP colleagues. The result is a stronger and vastly improved piece of legislation. It is an indication that minority government has had a beneficial effect on this legislation now being processed by parliament.

At this time, however, I must make it crystal clear that the legislation now before us is only one of several measures that must be taken if we are to regain control of those key aspects of the Canadian economy that have come under foreign ownership. For example, the bill still does not deal effectively with the most important part of the problem in Canada, the expansion of existing foreign corporations within this country. If the legislation is policed effectively by the minister, the expansion of existing corporations in unrelated fields can be checked. However, this is only a part of the vast expansion of these foreign corporations which is taking place within the boundaries of our own country. Parliament must proceed with further legislative measures to control future foreign investment in the country and to ensure that control of those vital sectors of the economy which have already passed into the hands of foreign investors is returned to Canadians.
Liberal and Conservative speakers are constantly extolling the virtues of foreign investment in our resource industries and in other aspects of our economy. Canadians are told that we must have this investment or our economy will wither on the vine. To-day, as in the past, the policies of both the Liberals and the Conservatives have been directed toward encouraging foreign investment in practically every phase of our economy. Both Liberal and Conservative governments over the years have passed legislation and regulations which have given a host of concessions to foreign investors. These include ridiculous tax concessions, exemptions, low royalty rates on oil and gas, generous permit and lease arrangements for resource development, and so on. These policies have resulted in foreign control of our Canadian economy to an extent not seen in any other industrialized nation in the world. These policies have resulted in the massive export of Canadian raw materials with little or no processing taking place in our own country. This is one of the major reasons why a resource rich country like Canada has such a high unemployment rate.
The limiting of foreign ownership in our country is not an unreasonable proposal. I point out to hon. members that many other countries in the world have been forced to take legislative action against foreign investors from other countries. These countries have recognized that economic independence is fundamental to political and cultural independence. They took action to protect their own national interests and to ensure that the control and direction of their economies would be subject to decisions made in their own countries by themselves. They were able to foresee the tremendous pressures and influences that foreign-owned corporations would be able to exert on key sectors of their economies if these foreign corporations had control. Perhaps they have taken the lessons history has taught far more seriously than Canadians, for it has been demonstrated over and over again in many parts of the world that the political takeover of a country in one form or another has always followed economic takeover. It is a tragedy that this government and the Conservative party have not recognized these basic facts.
Among the many nations of the world that have taken action to limit foreign ownership is Japan. It is a good example because since World War II there has been very heavy United States investment in that country, just as there has been in Canada. A few years ago, however, the
November 26, 1973

Japanese passed legislation limiting foreign control in general industry to 49 per cent. In certain key industries such as railways, steel and auto manufacturing the limit on foreign control was cut to 20 per cent, and in such essentials as radio, television, the press, the banks, etc., the Japanese government would allow no foreign ownership at all. Some adjustments have been made to foreign investment over the years, but we find that Japan still keeps a firm hand on the control of her economy.
In practically every country in Europe, including France, West Germany and the Scandinavian countries, we find legislation limiting foreign ownership. These countries are more acutely aware than Canadians have been of the inherent dangers and weaknesses that may result from loss of economic power when it is held in the hands of foreign corporations. These countries, however, have done something about the situation while Canadian governments, past and present, have refused to face up to the basic problem and to make those major basic changes that are required to protect Canadian industry and Canadian resources from complete domination by foreign corporations. Our very future is at stake and I am certain that Canadians will not tolerate much longer the Liberal and Conservative policies which in effect allow the control of our industry and resources to continue to pass to and remain under the control of foreign based corporations.
I would first like to show the extent of foreign control of the Canadian economy and then deal specifically with one of our major resources, oil and gas, which is almost completely dominated by foreign interests. The sellout of this key energy resource, federally and provincially, by the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Social Credit over the years is one of the tragedies of our time. Their past policies will come back to haunt them in the years ahead as Canadians realize their over-all interests have not been protected or planned for on any long-term basis.
It is very noticeable that foreign control of Canadian resources is more pronounced in those areas where governments have granted ridiculous tax concessions, exemptions of various kinds, low royalty rates, and so on. It is difficult to believe that any government could be so stupid as to allow many of our non-renewable resources to be gutted at fire sale prices. We find that the oil and gas resources industry is over 90 per cent foreign controlled. In the oil refining segment of the industry, the control is over 99 per cent. Foreign control in the mining industry has risen to over 70 per cent, while the smelting and refining industry is 85 per cent non-resident controlled. In the iron mining industry the rate is 86 per cent, while in the non-metal mining industry, which includes asbestos, potash, gypsum, etc, non-resident control has reached 85 per cent. In 1969 the figure for rubber products was 92.7 per cent, in the machinery section foreign control in 1969 amounted to 73.2 per cent, transportation equipment was 86.4 per cent, chemicals and chemical products were 80.4 per cent. Four years ago, in 1969, the printing and publishing sector rose to 20.4 per cent foreign control from 11.3 per cent in 1965. Many more figures could be given here, but the preceding examples indicate the serious situation facing many aspects of Canadian industry.
Foreign Investment Review Act
We should next look at the reasons for excessive foreign control in some sectors of the natural resource field. Canadians should be asking why foreign controlled oil companies and mining firms have moved into Canada on a vast scale. The answer lies in the major concessions which past governments have granted to these corporations. Perhaps the excellent table of tax rates on profits which was presented by Eric Kierans two years ago will give the reason and show how foolish government policy in this field has been over the years.
In the speech given by Eric Kierans to the Canadian Economic Association on June 3, 1971, he had this to say:
Taxation allowances have been used so extensively in Canada since 1949 that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has been forced to issue two sets of financial figures, the one based on the annual reports of corporations to their shareholders, the other drawn from the reports filed with the Department of National Revenue for tax purposes by the same corporations. In 1968, for example, book profits reported to shareholders amounted to $8,350 million while taxable income reported to the Revenue Department amounted to $5,021 million.
These figures indicate that there was a difference of $3,329 million between the profits reported to shareholders and the taxable income reported to the Revenue Department. In other words, in 1968 only 60 per cent of the companies' book profits were classified as taxable income. Over the four-year period from 1965 to 1968 inclusive, of a total of just over $30 billion shown as company book profits, the taxable amount came to $17.3 billion. This means that over the four years between 1965 and 1968 about $12.7 billion of book profits were not classed as taxable income, as a result of which the average taxation rate for all corporations in that four year period came to about 57.6 per cent of the book profits.
These figures do not imply that all corporations were taxed to the same extent. So let us look at the second table which was supplied by Mr. Kierans two years ago. It shows the book profits made by selected industries, the taxable income of those industries and the percentage of book profits which was taxed. It is a most revealing document. This table shows that in the four years from 1965 to 1968, the book profits of companies dealing in mineral fuels, which include oil and gas, amounted to $795 million. The income on which taxes were levied amounted to only $45 million. As a result, the companies were taxed on only 5.7 per cent of their book profits. Is it any wonder, in these circumstances, that we have seen a concentration of foreign control in this industry?
In the metal mining industry, over the same period, book profits amounted to $1,707 million. Taxable income was $220 million which amounts to only 13 per cent of total book profits. In the category of "other mining", book profits over the period amounted to $374 million and the companies paid tax on only $120 million which works out to 32 per cent of book profits. In the manufacturing industry, companies paid taxes on 63 per cent of their book profits. The construction industry paid taxes on 65 per cent, and the wholesale trade on 87 per cent. But in the retail trade, which is almost entirely Canadian-controlled, we find the companies paying taxes on 90 per cent of their book profits.

November 26, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
The picture becomes crystal clear. Foreign corporations are concentrating in those areas where they can make the most money. This is natural. Mr. Kierans summed it up neatly in the following paragraph:
If foreign ownership dominates the mining and petroleum industries, our tax system has clearly invited this concentration. We have not only extended a warm invitation to foreign capital, but we have told it where to go. If you invest in the service industries, we say, you will have to pay taxes on 87 per cent or 90 per cent of your profits. On the other hand, in metal mining you will only have to pay on 13 per cent and in petroleum on 5.7 per cent of your profits. The invitation says, in effect: Come and get us.
It has been the taxation system and the concessions by a series of governments over the years which have led to the overwhelming control by foreign investors in these two key sectors of our economy.
Some changes have been made in our taxation system since 1968 but the corporations involved in the petroleum and mineral field still maintain their privileged position. Over the years, the NDP has urged a succession of federal governments to initiate legislation of a type which would ensure Canadians exercising effective control over their economy for all time, and we call upon the government to move in this direction without further delay.
The present energy crisis in Canada, and the close relation it bears to our own supplies of oil and natural gas, should help bring the whole picture of foreign control, as well as our own failure to give adequate direction in this regard, home to the Canadian people. It is not only the problem of foreign control which we find disturbing at this time: it is the complete lack of a viable, national energy policy. As we drift from crisis to crisis, it becomes increasingly obvious that the present administration does not know in which direction to turn, simply because it has neglected to lay down any longterm policy for the nation. Conservative spokesmen have demonstrated time and again in this House that they are the mouthpieces of the multinational oil corporations which are firmly in the saddle as far as oil and natural gas supplies in this country are concerned.
We find the Province of Alberta, under a Conservative administration, planning to hand over to the multinational oil corporations for development one of the greatest oil deposits left in the world, the Athabasca oil sands. This valuable resource should be developed under public ownership, and in so doing Alberta should seek financial support not only from the federal government but from other provincial governments and from the Canadian public in general. It should be obvious to all Albertans that under the present plan to develop this rich resource, those who will make real profits out of the undertaking will not be the general public but the foreign-controlled oil corporations.
Since the spring of this year, the world has seen an unprecedented increase in the price of crude oil, natural gas and their by-products. There was an exceptionally sharp rise in the market price, especially in the United States which uses about 38 per cent of the world's total energy. There was really no need to import this inflationary trend in oil and gas from the United States to Canada. At the same time, it did not make sense to sell our oil and gas in the United States market at prices far below their

going rate. The only way this could be done effectively, without importing more inflation to Canada, was to impose an export tax on both oil and gas. The government finally took this step a few months ago and imposed a 40-cents-a-barrel export tax on crude oil exports which, in effect, set up a two price system in Canada. It meant our domestic oil would be 40 cents lower that the going price in the United States.
This export tax is to be raised to $1.90 as of December 1, 1973 and will carry through to the end of January. This move has helped to check the severe inflation in the price of oil products which will be passed along to other spheres of economic activity unless the export tax remains.
It is interesting to see the tremendous opposition to this form of tax by the multinational oil corporations, the Conservative government of Alberta and members of the official opposition in this House. There has been a great deal of misinformation spread throughout Canada about the imposition of this export tax, so perhaps I could briefly examine the oil situation in Canada and the role played in it by the multinational oil corporations which primarily control it. The anguished cries of the Conservative party over the alleged mistreatment of the oil companies by the government should be a clear warning to the Canadian people of what we can expect from this group if they ever take over the reins of government in Canada.
Last year the oil companies in Canada had their best year profit-wise in history. This year their quarterly profits are up sharply over 1972. Over the past year there have been sharp increases in the prices of all oil products, including gasoline. This increase was not based on additional production costs in Canada but on the rising cost of oil in the international market.
On November 1, 1972 the price of western Canadian crude was increased by 10 cents a barrel. On May 1, 1973 another increase of 25 cents a barrel took place. This was followed by further increases of 20 cents a barrel on June 1 and 40 cents a barrel effective August 1, 1973. This means that over a nine-month period the price of western Canadian crude jumped a total of 95 cents a barrel. This was a 37 per cent increase in oil costs and would increase the annual revenue of the oil companies by $700 million over a full year.
These price increases forced the government to take action, and on September 4 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called for a freeze on further price increases. He indicated that the 40 cents a barrel export tax would be levied as of October 1 on all crude oil leaving Canada. This export tax will be raised to $1.90 a barrel as of December 1, and will last until the end of January. I might add that our NDP group will oppose removal of this export tax at that time.
Let us now look at this export tax and the alternatives to it. An export tax of $1.90 means that Canadian oil will be sold in the United States market at going world prices. It also means that oil in the Canadian market will be sold at domestic prices, which will be $1.90 below the inflated prices in the United States. The federal government has guaranteed that the producing provinces will not lose one penny in royalty rates through the imposition of this tax.
November 26, 1973

This applies both to exported oil and to oil used domestically. The government has also indicated that it would be prepared to turn over any surplus money which accrues from this export tax to the producing provinces for oil development or research in those provinces. The surplus revenue, over and above the royalties which would be returned to the provinces, would amount to several hundred million dollars a year.
Now, let us look at the alternative that is favoured by the Conservatives in both Alberta and Ottawa. They would like to see price increases levied at the wellhead in progressive stages. What does this mean in terms of revenue to the general public in the producing provinces? Alberta now receives an average royalty of about 22 per cent for oil produced at the wellhead. The oil companies get the other 78 per cent. In the case of the $1.90 export tax, if this were to be the price added to the wellhead cost we would find Alberta would receive 42 cents and the oil companies would receive $1.48 of this additional $1.90 increase.
It has been interesting also to hear the complaints of our Conservative friends in the House about the export tax. As I understand it, there had been no increase to the oil companies in the price at the wellhead in Alberta at the time the tax was levied. If the export tax had not been levied by the federal government, it would have meant that the multinational oil corporations in the United States would have continued to buy Canadian crude at the initial low contract price and they would have reaped 100 per cent of the price increase of 40 cents a barrel when it reached the Chicago market. In my opinion, the Conservative position is a weak one and is certainly not in the best interests of Canadian consumers or in the interests of the citizens in those provinces where oil is produced.
We have heard from a number of speakers in this debate about the unhappy position of the oil companies in Canada. Our Conservative friends in particular talk about the need for increased revenues so that these companies can carry on exploration in various parts of Canada to ensure the future of energy sources in the oil and gas industry. According to the information which I have, these companies have always been able to write off their exploration costs, and more. This was ably explained by Eric Kierans when he showed that the oil companies in Canada paid taxes on 5.4 per cent of their book profits. This scandalous situation has existed for long enough and should be changed. All oil products, including gasoline, used by the Canadian consumer bear part of the cost of exploration carried on by these companies.
There is another very important and distressing aspect about the foreign control of our oil and gas resources by the multinational oil corporations. Most Canadians know that the vast majority of profits made by these corporations operating in Canada goes into the pockets of foreign investors. There is another aspect which we sometimes forget, and that is the increasing value of the resource as the world price increases. For example, big oil companies have the option on most of the oil remaining in Canada's conventional reserves. It is estimated that there is a little over 10 billion barrels of these conventional reserves left. At the present rate of exploitation these reserves will be exhausted in about 12 years. It is doubtful whether they
Foreign Investment Review Act could last that long unless severe export restrictions were put upon our oil exports.
The point I should like to make here, however, is that when the oil companies received a 95 cent increase per barrel over the period November 1972 to August 1, 1973, that increased the value of oil reserves on which they had options by over $9 billion. There will be relatively little increase in production costs from these conventional sources as the wells have been drilled and the distribution system is already installed, so the bulk of this huge increase will go to these firms and will not benefit the Canadian people or the general public in Alberta.
Since the companies were granted this 95 cents increase, the price of crude oil has increased again by at least $1.90, which is reflected in the export tax about which I have spoken. If this additional $1.90 is progressively phased in at the wellhead over the next few months, we will see an additional $19 billion added to the value of these conventional reserves which are controlled by the oil companies. This would make a total of almost $28 billion in additional revenues available to these companies as a result of oil price increases over the last year alone; but only a fraction will be returned to the people of Alberta under their present royalty set up.
There is no doubt that the world price of oil will be further increased, which again will increase the value of our oil and gas reserves. If these conventional reserves had been owned by the people of Alberta, they would have had sufficient revenues coming in over the years to have carried out public development of the Athabasca tar sands without seeking elsewhere for capital. Even now a major change in their royalty and assessment procedure would vastly increase the return to the public purse from what is presently being received.
During the debate on energy resources we have heard a number of Conservatives and Liberal speakers indicate the need for additional revenues for the oil companies so that further exploration could be carried out in various parts of Canada to ensure continuing supplies of oil and gas for both the domestic and export markets. This government and other governments, including the one under former Prime Minister Diefenbaker, have always given the multinational corporations unprecedented concessions, permit lease arrangements and tax exemptions.
The present Canada oil and gas land regulations which are the product of both Liberal and Conservative governments consist of a major sellout, at five sale prices, of our potential oil and gas industries in northern Canada. These regulations are in the process of review, but indications are that there has been relatively little change, and the multinational oil corporations still reap vast fortunes from our northern oil and gas resources once they are tapped. Perhaps a short review of the present situation north of the 60th parallel would make the members of this House more aware of what we must do if Canadians are to get a fair return from this particular resource.
Last March an interesting research paper was presented to the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee in Ottawa by Professor Andrew Thompson of the University of British Columbia. It is a slashing attack on the giveaway resource

November 26, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act policies of the Canadian government, particularly in the field of petroleum resources. The report likens the oil and gas regulations to Canadian colonialism, and calls the regulations a resource giveaway unparalleled in any country in modern times. It points out that these giveaway regulations have sparked a powerful thrust into oil exploration and development in Canada, and brought into sharp and urgent focus a number of major national problems which require immediate attention and early solution. These problems include the environmental issues, the claims of native people, the questions about transportation systems and the implications that large-scale energy exports may hold for industrial strategy.
These oil and gas regulations govern petroleum exploration and production in all parts of Canada under federal jurisdiction. This includes the area of 60 degrees latitude and also the east and west coast offshore regions, including Hudson Bay. They include a permit lease system which allows the leasing company to hold vast areas into the next century at little cost, even without discovery of oil or gas, unless changes are now made in the regulations. It must be obvious what regulations of this type could do to the proper planning for national use of the energy resources that exist in our northern areas.
Perhaps the most glaring aspect of this giveaway policy in the north shows up in the royalty rates which the regulations have established for the federal areas. For the first three years there is a 5 per cent royalty rate which is unprecedented anywhere in the world. After the three year period, the royalty is increased to 10 per cent. Let us compare this maximum 10 per cent rate with the 16 % per cent charged in the United States offshore areas, a 20 per cent effective rate in Alaska, which is just as far north as northern Canada, and with the average 22 per cent in the province of Alberta.
The loss of revenue to the federal government from these extremely low royalty rates would be fantastically large if oil and gas finds in the north warranted the construction of a gas or oil pipeline. The paper by Professor Thompson gives two excellent examples of the revenue loss which could accrue to Canadians if these ridiculous royalty rates are allowed to stand. The first example is a gas pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta to southern Canada and the United States market with a throughput of 4.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day. It is presumed that this gas would be obtained in equal proportions from the Alaska north slope and from the Mackenzie Delta.
The price used was a wellhead value figure of 30 cents per thousand cubic feet in both places. The royalties payable to the Canadian government during the first three years of production would be approximately $36 million as compared with $144 million payable to the State of Alaska. After three years, the Canadian government would receive $24 million per year and the State of Alaska $48 million per year. Over a ten year period Canadian gas revenues would be $276 million less than those received by the State of Alaska.
From the example I have quoted one can see that weather conditions, drilling conditions, etc. are comparable, but the distance the gas must go from Alaska to United States markets is almost twice as far. Does it not seem rather foolish that a multinational oil corporation which controls

a gas well in the Prudhoe Bay area and controls a similar gas field in the Mackenzie Delta area would be willing to pay $276 million more to the State of Alaska for the same amount of gas over a 10-year period than to Canada? This is just a sample of the colonial thinking of our federal government which has dared to set these unprecedented giveaway royalty rates for our non-renewable resources. In addition, all exploratory costs are deductible from income regardless of the cost.
The second example is an oil pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta to the same markets with a capacity of 1.5 million barrels per day. A wellhead value for the oil of $2 per barrel has been assumed, although it would be much higher at present day prices, and this would reflect much higher figures. Royalties payable to the Canadian government during the first three years of production would be $157.5 million. The same oil produced in northern Alberta would generate royalties of $787.5 million for the provincial government at a 25 per cent rate. After the first three years, the federal government would collect $105 million per year as compared with $262.5 million for the Alberta government. The 10-year difference in oil revenues would be $1,732,500,000 in favour of Alberta. This does not mean that Alberta is presently levying adequate royalty rates to return to the people of that province the just return they should receive from this valuable non-renewable resource. These figures show the callous disregard of the old line parties toward our national resources.
These figures indicate the need for Canadians to rethink the position of our country in relation to the whole field of energy and, in particular, to those oil and gas resources which come under federal jurisdiction. The potential of vast quantities of natural gas in the north alone would indicate that they should be brought under public ownership, planned and utilized to serve the long-term energy needs of Canada.
There are many other aspects of foreign control which have been touched upon by other members of our group, so I will not deal with them again. In closing, however, I would point out that we are in an emergency energy situation at the present time. It has not been brought about by the recent war in the Middle East. This merely brought it to a head a few months sooner than would otherwise have been the case. There is no national energy policy in Canada today because governments of the past have been afraid to formulate those policies. The trend of both Liberals and Tories over the years has been to gradually integrate the energy resources of this country with those of the United States. This integration is already well advanced. Even today we see recommendations before the National Energy Board for the province of Ontario to make a sharp increase in the export of their hydro electric power to that country. Once this power is exported and becomes integrated into the industrial complex of the United States, it will be almost impossible to stop future exports, no matter how adversely this might affect our economy.
Long-term commitment of our energy resources can seriously affect the future industrial development of Canada. This Parliament and this nation should first establish basic long-range planning for a national energy
November 26, 1973

program before we further commit any of these precious non-renewable resources to another country. I am hopeful we will see some decisive planning by the present government along these lines within the next few months.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, once more we have just heard a magnificent lecture on the importance of public ownership and development of our natural resources.
While my hon. friend had the floor, I was thinking about what happened in Chile when Mr. Allende was president and had nationalized the copper mines of his country, three years ago, and said to the Americans: We are getting control over our own country, pick up your marbles and go home. The Americans left, and the American machinery in those copper mines happened to require some repair. Therefore, the Chileans asked the United States to provide them with spare parts to repair these machines. The latter answered: You threw us out, you no longer need us, we therefore refuse to sell you spare parts.
Then, Mr. Speaker, what did happen? The communist president of Chile happened to resort to the services of the Noranda Mines Limited of Rouyn-Noranda, to process 22,500 tons of copper ore for Chile. When private enterprise can be useful to these people, it is all right, but it is dangerous to respect it when it contributes to developing the country's natural resources. This is where we do not agree on public ownership, nationalization and government control on resources. What we want is a private enterprise system. We do not want any trusts or monopolies but a private enterprise system under which the individual may act according to his abilities, his skills, his will, with as little interference from the government as possible. That is what is called real democracy.
Mr. Speaker, as regards Bill C-132, relating to foreign investment, we can say that there are two kinds of investments: investments for private and public undertakings. In the private sector, if Germans, Americans or Frenchmen bring in with them capital to set up viable private concerns, if they come here with new techniques and new knowledge, we think that a logical government should not oppose such investments liable to increase the economic and social development of our country.
With regard to the public sector, we Creditistes have been maintaining for a long time that we do not need foreigners to tell us what to do in our public administration. For instance, last week, as this recurs about every two or three weeks, our "strong" Quebec premier, Mr. Bourassa, with 102 hon. members out of 110, floated a $50 million bond issue to finance Hydro-Quebec.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Wall to wall Liberals.


David Réal Caouette: Right. It is about the equivalent of a carpet.

Mr. Speaker, it means $50 million bearing interest at 10 per cent for 25 years, again for the partial hydroelectric development of the famous James Bay. That means a $125 million interest in 25 years. It is a good deal for the
Foreign Investment Review Act lenders, but an awfully bad one for the people of the province of Quebec. I am referring here to Quebec, but I could say the same of Manitoba. The New Democratic government of that province is so much against private enterprise, so much anti-American, that their Minister of Finance went again to the United States as recently as three months ago, to beg on his knees to borrow $50 million from private entrepreneurs.
Mr. Speaker, to say something here, and then to act otherwise outside, that is quite different.
We say the same thing everywhere. We suggest Premier Bourassa should come to Ottawa to meet the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to tell them both: We need $50 million guaranteed by the same resources, on the same Hydro-Quebec development. But instead of having the figures written in the United States, they should be written at the Bank of Canada. It is a question of figures, based upon the same resources.
If Mr. Bourassa and the other premiers of Canada exerted pressures on Ottawa, instead of going down on their knees in New York, it seems to me we would get better results. Therefore I say that the public segment of our economy should be financed directly by our financial institution, not by the one in New York, but by ours, the Bank of Canada, which is allowed to write down the figures. It is allowed to grant loans for six months and not for 25 years under section 13 and 20 of the Bank of Canada Act. Let those who do not believe me refer to this act. They will be able to read that the Bank is authorized to grant loans to provinces and even to municipalities but for periods not exceeding six months. What can Mr. Bourassa do within six months? He already finds it difficult to achieve something in three years so it is clear he cannot do anything in six months.
Therefore, let us say to Mr. Bourassa: Come over to Ottawa and exert your pressures where they should be exerted. Mr. Speaker, investments in the public field would also help private businesses. The manufacturers would be paid with money free from debt instead of being paid with debts and interest paid to foreigners. We would become the masters of our economy whereas we remain the true servants of a few money lenders for the development of our resources.
The Creditists will keep on fighting for the private sector not to be hindered by the governments and for the public sector to be financed by our national financial institution. I repeat that if Americans wish to settle down in Canada to develop our resources to the benefit of Canadians we will not oppose it. Earlier, I heard an NDP member state that such a company had made a 65 per cent profit, another 40 per cent, another 60 per cent and another 32 per cent. We are told only about those profits and not about the expenditures of those companies! This is what I would like to know: What has been spent?
Have the 65 per cent profits been hidden in the cellar of the house or have they been spent for expansion? Have they been spent for improvements to the industry or to buy personal effects?
When someone buys a Cadillac, Mr. Speaker, admittedly it provides jobs for those who help make it, for those who

November 26, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act manufacture parts, for mechanics, for just about everyone. When a castle is built, carpenters are given jobs, building materials are sold, jobs are created. New Democrats do not speak of jobs, but of profits. Expenses do not count. Mr. Speaker, we believe that profits are expenses which are the backbone of the Canadian economy, which stimulate the circulation of goods and the manufacture of materials, and move products towards the consumers, whether they are wage earners or small businessmen, it does not matter much.
Mr. Speaker, far from me the desire to create or protect trusts, combines or monopolies. In this connection we say: There are some laws to control monopolies, combines and large multinational corporations trying to set prices. There is only one thing to do: Fine them. They laugh at us, because price increases enable them to double, triple and even quadruple their income to cover the payment of the fines. We merely have to jail the officials. I am sure that there is not one who wishes to go to jail; before they do so we will soon see the end of the combine.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few comments which I wanted to make on Bill C-132. We are in favour of investments for private enterprise as well as for public enterprise. We advocate the use of the Bank of Canada, so that we may all say together: We are masters at home, masters in our country, Canada, and masters of our economy.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on third reading of the bill, I should like to say that the crux of the problem confronting this House has been summed up in the editorial of the Toronto Star for November 14, 1973 entitled "Tories waver on foreign control". In this editorial, the Toronto Star assumes that whatever is good for Toronto is good for Canada and what is bad for Toronto is bad for Canada, no matter what the results are in areas remote from Toronto. The definition of Toronto should be expanded to include Montreal and Ottawa. It goes without saying that almost all foreign investment in parts remote from this triangle would be considered of no significant benefit to Canada. The effect of this bill would be to allow for the complete domination of the peripheral portions of the country by this centrally controlled Ottawa bureaucracy.
The failure of the government to accept these amendments, and to allow greater participation in the decision making process of this review board by the individual provinces, will really arouse suspicion in the west and in the Maritimes that the central government will not allow any investment that interferes with its predominance. Why is this problem of a serious nature? I suggest that it is serious because, along with the review process by the Ottawa bureaucrats-most of whom will have no knowledge of the rest of the country-is the fact that our investments pools which will have to operate if foreign buyers are to be prevented from buying Canadian investments, unless we move to shut them out altogether, are controlled by institutions that dominate the action. This is a situation which should be of considerable concern to governments.

A serious problem facing the stock market is the fact that the small, individual investor is absent. Small investors were badly burned in 1969-1971, and they show no signs of returning. I suggest this fact is not taken into account in the bill. When institutions dominate the investment market, unlike the small and individual investor, they tend to put their faith in major corporations such as the elite 30 detailed in Fortune. The small and individual enterprising companies rely to a fairly heavy extent on the investment of the little guy. Now, unless these small investors can be wooed back into the marketplace, some disturbing trends will occur. The institutions, with their massive pool of funds, cause degrees of instability when they make major shifts in investments, while the individual investor tends to be a stabilizing factor as well as an excellent source of capital for smaller companies seeking much needed financing to carry out expansion programs that would be of general benefit to the community. Failure to create a climate that will lure back the individual investor will make a fundamental change in North America's investment patterns.
What has happened to the investment pool? It seems likely that the incentive for building the market has been greatly weakened through a combination of world economic trends resulting in recession and inflation, reducing the value of the player's return on investment, while at the same time capital gains taxes further cut into profits if any materialize. The little guy has come to the conclusion that, under the circumstances, he is better off salting his money away or, in the light of today's high interest rates, putting it in the safekeeping of his friendly banker or trust company. Why take the risk of being clobbered in a market which has been full of uncertainties in the last few years for gains that are becoming less attractive in comparison with what a dear old savings bond or bank can offer?
I think this trend is very pertinent to this bill because who will lend money to this $1 million feed lot operation or this small factory with 10 employees if it is not the small investor? But he cannot lend his money when he has it invested in government bonds or in the dear old bank vault. The big financial institutions cannot be bothered to lend money to a high risk blacksmith, especially one who is pounding out agricultural implements. Brokers refute this argument and maintain that if a well planned investment program is put on the market it is still attractive, but few people seem to agree. They are keeping their money in large pools instead of having it eaten up by inflation.
Further comments on this move to remove investment moneys out of the stock market where it would help to finance many of the companies that would be viable concerns in their communities is detailed in an article in the Ottawa Journal of September 4, written by Mr. Bruce Whitestone. He points out that small investors are increasingly reluctant to put money in common stock. He has suggested that inflation, and its persistence in a peacetime area, has been the main factor at work here. For most of the post-war period, the public was told that investing in common stock was a good hedge against inflation, but generally the stock market has proven to be a poor hedge for at least a decade. The public has been shifting its financial assets into bonds, bank accounts and real estate. An interest rate of 8 per cent took care of an inflation
November 26, 1973

premium of 5 per cent, leaving the real cost of money at around 3 per cent a year.
I should like to quote from an article in the Globe and Mail of Friday, October 26, by Ronald Anderson, titled, "The Saving Habit,'' as follows:
Canada has traditionally been so heavily reliant on inflows of foreign capital that it is difficult for most Canadians to accept the thought that domestic savings might be, or could be, capable of financing an adequate level of capital investment.
By international standards, Canada is a nation of savers. National savings represent a higher proportion of gross national product here than in all but a few countries, notably Japan and some western European nations.
Capital requirements, though, also are unusually high. For reasons related to geography, climate, population and industrial structure, Canada has to invest more capital to achieve any given increase in output than most other countries.
The Provincial Bank of Canada calculates that from 1926 to 1972 Canada's gross national savings averaged 18.5 per cent of GNP, while capital spending averaged 19.2 per cent of the value of total output. "National savings have thus on the whole been inadequate and non-residents have had to fill a gap equivalent to 0.7 per cent of GNP."
There are a number of ways of measuring Canada's reliance on foreign capital, some of which show that non-resident savings are more important than is suggested by the GNP relationships.
The system of national accounts, for example, does not take account of the profits and depreciation allowances re-invested in Canada by the subsidiaries of foreign companies. These sums, while generated here, are not Canadian savings, strictly speaking.
The Provincial Bank says that, when these omissions have been corrected, the net use of foreign resources has fluctuated between 13 per cent and 27 per cent of gross capital formation during the past two decades. Using another approach, the "direct" foreign financing method used by Statistics Canada, foreign sources can be shown to have financed 29 per cent of gross domestic investment from 1946 to 1969.
These calculations, which take no account of Canadian investment and re-investment of earnings abroad, tend to over-state the national dependence on foreign savings. Nevertheless it is quite plain that Canada has not been able in the past to finance the whole of its investment programs. But the statistics also show that the degree of dependence on foreign financing has gradually diminished. Canada now is within shooting distance of a position of statistical self-sufficiency-that is, a position in which outflows come close to inflows of capital.
In 1970 and 1971, there was a net outflow of capital. The current account balance will be negative this year and probably in 1974. Even by 1980, the current account deficit, which is a measure of the new inflow of foreign capital, may run at about $1 billion a year.
The prospective deficit, though, will represent a steadily declining proportion of total output. Furthermore, if it were judged to be in the national interest, Canada could manage its affairs in a way that would eliminate the need for net capital inflows.
Critics of this line of reasoning contend that Canadians would pay for any reduction in capital inflows by a decline in the standard of living, or at least a slowing of economic growth.
But it is difficult to argue that Canada requires an exceptionally large amount of capital per unit of production without acknowledging, at the same time, that a moderate decline in the rate of investment would have a modest effect on the rate of economic growth.
Moreover, there could well be the possibility that Canada could reduce its use of capital by changing its industrial structure. One important reason for the extensive use made of capital in the past, as the Provincial Bank observes, is the dependence of economic growth on abundant natural resources. "Raw materials exploita-
Foreign Investment Review Act tion demands a particularly capital-intensive system of production."
This implies that capital could be conserved by increasing the degree of processing of raw materials in this country before the commodities are exported, instead of depending for growth on the export of enlarged quantities of relatively unprocessed materials.
It is not necessarily the case, in any event, that a reduction in capital inflows must be balanced by a fall in investment. An alternative might be to encourage a higher level of domestic savings. While Canadians already save relatively more than the residents of the United States and Britain, the Canadian rate of savings is exceeded in a number of other countries.
The Canadian and Quebec Pension Plans are mechanisms that result in forced savings. Private pension plans and registered retirement plans also increase individual savings. An instalment share accumulation plan, such as is proposed by the Canada Development Corporation, might well turn out to be a successful method of persuading small investors to save more. Profit-sharing plans, already adopted by a number of companies, could be used more widely by industry; savings would be increased if employees could be persuaded to take part of their future earnings gains in company shares rather than in cash.
Care must be taken in offering tax incentives to save. Such incentives tend to benefit the more well-to-do, and increase the gap between the rich and the poor. But government, industry, and financial institutions have not exhausted all the possibilities for persuading individuals to defer consumption. A relatively small increase in the rate of savings would narrow, or close, the gap between domestic savings and investment.
The objective should not be to isolate Canada from world financial markets or to turn away foreign direct investment that could benefit this country. However, self-sufficiency in savings, on a net basis, would improve Canada's ability to function as an efficient, independent economic unit.
Studies of the stock market in the 1960's showed that random investment portfolios yielded an average of 9 per cent. Unless one can improve on the long-term 30 year average it must be admitted that the interest rate on long-term bonds is a carefree way to equal the result that can be achieved on average common stock investments.
I have attempted to detail how investment money for the small industrialist and entrepreneur is being dried up. Institutions controlling investment pools, with their head offices in Toronto and Montreal, cannot be bothered and cannot practicably look after the peripheral areas of the country. Can any one imagine a workers' corporate pension plan, with its head office in Toronto, being able to offer financing to a business worth $250,000 in a small prairie or maritime town? Our registered retirement savings plans, our insurance savings plans and our mutual funds all operate to pool capital centrally. If a small manufacturing business in southern Ontario or Quebec is having difficulty finding a buyer, and if it does not get a buyer, the plant will close but the owner will receive sympathetic consideration from this investment tribunal here in Ottawa. And with the help of these large pools of capital in our large cities, such cases will be easily looked after. But should a similar situation arise in either the Maritimes or western Canada there is a much different scenario. The tribunal will have much less knowledge of the facts of the case. They will be less interested. If they make any contacts with the pools of capital in our financial centres, these in turn will be much less interested in investments in remote areas. I could well imagine the bureaucrats suggesting to Toronto investors that "There is a company for sale in Manitoba worth $5 million. The only

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
buyers are foreigners. If you want to buy it, we can have it discounted for you at $3 million."
Mr. Speaker, if provinces had a say in the workings of this tribunal, they could prevent serious injury to the provinces. There are no provinces that can match the economic might of Ontario and Quebec. The Toronto Star knows that Ontario and Quebec can look after themselves. They are giants in their own right on the Canadian scene in a political way. As well as that, they have the investment capital available, not only of their own generation but of a good portion of the rest of the country as well.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, when we left the National Parks Act the other night I was discussing the proposed interprovincial national park between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec in the Mattawa-Temiscaming area. I mentioned that we had had considerable co-operation from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), but that the proposal for the park was turned down by the province of Ontario. One of the reasons they gave for this was that there were too many parks in that particular area already. However, in this debate we have heard some hon. members mention the large urban areas which are growing in northern New York State and in Canada and that these people are going to require more and more park space as the years go by. This is quite true, and we should be laying plans now to meet the demand.
I also mentioned that parks of this nature have a tendency to develop the economy surrounding them. In the area to which I am referring, the economy does need a shot in the arm. I made mention that an industry in each of the towns of Mattawa and Temiscaming had closed, but since then things are beginning to look better in other fields of activity in the locality. This is a good thing for both these communities. However, there is no park in eastern Ontario and western Quebec better fitted to be an interprovincial

national park than the one about which I am speaking. The Ottawa River would cross the middle of it and this would emphasize the need for cleaning up the river and making it navigable for small boats. With the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre), and other hon. members from eastern Ontario and western Quebec, I have been working on the navigation study for small boat traffic on the Ottawa River. We have had excellent co-operation from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube). This park, Mr. Speaker, would be an added feature toward making the Ottawa River valley an extremely good tourist region with a wider appeal than the local interest portrayed by the highway signs in the area.
In recent years, there has been a general tendency to spend large amounts of money on massive highway schemes surrounding the large cities while the remote regions of the country have not received the treatment that they deserve. In order to get tourists into an area there must be decent roads. This could mean upgrading highway 17 between Montreal and the Mattawa area as well as the North Bay and northern Ontario area in general, for example. This concept is in keeping with our history if we consider the mode of traffic used in the early days. Champlain came up the Ottawa River and the Northwest Company and the Hudson Bay Company eventually worked out of Montreal in the fur trade, taking their routes up the Ottawa Valley and the Mattawa River through the area proposed for this national park. We would like to see plans for this park go ahead so that we may relate it to the past and build a new history with some meaning in that region.
An old CFR railway line runs through this park area. When we made an initial tour of the area with departmental officials and other working committees, we hired a CPR coach and attached it to the back of a freight train which travels that line. We had an excellent tour, stopping at certain sites along the way and it was a most educational experience for all concerned. There was a time when people thought that railways were going out of style but that is not the case today. Indeed, the future of railways in Canada looks brighter than it has for years, and the idea of having trains take people through this park is an added attraction. It is also a pollution free means of getting people from point A to point B.
There is nothing wrong with trying to promote more funds for roads to get people from the large urban areas to the parks, of course. We hear a great deal about rapid transit for the cities these days. There is a strong possibility that the large amounts of money that have been pumped into the cities to build roads and expand freeways in the past may not be needed in the future because of rapid transit. Perhaps these funds could be filtered through to the less developed areas to build decent recreation areas and roads for the mass of people who will live in our urban centres in the future.
As far as the interprovincial national park at Mattawa and Temiscaming is concerned, I am disappointed that the province of Ontario has turned it down. I wish to leave the gate open so they can come back to it at a future time. There is a real potential there. It is an excellent chance for the federal and provincial governments to work together
November 26, 1973

on this consultative program. The other night the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) mentioned the fact that there should be more consultation between the federal government and the provinces concerned. In this case there was consultation between the federal government and the province, but it did not work out. It certainly was not the fault of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I appeal to the province of Ontario to re-assess the ideas of a national park in the upper Ottawa valley. I ask them to take a serious look at the proposal of the smaller land mass on the Ontario side for part of this park. I can see a great advantage in going into this hinterland which rests between northern and southern Ontario. Quite often we in this area find ourselves in the position of being not far enough north to become heavily involved in northern Ontario plans, but so far north that we are sometimes left out of southern Ontario plans. This is why, as time goes on, we will have to do more talking and promoting for our area.
We are the buffer zone between the north and the south and we can bring peace and harmony to both areas of Ontario. In this regard, I wish to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development not to give up this idea of a national park. I would like him to re-open negotiations with the province of Ontario. At the same time, I would like the province of Ontario to come to him with a constructive approach to this idea to see what can be worked out.
This proposal is not just for the establishment of an interprovincial national park, but would entail the uniting of two provinces. It would mean more facilities between the two provinces. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) and I have done a great deal of work on the future development of small boat traffic on the upper Ottawa river. This would complement a national park. It is another route to get into that area of the national park. If the Ontario government does not build highway 17 any faster than it has been building it for the past 30 years, it might be easier to get up the Ottawa river by the means used by Champlain rather than by travelling highway 17.
In conclusion, may I say the proposed park was an excellent idea. We are very disappointed it was not adopted. We would like the province and the federal government both to take another look at it and come up with the solution so that in the future the people of that area will be able to take advantage of the added road facilities, the added economic development around the park and the promotion of a rail line into the park, all of which will influence the general development of employment and business. At the same time, the park will be built in a community that will be known far and wide in the large urban areas of southern Ontario and the northern United States as being a place that is friendly, welcomes tourists and has all facilities. If the facilities are there, these people will want to come back.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is one of the few members of parliament who has been privileged to travel to a location in Canada that is very vitally concerned with a large portion of this bill, 8,500 square miles, to put it in precise
National Parks Act
terms. It will probably be the largest national park to be established in Canada in the Kluane region of the Yukon.
Many members do not appreciate the fact of all the members of this chamber, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and I come here in a triple capacity. This is because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is responsible for our municipal wellbeing. He is responsible for our territorial wellbeing in the sense that term is used in a provincial way. Of course, we are also here representing our constituents on the federal level. Having that responsibility under the terms of the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act, two federal statutes which set up these two separate territorial jurisdictions, whatever the minister does very vitally effects every level of government in both territories. Indeed, he is responsible and has the power to affect every level of government in both territories.
One of the themes I have been following since coming into this chamber is that the federal government has been remiss, and has sadly neglected, the two northern territories with respect to the establishment of national parks in those jurisdictions. I have also been saying repeatedly that the federal government should not simply embark on a frolic of its own, to unilaterally and arbitrarily carve out areas in these territories, without having any consultative process with the elected representatives of the people in the two territories. If the minister were here, he would say there has been this kind of process adopted in so far as the Yukon is concerned. I gainsay him on that. I do not believe that process has been followed.
One of the things I welcome is the fact we are now debating a stage in this bill which will result in it going to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for consideration by that committee which is scheduled to travel to the Yukon Territory on December 10 for the whole week. While there, that committee will hold public meetings, three if necessary. One will be at Whitehorse, one at Dawson City, which was classified as an area of national historic interest, and a third at Haines Junction which will be the hub of the national park proposed to be set up by this statute.
Let me comment here that I am continually amazed by the utter gall of this government. They say they want parliament to approve a national park in the Yukon, a national park in the Northwest Territories in the Nahanni area and on Baffin Island. However, for the past two years the government has been spending the taxpayers' dollars from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of proceeding with the development of all these parks, certainly the one in the Yukon, without approval by parliament of the bill now before us. We are, in effect, being asked to rubber stamp something the government has already committed millions of dollars to develop. It amuses me when I see in the bill provisions with respect to consultation. For example, the provision in clause 2 of the bill stipulates, and I quote:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation, amend the schedule by adding to any park described therein lands described in the proclamation where the Governor in Council is satisfied that

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
(b) agreement has been reached with the province in which the lands are situated that the lands are suitable for addition to a National Park;
The government's idea of consultation is that it should make a unilateral decision and, having made that decision, go to the other government concerned and ask: What are your views? Sotto voce, they say: We do not really care, because we have made up our minds, but we must go through the process of consultation. It is the same when it comes to the so-called consultative process involving the Indian people. I wonder how many of the organizations the government funded so that they might be set up for the purpose of dialogue have been consulted concerning the establishment of national parks at Kluane, at Nahanni, or on Baffin Island. I should say precious little. They make up their minds and, having done so, they disclose their plans. Then, they hear views which they call input, but these views do not change their decision one iota.
There is a still more serious objection which we take in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories, if I may presume to speak for my colleague in the New Democratic Party. In the north, in the two territories, all lands, for the most part, are owned by the government over which this House of Commons purports to exercise a measure of control. Clause two stipulates that the government may add land to any park provided it can reach an agreement with the province in which the land is situated. Now, according to the Interpretation Act, a statute of this parliament, a province is defined as including both territories. One would, therefore, assume that the same kind of agreement must be reached with each of the territorial governments as must be reached with the provinces before any extension of park boundaries can come about.
But it is the minister himself who is the government of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories. So, when it comes to the implementation of this clause he puts on his hat as federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and says to the Yukon or the Northwest Territories: I am obliged by this legislation to secure your agreement, since certain lands are situated within the boundaries of your jurisdiction, that it is in order to extend the boundaries of a national park. Then, he takes off his hat as federal minister and puts on his hat as minister responsible for the government of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and says to himself: I agree with you that the boundaries should be extended. That is the situation, and shows how ridiculous this kind of provision for consultation is as far as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are concerned.
The fact of the matter is that what the minister decides determines what will take place in those two northern territories. If he wants to extend the boundaries of the Kluane National Park from roughly 8,500 square miles to 207,031 square miles, indeed, the whole of the area of the Yukon Territory, and make it a people reserve, he can do just that. I am not arguing against the notion of a people reserve. Sometimes, when I have spent too long in these southern areas of Canada I think it would be a good idea to set up a people reserve, such as the Yukon is at the moment. But I do object to legislation such as this, supposedly intended to work throughout Canada for the bene-

fit of all Canadians, being designed to cover only provincial requirements without regard for any meaningful consultation or any-if I might use a phrase which seems, now, to have been discarded-any provision for participatory democracy being contained in it whatsoever.
Throughout the debate on whether or not federal parks should be established in the north, I have maintained that what the government should be doing, particularly when the acquisition of such a vast area of land and such a vast amount of potentially resource-rich reserve is under consideration, is first of all to make a careful assessment of the commercial and resource potential of that land before unilaterally and arbitrarily establishing the area as a park. I do not think this is being done. I do not think I am being unfair to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and his predecessors or to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his predecessors, when I charge them with failing to act in accordance with this very reasonable and logical approach. No real assessment has been made of the potential. The consequence is that in the Yukon, at any rate-I am not as familiar with the situation in the Territories-two very decided and discernible bodies of opinion have arisen. On the one hand, there are the conservationists and the environmentalists who want the park boundaries not only to remain as described in this bill, but to be extended still further. On the other hand, there are those who insist just as strongly that the boundaries are too wide and that within the vast area they enclose, potential exists for mineral development which should not be frozen by the action the minister is taking.
The question could easily be solved had the government followed the suggestion which has repeatedly been made to it, namely, that a resources inventory be taken within the boundaries of the land proposed as a national park. The committee will be hearing these opinions when it goes to the Yukon on December 10. It will be hearing opinions from the Yukon Conservation Society, the Yukon Resource Council, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines and many other interested individuals and organizations. These opinions will reflect both sides of the question. I see the minister present in the chamber, though not in his place. I know he will be most interested to hear what the committee has to say when it reports to the House.
There is another point I wish to mention. The minister- and 1 do not say this in a denigrating manner-came to the House after I did and he has made one or two statements, both here and in committee, which left the inference that I had in the past been opposed to the establishment of national parks in the Yukon and in the north generally and that I was now coming round to his way of thinking, particularly since the introduction of the bill before us. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If he is fair, after looking at past Hansards he will admit my position has been consistent throughout the 16 years I have sat here, namely that national parks are a requirement in this part of Canada as much as they are in the south. But for heaven's sake the logical approach should surely be to examine inventory resources and hold a public inquiry or hearing before their establishment.
November 26, 1973

This refuge was sought when I was saying to the government, of which the present minister was a member of the treasury benches, that there was no need to stall. I said the government could set up its national park in the Yukon now and that it did not have to wait. The minister's reply, and that of some of his officials was: "Well, we can't very well do that because there are now provisions in the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and in the Yukon Placer Mining Act which would permit mining activities to occur within park boundaries, because they, too, are federal statutes". And indeed they are.
I notice that in clause 11 of the bill the minister has very easily overcome the difficulty, as was suggested to him and his officials in committee, by inserting a subclause that would make the act establishing a park in the north operable notwithstanding any other act of parliament. This is in fact the recurring theme in clause 11. Subclause (2) states that the Governor in Council, which is the cabinet that is going to act on the recommendation of the minister, may after consultation with the council of the Yukon territory or the council of the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, by proclamation set aside as a national park of Canada, and so on, with publication in the Canada Gazette 90 days beforehand, etc.
Consultation in the sense that this bill contemplates consultation means simply nothing. The minister makes up his mind, and the decision having been taken, consultation is window dressing, at least as that word is used in the bill. The minister shakes his head but I have seen this happen so often with the Indian people. I do not know why he shakes his head. He knows full well that the cabinet comes to decisions, and these decisions are then communicated to the organizations concerned. In this case it would be to the Indian Brotherhood, or the Territorial Council, or what have you, and the government would ask: "What do you think of our decision? Isn't it a great thing?" Then, they listen either to kudos or to condemnation, but it does not change their mind one iota and the decision stands. This window dressing clause which says "after consultation" means nothing.
A few years ago when the minister was still in this portfolio but a little fresher than he is now, amendments came before the House to the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act. They had a rough time in committee, even though the government enjoyed a very much greater majority in committees than it does today. We went through this whole process of consulting with the people in the north before making decisions. The government wrote into the amendments to the Yukon Act and Northwest Territories Act the phrase "after consultation with the councils of the respective territories". It was meaningless. Why cannot the government say the same as in clause 2, namely, that there must be agreement with the councils of both territories? Of what is the government afraid? The last referendum taken in the council of the Yukon showed unanimous support in favour of the establishment of a national park. Is the government afraid it might get a negative response if the people of the north were asked to voice a deciding opinion and to make the establishment of the extension of boundaries conditional upon the consent
National Parks Act
or agreement of the two northern territories, as is the case with the provinces?
What about the consultative process of the government in terms of the energy talks with Alberta? That has been about as effective and as meaningful as the consultation phrase as far as this government is concerned. There was no consultation with the province of Alberta about the energy crisis we are now experiencing. I draw these contrasts to the attention of the House because not too many members have been to the northern territories. Not too many realize that the residents of these areas have the same kind of aspirations as any other Canadians. Not too many of them realize that in the territorial councils, which the minister taunts as having all the powers of a provincial legislature, there is less power than the average municipality has in this country.
The people in the north want to be heard. They want to be a deciding factor in any decisions that are made governing their future. They do not object to setting up a national park in the Yukon, but they do object to the minister making a decision and saying: "Here it is; this is what you get, like it or lump it", without any hearings being held. This is why I welcome the fact that this bill has come before the House at this stage, on the eve of the visit of the standing committee to several of the communities in the Yukon that will be very vitally affected by this bill if it passes in its present form.
Mining interests and resource interests are going to present their views in regard to the boundaries, as are the environmentalists. Some of the problems the minister will have to explain and some of the questions that the committee will be unable to answer when they visit there are these: What is going to happen to the dozens of mining claims that have been staked inside the boundaries proposed in the schedules to this bill? Dozens of mining claims have been staked under the provisions of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act; similarly dozens of claims have been staked and leases obtained under the provisions of the Yukon Placer Mining Act. When the committee goes to the Yukon people will say to the members of the committee: "What is the government going to do with respect to reimbursing us for the dollars and time we have spent developing these claims over the years?"
Then, there are people who hold leases on land used for purposes other than mining which is within the boundaries of the proposed park as set out in this bill. Other citizens hold licences to occupy lands within the boundaries of the park as set out in this bill. This committee is a body set up by parliament which will be inviting representations from people in the Yukon. What are the members of the committee going to say to those people when they ask: "Is the government going to pay us? How much money is the government going to give us? Is it going to expropriate our rights? When are the hearings going to be held?" What are we going to answer in reply to inquiries of this kind, the most natural kind of inquiry by people owning interests within the proposed boundaries?
One matter I have not mentioned and of which I know the minister is aware, is the growing body of resource opinion regarding the hydroelectric potential of the Alsek River. Here, I am told, is a natural drainage area which could be developed into a producer of hydroelectric power

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
in excess of that which is contemplated by the Aishihik project now under way in the Yukon. This was a project that was not even considered by the department when it made the decision to establish the boundaries of this park. Indeed, I am sure the project has only recently come to the minister's attention.
Members of the committee who visit the Yukon now would hear representations concerning such an approach. Having the view I have of the effectiveness of committees of this House as a whole, it is a little too much to hope that anything a committee does, anything it hears and anything it recommends as a result, would receive any worthwhile or meaningful consideration by the minister or this government. We have seen unanimous recommendations come out of committees, I might add not just with this minority government but in a previous majority situation, which have been sloughed aside by this minister and his Cabinet colleagues. Time after time during this session recommendations have come out of that committee, either unanimously or with a substantial majority, only to be ignored.


Mr. Woolliams:: That sounds like me.


Erik Nielsen: That is not the only example. We have just witnessed one of the greatest examples of this session in respect of the recommendations of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, also ignored by the government. Indeed, the minister thinks so much of this committee which passed a recommendation by a substantial majority, he decided to reverse that recommendation and nullify the effect of that committee's work. I ask you what the purpose is of committees. They waste hours, days and weeks of time, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers' money, in a useless and meaningless exercise, bringing recommendations to the attention of this House which are ignored and shoved aside by an unfeeling government. That is what this government means by the beautiful phrase "after consultation with". I only wish that meant something.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I agree with you.


Erik Nielsen: I also agree if it only meant something, but it means nothing. The minister knows it means nothing. If he really believed there should be consultation before coming to decisions, he would sit down with the representatives of the two councils concerned before any decision was made affecting the administration of affairs in the north. The minister cannot truthfully say he does that. He cannot truthfully say he makes these decisions concerning his responsibility for Indian affairs after consultation with the people most concerned, because he does not do that. This is on record and I could refer to many documents issued by his department which show that his department ignores this principle left, right and centre.
I am sure the minister sincerely wants to do a good job. He may even think he has achieved some success, and perhaps he is now thinking that if he can bring the James Bay situation out of the fire he will get a new portfolio that is a little less onerous but which provides a little more challenge.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is none better than this one.


Erik Nielsen: I agree with the minister on that, but he is not going to make a real success of things, such as Bill S-4 and his other responsibilities, until he takes more seriously the real desires of the people of the north who, after all, are not so much different from those people of his own province. Those people are fighting for an identity. Some of them in his province are fighting to get out of confederation, while we in the north are continuing to fight to get into confederation. We are always being put down, not only by the minister who is not 100 per cent to blame but by his officials and the bureaucrats. After all, if that structure disappeared so would his department. If the people of the north were given the same kind of decisionmaking power the minister is giving the provinces in Bill S-4, there would be no reason for the existence of the bureaucratic infrastructure of his department.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In 1969, I offered to cut my department in two but you refused.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says he offered to cut his department in two in 1969, but I do not recall that. I do not recall his ever having made such an offer to the Yukon Council or the Northwest Territories Council. I invite him to do so in order to see how quickly it would be snapped up. Let him make that offer to the people of the north, those of us who live there and those of us who are affected by these decisions. Let us make the decisions as they are made in the provinces. Make that offer to us and see how quickly we will snap it up. We think we are entitled to the same rights as the people of Biafra, Nigeria and other emerging nations of the world. Canada is one of the few nations of the world which still has a colonial government, and I refer to that government in the north.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member I should like to know if I heard him correctly. Is he calling for provincial status for the Yukon right now? I should like a simple answer, yes or no, as he asks of us once in a while. Are you asking for provincial status for the Yukon right now?


Erik Nielsen: I will give the minister an answer like we never get from members of the government benches. The answer is yes, we are ready for it now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: There is no pricetag on bureaucracy in the north and there is no population tag. We in the north are entitled to the same rights as other Canadians, and they are being kept from us by the minister. We on this side represent the only national party committed to that principle.
November 26, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) I should advise the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 40, the questions to be debated tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Canada Development Corporation- Reported statement by official that head office will not be located in Vancouver; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-National Defence-Damage to HMCS Resti-gouche-Reason for establishment of legal inquiry following initial inquiry report-Cost of repairs; and, the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Trade-Pulp- Discussion of possible purchases by Chinese with Prime Minister during visit.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate as the matter of national parks is of such concern to the province of Saskatchewan. That province has at this time one national park, Prince Albert National Park. Since the early 1960's we have heard a number of proposals relating to a park in southern Saskatchewan to be called the Grassland National Park. This proposal has caused a great deal of confusion and a great deal of concern on the part of the farming and ranching people in that area of southern Saskatchewan. This concern relates to the implications of the establishment of a park in that area for cattle and farming generally. It has also caused concern to many of the so-called nationalists in southern Saskatchewan who for years have been concerned about the grassland areas around Kildeer and Val Marie. They are concerned about the possible destruction of this natural grassland area by the influx of tourists.
In the short time at my disposal, I should like to make several suggestions to the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). Let me make several positive proposals in respect of what might be done to develop a national park in the area without disturbing the lifestyle of the people who have lived there for generations. Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary addressed the House on the second reading of this bill, he made the following statement which I wish to pursue at this time. He stated;
National Parks Act
In its broad concept, clause 2 provides a procedural simplification for dealing with park boundary adjustments. Let me assure you, however, that clause 2 does not authorize any deletions, however small, from parks. I should also like to emphasize that no new park can be established without the approval of Parliament.
I believe it to be absolutely fundamental that should this government or any government, be it Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic or Social Credit, on a federal level suggest the establishment of a new park within the Dominion of Canada it ought to be the right of any member of this House to stand up and speak up on the bill relating to the establishment of a park in his area. I am pleased to see, and I want to spell this out clearly for my constituents, that this legislation does not allow for the establishment of any park without parliamentary authority. Should any government present that kind of legislation, I will endeavour to stop such a bill with all the power I possess. It should be a fundamental rule that members have a right to express their opinion in respect of the establishment of any park, whether it is the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) or my colleague the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) or indeed members from southern Saskatchewan, where a proposed grassland national park has been mentioned on several occasions.
What are some of the historical developments related to the federal government's proposed grassland national park? Well, historically the events related to the establishment of the grassland national park began back at least in 1966. In 1966, under the Liberal Government of Saskatchewan, there was a suggestion to the federal government that that province was prepared to enter into the necessary land negotiations in order to establish the national park. In other words, the province was prepared to move in the direction of negotiating with the local farmers and ranchers in respect of the establishment of the grassland national park. This caused a great deal of concern to the people of southern Saskatchewan.
In 1967, the boundary proposed in the report prepared by the National Parks Service reduced the number of square miles for such a park from 640 square miles to 360 square miles. In 1967, the Deputy Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Davey Steuart, advised the federal government that, because of the ranching industry and the wildlife involved, there would be $2 million needed for land acquisition. Because of the cost involved in respect of such a park, Saskatchewan at that point in time was opposed to any further consideration of a grassland national park in Saskatchewan. However, in 1968 an economic impact study was undertaken in respect of this national park. It indicated that the benefits exceeded the cost. It was called the Kaplan report. For the minister's sake, I wish to deal with it in order to show that this report, which was put out by a group out of Montreal, was the most outrageous piece of nonsense that has ever been written under the guise of an economic impact study. This report probably did more to stop the development of any proposed park in that area than any other document that was prepared.
In 1969, the Premier of Saskatchewan, at that time Mr. Thatcher, advised that the province would be prepared to reopen discussions if the following points were met: min-

November 26, 1973
Energy Resources Policy
eral rights remain with Saskatchewan; 20-year phasing out for grazing-in other words the farmers and ranchers in the area were to have no future-and federal financial assistance in respect of land acquisition. From 1969 to 1970, negotiations and discussions continued between the two levels of Liberal government. In 1971, a meeting was held in Saskatchewan between the ranchers and the Minister of National Resources of the province to update the ranchers on where matters stood at that time. This meeting was held under the auspices of the new NDP government. In October 1971 the Minister of Mineral Resources of the province of Saskatchewan advised that there had been a change in policy, and that the government did not have the positive attitude towards the development of this park based on the proposals made in the Kaplan report as did the previous government.
In October 1971, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) suggested there be a meeting of federal and provincial officials to carry out the following proposals: identify a core area for each of the two-park components; minimize interruption of ranching and interruption of grazing which might be discontinued; identify outer boundaries of the ultimate park to be realized over a period of time with ranching to continue on the basis of the life tenancy of those ranchers not wishing to sell. It was suggested that if a park were established in the 360 square mile area, then the proposed legislation now before us would give the government the power through Order in Council to extend the boundaries without bringing the matter before parliament. This could have a detrimental effect on the area of southern Saskatchewan where the park is proposed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William George Knight: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings now before the House. These proceedings will be resumed later this day. Pursuant to an order made on Friday, November 23, the House will now revert to motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in describing Canada's crude oil and products supply situation to this House on November 1, I said that the exact magnitude of the possible oil import curtailment which we might face was uncertain. Stock levels were in delicate balance across the country, with the possible exception of residual fuel oil in British Columbia. Any curtailment would pose problems of supplying some regions of the country and, therefore, I announced the steps the government was then taking to

assess our ability to meet, and to lay plans for dealing with, any shortfalls.
While there are still some uncertainties with respect to the depth of shortfalls we shall suffer, we have, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced on Thursday evening, decided that the facts now warrant embarking upon a voluntary program of energy conservation immediately to be followed by a program of mandatory allocations to be in place early in the new year.
Eastern Canada is totally dependent on imported crude oil and products. British Columbia has historically relied upon some importation of heating oil and residual fuel from the United States. The Arab nations have, until recently provided eastern Canada with 30 per cent of its crude oil supplies. This has amounted to about 300,000 barrels per day. The direct impact of Arab production cutbacks of 25 per cent would, therefore, be 75,000 barrels a day or about 7.5 per cent of our needs in eastern Canada. The cutbacks of 25 per cent of Arab production, however, represent a fall of 20 per cent in total world supply. Canada will have to share, not only in the direct cutback from Arab sources but in the general world shortfall. We may, therefore, suffer a loss, if world shortfalls are shared equally, of up to 200,000 barrels a day. Further, the Arab states have stated their intention of further reductions at the rate of 5 per cent per month from December. Our ultimate shortfall will clearly depend on the speed with which Middle East problems are resolved, but could be in excess of 20 per cent or over 200,000 barrels a day. While it is true, I have said, that our stock positions were adequate and, indeed, held up to 45 days supply of oil products in inventory, even if the Arab nations resumed full production tomorrow at pre-war levels, it is the government's judgment that the situation warrants the actions which I am announcing tonight.
Before describing the nature of the voluntary and mandatory programs, I would like to list the actions we have been taking, some of which have been announced in this House and some of which were alluded to by the Prime Minister both to ease and manage supply shortfalls.
On November 1, I announced the formation of the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand under the chairmanship of the National Energy Board. This committee has been meeting weekly to examine supply and demand slates, to determine stock trends and to provide advice to the government with respect to the over-all supply situation. First, we have sought out and purchased, on government account, supplies of products in world markets. Second, shipments of western Canadian crude oil by Seaway from Sarnia to Montreal, which averaged 17,000 barrels a day in September, will average close to 100,000 barrels a day in November, and will continue at this rate until the Seaway closes. Third, we are organizing and co-ordinating a substantial movement of crude oil and products by rail and truck following the closing of the Seaway. Fourth, we are organizing the movement in excess of 50,000 barrels a day of western crude via the Trans Mountain Pipe Line to Vancouver and via ship through the Panama Canal to Montreal. Sixth, re-arrangements have been made in Trans-Northern product pipeline flows to augment product supplies in eastern
November 26, 1973

Ontario. Capacity will be available for the movement of about one third of the heating oil requirements of the Ottawa area.
Despite these arrangements, we cannot guarantee that the oil that has been and will be lost in the Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic markets can be replaced. The impact of these shortages, particularly of heating oil, will begin to be felt immediately but will be particularly severe in late winter and early spring. I should also note that while we may not experience any immediate shortage of gasoline, the loss of crude oil, together with refiners' efforts to maximize the production of heating oil from available crude are both occurring in a period when stocks of gasoline would normally be refurbished. In the spring, this failure to replenish stocks may be felt in inadequate gasoline supplies.
At the same time that a shortage of international petroleum supplies has been developing, there has been a sharp increase in the price of crude oil coming to Canada from overseas. In his statement to the House of September 4, the Prime Minister indicated that eastern refiners would be permitted to pass on to consumers increased costs resulting from increase in international prices. I have been advised that the costs experienced by eastern refiners have increased again this month, and I have therefore acceded to requests for increases in product prices in that part of the market to be effective December 1. Increased costs vary from refiner to refiner but the average increase is anticipated to be between four cents and five cents a gallon for motor gasoline.
I would like to make one further observation before describing the program of voluntary conservation in which I would urge all Canadians to engage. Eastern Canada and, to a lesser extent, British Columbia, will feel the shortages most. We do not anticipate any shortage in the prairies, but Ontario will feel the effects of our efforts to distribute product supplies equitably. While the mandatory allocation program which I am announcing will deal only in those allocations and those areas where necessary and practical, I am urging all Canadians to embrace the program of voluntary restraint. Oil conserved in the Prairies, for instance, even if it may be transported to other regions only with some difficulty, may yet provide us some needed options in meeting our difficulties.
I would now like to talk about the voluntary program we propose. In my statement of November 1, I concluded by requesting Canadian consumers, municipalities, heavy industry and provincial governments to study means of reducing consumption of energy on a voluntary basis. Since that time, I have received numerous letters from industry indicating the measures they were implementing or planning to implement in order to increase the energy efficiency of their operations. Many provincial and municipal governments have already undertaken voluntary conservation measures, and indeed some governments and industries have gone further than this and launched campaigns to heighten individual awareness of the ways by which energy can be conserved and the savings that can result from voluntary co-operation. I am deeply appreciative of these actions.
Tonight I would like to detail for you some of the measures that the federal government is introducing to
Energy Resources Policy
reduce its own energy consumption, and to speak more specifically about some of the ways in which other Canadians can voluntarily reduce their consumption of energy.
To heat its buildings, the federal government uses about 2 per cent of all the heating oil used in Canada. As a government, we are taking steps to reduce our fuel oil requirements. The Department of National Defence has already undertaken a program designed to achieve substantial cutbacks in fuel requirements, both at home and abroad.
The Department of Public Works has developed a detailed set of guidelines which it will apply to the buildings it administers, and these guidelines will be applied to other federal properties as well, with appropriate modifications in special circumstances. The guidelines recommend that, depending on the nature and the size of building, temperatures be maintained at a maximum of 68 degrees to 70 degrees between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays and 63 degrees to 65 degrees between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m. on weekdays. These lower temperature settings would also prevail on weekends and holidays. As well, the guidelines include detailed suggestions to improve the operating efficiency of heating plants, and to reduce ventilation. At the end of my statement I should like to table a copy of these guidelines.
I should like to stress that these guidelines have been prepared in such a way that they will provide the maximum possible saving with the least amount of discomfort. Indeed, I suspect that many people will find their working conditions more comfortable. We expect that, on average, the actions we propose to take will result in a reduction in federal fuel oil requirements of 18 per cent. Action has already been taken to implement these guidelines and to support them with a co-ordinated reporting and monitoring system.
The savings that we expect in the federal government's own consumption of petroleum are large in percentage terms, but it must be remembered that the federal government's share in total petroleum consumption is fairly small. If we are to significantly reduce the impacts of the foreseen shortages by voluntary measures-as I believe every Canadian wishes to do-then we will require the help of all Canadians.
I am pleased to announce that I met with the energy ministers of the provinces last Friday and believe I have their co-operation in extending the federal guidelines to their own properties to the fullest extent possible.
Tonight, I would strongly urge commercial and industrial enterprises to examine the guidelines set by the Department of Public Works for temperature and ventilation control and to implement them, with modification where necessary, as soon as possible. I would like to stress again that the adoption of these guidelines will result in a minimal loss of comfort and may, in some cases, increase comfort. I know that many of us have experienced overly warm stores when shopping and this is particularly true in the pre-Christmas season when stores are very congested and customers warmly dressed. I would anticipate that reducing temperatures in these circumstances will increase the comfort of the customer, while not seriously inconveniencing sales personnel.
8140

November 26, 1973
Energy Resources Policy
While I am appealing to commercial and industrial users of energy, I would like to make one further point. Industry is expected to observe the guidelines on comfort heating and to improve its efficiency wherever possible in the use of process energy. However, in anticipation of the serious implications which a reduction in industrial process energy could have on the economy as a whole, more particularly in terms of output and employment, industry is not being asked to reduce manufacturing output under this voluntary program.
Industrial and commercial users use almost 25 per cent of total heating oil in Canada, and if significant savings can result in these sectors, we will move a long way toward reducing the shortages that face us. However, Mr. Speaker, the largest single use of heating oil in Canada is for residential heating, and the success of any voluntary conservation program must ultimately rely on the co-operation of individual Canadians in reducing their own space heating requirements.
In the case of large buildings accommodating many people, maximum temperature settings are constrained by the diverse requirements of the many people using a building. Individuals in their residences are freer to adjust temperatures to their own preferences. I would urge that as a minimum individuals maintain temperatures no higher than 68-70 degrees during the day, and about 5 degrees lower at night or when the dwelling is unoccupied. At the same time, I hope that across the country we might achieve average temperature reductions of 5-7 degrees in residences.
I want to emphasize, too, to the Canadian consumer, that saving fuel is saving money. Estimates of savings vary, and depend on such factors as the heat retention capabilities of the building and furnace efficiency. To achieve maximum possible savings, I would again like to table a standard check list of the important steps that can be taken, and I would request each Canadian who is in any way responsible for space heating to put them into practice as soon as possible. It is generally agreed that for each degree drop in temperature fuel savings of 2 per cent to 3 per cent are likely to be achieved. If the target I have set tonight, a 5-7 degree drop in average temperatures, can be attained, Canadian consumers can realize fuel savings of 10 per cent to 15 per cent. There are many different ways of expressing savings of this magnitude.
One way is to tell you that over this winter it can amount to as much as 375 million gallons of heating oil, but I expect that most of you would not find that terribly meaningful. A better measure is perhaps to point out that in dollar terms this saving would amount to about $125 million. But perhaps the most meaningful information I can give you is to put it on an individual basis. An average Canadian household, achieving the targets set tonight, might reduce its winter fuel bill by some $35 to $50, and the oil saved might provide an extra three to four weeks of petroleum supply at the end of the winter season when we expect the impact of the shortages to be most severe.
Next to space heating, the second major area of energy conservation relates to motor gasoline. I have already referred to the gasoline supply position that confronts us
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
this winter, and next spring and summer. At the same time you are all aware, from stories in the press, of what the response to gasoline shortage has been in the United States and some European countries.
We have discussed with the provinces the considerations involved in a mandatory reduction of highway speed limits. Such an action would involve considerable expense for provincial governments and we have concluded that it would not, at the moment, be justified. The question of curtailing driving on certain days or at certain times is a difficult one. On balance it seems to us more equitable, if shortages turn out to be critical enough to warrant it, to ration gasoline and let each motorist determine his own driving times, rather than arbitrarily to impose bans on driving which might fall unequally on some people.
The necessity to reconsider these decisions and to impose legislative restrictions on motor vehicle use will depend on the success of voluntary actions to conserve gasoline. It has been estimated that a reduction in speed from 70 mph to 50 mph will result in a gasoline saving between 20 per cent and 40 per cent. Although no legislation is being sought at this point I would urge Canadians, in the strongest possible terms, voluntarily to reduce highway driving speeds to 50 mph. As well, I would again like to table at the end of this statement a standard check list of some of the more important conservation measures motorists can take.
I also want to note that I am not tonight making any specific requests of the transportation sector of the economy. We would not at this time like to see any interruption or serious slowdown in the flow of goods. At the same time we believe these goods should be moved in the most energy efficient manner that is economically feasible, and I would ask the transportation industry to examine its use of energy and to make cutbacks where possible.
Government is initiating steps to ensure that the voluntary guidelines I have proposed will be applied to official vehicles, subject to operational limitations. In addition, actions have been undertaken by the Ministry of Transport to ensure that fuel is used efficiently in commercial air flights, and to assess the saving potential of increased railroad operations in urban areas in an attempt to reduce commuter traffic on the road.
Before leaving this subject I want to speak specifically about car pools, since they are potentially a tremendous source of savings. Calculations suggest that the formation of a four-man car pool and the elimination of three cars driving five miles to a work site could save two gallons of gasoline per day, 40 gallons of gasoline per month, and $6 per person per month. Between now and next summer the saving from one such car pool could be 240 gallons of gasoline and $40 per person for fuel alone. These savings are considerable and tonight I am urging employers, including all levels of government, to take whatever steps they can to assist the formation of car pools. Such actions might range from co-ordinating and organizing car pools, to giving parking spaces on a preferential basis and, if necessary, to examine the possibility of adjusting working hours and shifts. It has been estimated that the conscientious pursuit of conservation measures can yield savings in motor gasoline of anywhere from 15 per cent to 25 per cent over the next year. A 20 per cent saving would result
November 26, 1973

in a saving to the nation of up to 3.75 million gallons of gasoline per day, and an annual saving to the average motorist of as much as $100.
I would like now to say a few words about electric power. In almost every household there are a number of appliances that are major consumers of electricity. In many homes electricity provides space heating as well as hot water. There is no question in my mind that in the longer run we must learn to use our energy resources, all of our energy resources, wisely and efficiently. In the context of the immediate dislocations facing us, however, the conservation of electricity poses special problems. In many parts of Canada, particularly in eastern Canada, electricity is generated by burning petroleum products. In these areas it is essential that conservation measures be actively pursued. In other regions of Canada where the generation of electricity does not depend on petroleum, supply appears to be more than adequate. In these areas it may appear to make sense to use electricity to economize on petroleum products, by such measures as using space heaters in homes. In fact, such actions might seriously strain the capacity of the system and result in service interruptions.
Because the situation is so complex, and because the large and inter-related power networks in Canada make it difficult for the average Canadian to know what the source of his electricity is, I have asked the Energy Minister of the provinces, through their electric utilities, to develop information programs to advise the Canadian consumer on what actions would be appropriate this winter in their regions. I would hope that in this process the utilities would bear in mind substitutions that might be implemented. For example, I am mindful of the security reasons for much of the commercial lighting we see at night. Nevertheless, if commercial lighting requirements would be kept to the minimum necessary, it might, where advisable, be possible for consumers to make more use of electrical space heaters and electric blankets without seriously straining the capacity of the electrical system.
One of the colourful aspects of the Canadian scene at this time of year is the outdoor lighting of homes and commercial establishments to mark the Christmas season. At the risk of being designated as "The Grich who stole Christmas," I would ask individual Canadians, and especially businessmen, to act with restraint this year. If full use of such lighting could be confined to the several days surrounding the festival, significant savings could be achieved.
The measures we are asking the Canadian people to adopt tonight are the result of an intensive evaluation process in which we have tried to isolate the most significant and least disruptive sources of energy saving. I want to emphasize that there are several possible measures that we are not asking for at this time. These include daylight saving time, legislated speed limit reductions, curtailment of Sunday driving, and some measures that other countries have adopted or are considering. Some of these we have avoided because the energy savings would not be that great; others because the potential gains, in our opinion, would be outweighed by the disruptions that would result in the lives of many Canadians.
Energy Resources Policy
I would be wrong, however, to conclude that because we have stopped short of what other countries have done the situation in Canada is not serious. It is indeed serious. It is important, in any serious situation, to maintain a sense of balance, to keep matters in a proper perspective. We hope that we can meet the challenge that faces us without imposing major hardships on any Canadian. But to succeed we must have the full support of all Canadians.
I wish I could give this House the assurance that, given our assessment of the oil supply situation, the saving which will flow from the voluntary conservation program would be sufficient to make a program of mandatory allocations at the wholesale level unnecessary. I can assure the House and all Canadians that a faithful pursuit of the conservation practices I have urged will substantially reduce both the magnitude and duration of the short fall we shall experience. Unfortunately, both our assessment of the probable degree of shortage and the growing inequities which begin to appear in any distribution system when products are in short supply, has convinced us that a mandatory program will be necessary.
I shall be introducing legislation to support the creation of mandatory authority and shall have an opportunity on that occasion to describe more fully the government's intent. I wish only to indicate tonight the major features of this legislation.
First, under the legislation, an Energy Supplies Allocation Board, at the direction and with the approval of the Governor in Council, will have the authority to make allocation directives to ensure equitable distribution of all petroleum products to wholesalers. The legislation will permit the Governor in Council to extend the board's authority to other energy products when and if this might be deemed necessary. Wholesalers will be expected to allocate products equitably to their customers, subject to priorities in allocation to be determined by the government.
Second, in establishing these priorities it will be the government's intention to strike an appropriate balance between the physical comfort and economic health of Canadians. The board will be composed of five people. Two will be representatives of provinces, one of consuming and one of producing provinces. One will represent industry and there will be two federal representatives, one of whom will be primarily concerned to represent the interests of Canadians as consumers.
Third, the board, upon its creation, will assume the direction of the government's efforts and will be responsible for completing the planning for the management of the allocation program as well as assuming the responsibility for the co-ordination of all voluntary efforts.
I have referred earlier to the possibility of gasoline rationing. I wish to emphasize that the mandatory allocation program I have described will not, at the present time, include rationing. The Energy Supplies Allocation Board will have the authority under the act to develop and implement rationing schemes that will apply at all levels including the retail level. The government will request the implementation of such rationing schemes only if the severity of shortages would appear to warrant it.
26695-3i

November 26, 1973
Energy Resources Policy
Finally, I would remind the House that the programs which I have described tonight are designed to deal with shortages brought about by cutbacks in Arab production and therefore, in world supplies. There will be a critical need for these programs until such time as, and only until such time as, world supplies return to normal levels and inventories are replenished. In the meantime, given Canada's relative wealth of energy resources, the government is taking and will continue to take every measure to reduce our vulnerability to foreign supply interruption.
I would suggest, however, that the voluntary conservation measures which I have urged tonight will not only help to alleviate our immediate problems, but have longer run application. We may, in retrospect, look upon the winter of 1973 as the time when each of us became conscious of what has been called the conservation ethic and the understanding that by a rearrangement of priorities and outlook, our life styles would not suffer any critical damage, but might, on the other hand, be substantially enhanced.
Mr. Speaker, I have the three lists, namely, Conservation of Energy in Federal Buildings, Conservation of Energy in the Home and Conservation of Energy in the use of Motor Vehicles. I should like now to table these and I would ask, if the House would give its consent in order that they be distributed, that they might be made an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister is suggesting that certain documents be appended to Hansard. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For text of documents referred to above see appendix A.]


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my comments in reply to the minister this evening must be, first of all, on the shocking revelation that the shortage we expected just a few weeks ago of
75,000	barrels a day or thereabouts as being equivalent to our share of the Arab cutback, now turns out to be 200,000 barrels a day. Even being more generous with the figures and allowing for 30 per cent of the 300,000 barrels a day we import from the Middle East, the maximum reduction we should have had to endure was 90,000 barrels a day. We could have looked after that with an all-out effort in this country. Now, we are given the information that we have to find and make up for two-thirds of the total amount of oil imported from the Middle East. I think a lot of questions have to be asked on this point, Mr. Speaker. Where did the 125,000 barrels a day shortage come from? Was it some concession that was made months ago with OECD that not only do we share our own shortages but some of the others as well. These are questions that I think the minister will have to answer, and I hope he stays in the House for the full 20 minute question period to answer them.
Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say about the voluntary part of the program. There is not much challenge to Canadians in this-no Churchillian phrases here. In fact, if the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. 
Diefenbaker) were in my place he would probably be describing the old-fashioned custom of his day of "bundling" which the minister and I are too young to appreciate.
I do not want to go through a long list of nitpicking suggestions that could be added to the program of voluntary proposals, Mr. Speaker, but in all seriousness I would suggest to the minister and to the government that they not forget the little proposal I made some weeks ago of having the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) immediately state that he would like to give the same sort of reduction and accelerated depreciation to fuel storage units in small towns in eastern Canada, as has been given to large companies. The shortage is going to be with us for some time and an announcement of this type could encourage some of these people to build up storage of heating oil in the summertime when it is not being used so that they would not have to reply on supplies from the big storage facilities in the cities during the winter.
Many years people all over the world have been putting forward ideas for getting more gasoline mileage from their motor vehicles by improving carburetion and so forth, but we have no way of knowing what happens to these ideas. The same thing happens with regard to furnaces and insulation in our homes. I know that there is more information over at the National Research Council on insulation than 90 per cent of the people of Canada know about. We have this practice in Canada of putting our research on the library shelves.
I should like to direct some remarks now to the question of the mandatory program. In answer to questions from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) a few weeks ago, the minister flatly stated at page 7547 of Hansard for Nov. 5:
A mandatory program is now under preparation but it is not expected to be required.
That was 2Vi weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. I should like the minister to listen to his reply when the Leader of the Opposition asked if this was based on consultation. As recorded at page 7548 of Hansard, the minister said:
I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition, who has had his mouth open through most of my speech rather than his ears, that we are talking about a program which we do not expect will come into existence-
I ask all members of the House and all members of the Canadian public-whose eyes should be opened, whose ears should be opened and whose mouth should be shut?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This government has consistently refused to face up to the possibility of supply shortages from the Middle East. I pointed out to the minister previously in this House that he can go back to questions asked in the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, and he can go back to questions asked in this House by members of this party and members of the New Democratic Party about the Montreal pipeline. He can find all sorts of questions about getting supplies from Venezuela, Nigeria and all the rest of it. Always the minister replied that these will not be necessary; there will be lots of supply. At the end of my
November 26, 1973

remarks I will ask for permission to table a list of these questions and answers for the record, so that it will be in Hansard and the minister can easily find it in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I mentioned the Montreal pipeline. I hope no one in this House believes for a moment that all we have to do is get through this winter. Montreal is in serious trouble. All of eastern Canada is in serious trouble, and will be for many years to come. On September 4, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned the decision to build the Montreal pipeline. It is now 2>/2 months later, November 26, and still there has been no action. We have the confusion raised by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) who pointed out there was not any steel to build a pipeline this year or next.
I suggest that the position taken by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is good. In 1961 this party issued a national oil policy which at that time was the right policy for Canada. It saved the western oil industry and gave Canada selfsufficiency today which has saved us from the fate our neighbours to the south are facing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In 1969, two years after the Arab-Israeli outbreak, our party met in conference at Niagara Falls. We put forward official resolutions of the party calling for a Montreal pipeline to transport 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day to make sure people would not be cold in the winter. There was no reaction from the government until September 4, 1973. Thers was no reaction of a positive source from the media. All they have said is that westerners are trying to provide us with more oil in the east. I ask this simple question of all members of the House: Where was the Liberal Party when Montreal and Eastern Canada was endangered? We know where they were: they were interested in every other thing but the economics of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In 1969 our party asked for a change in the national oil policy of 1961. We still do not have an oil policy from this government. One of the very small parts of that oil policy, although an important part, is the Montreal pipeline. I say to the government, on behalf of this party and, I hope, on behalf of all Canadians: build the pipeline now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My
questions in the committee hearings of January and February were ignored. We had the statement by the Prime Minister on September 4. Two and a half months later, still no action. The government is discussing the financing with a private company, Interprovincial Pipe Line. I say, get out and arrange the finances even if the government itself has to build and pay for it. If the government can allocate power and ration gasoline, it can allocate the steel from our steel plants and we can get the project under
Energy Resources Policy
way. Any government with a sense of urgency would have a pipeline built in 14 months, ready for the fall of 1974. Completion of this Montreal pipeline by 1974 would be timed perfectly for the looping of the Interprovincial Pipe Line west. We would have the capacity flowing through. Why should the people of Montreal and all of eastern Canada have to worry each winter for several years while this government dithers, procrastinates and does everything to pose-arrogant at one time; Uriah Heep the next? I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have said enough to make this country aware that it is about time we had a change of ministers on the government side of the House.
May I have the permission of the House to table this fundamental document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules of the House do not provide for the tabling of documents by private members.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the House would consent to the list of questions and answers forming part of the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They don't want the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the House can do anything by consent-or just about anything. Obviously, though, the hon. member's suggestion, which would require unanimous consent, does not have unanimity.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, both the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the nation last Thursday night, and the speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to the House this afternoon, gave the impression of a government which had been taken by surprise in finding this country in the throes of an energy crisis. The fact is that this government has been made aware time and time again that we were heading for the present mess in which this country finds itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The problems the country faces with regard to a shortage of oil is the result of the failure of this government to formulate and implement an oil policy. Canada is now going to be required to eat the bitter fruits of this government's procrastination.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One of the reasons we find ourselves in this difficult situation is that we have no delivery system to convey western crude to eastern Canada. Canada is one of the two nations in the world which is self-sufficient in oil and gas supplies, and successive governments have received adequate warning about the vulnerability of our position in the absence of a suitable system for conveying western crude to eastern Canada.

November 26, 1973
Energy Resources Policy
During the period I was associated with the government of Saskatchewan, my colleagues and I joined with the Independent Petroleum Producers Association in urging the Conservative government of that day to build a pipeline from Montreal. Since I came back to the House of Commons in 1962 I have made repeated representations to the government on this matter, to the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and to preceding ministers in charge of that department. The Independent Petroleum Producers have come before the government repeatedly, drawing attention to the necessity for making secure the oil supply to eastern Canada.
As late as June 28 last, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tabled the report on energy. On page 14 of that report we read-I suppose the report is speaking for the government-that the threat to security of supply is not sufficient to warrant building a pipeline to Montreal. Yet within a few weeks the Prime Minister, on September 4, announced that the government was in favour of building such a pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the Prime Minister talked, as he did the other night on the air, about planning ahead, one wonders where this planning is. We have been promised a national oil policy statement for several years. I know of nothing which has had a longer gestation period than the government's oil policy. They started out to put such a policy together four years ago. We have been promised it year after year. We are still waiting for it. The Prime Minister says now that there will be a national oil conference of first ministers in January. If he is correctly reported in the press, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says he expects nothing more concrete than a policy-and I quote-"evolving as a reality throughout 1974".
What we have seen as a substitute for an oil policy has been a series of ad hoc decisions responding to a series of crises. When some of us in this party warned the government that oil and gasoline were being sent out of the country because of a shortage in the United States, we were ignored and accused of scaremongering tactics. Finally, the government imposed export controls. We pointed out that rising prices in the United States were enabling the oil companies to realize windfall profits. The government finally woke up to the situation and on September 4 imposed a temporary price freeze and put on an export tax.
In recent months, almost every other day we have asked the minister to tell us which alternative sources of oil it is proposed to utilize in the event some of the OPEC countries, particularly the Arab states, refused to make supplies available to us. These questions were set aside with Pollyanna statements that all was well and there was no need to worry. Now we find ourselves in the position where none of the major decisions has been taken with respect to an oil policy.
The minister has not yet told us what the price structure is to be when the freeze is removed. He has not yet told us whether the government intends to set up a national energy corporation and, if so, what its functions and powers will be. He has not told us how he proposes to

develop, in conjunction with the oil producing provinces, the oil sands and the shale deposits. We still do not know the position the government will take with regard to the development of these last great reservoirs of oil a resource which Canada must develop if we are not to face an even more serious energy crisis in the future.
Let there be no doubt about the reason we face an oil shortage at the present time. It is because the government has failed to produce an oil and gas policy. And there is no immediate prospect of one being produced unless hon. gentlemen opposite decide to move much more quickly than they have done up to now.
I appeal to the Prime Minister not to wait until January to call-


Some hon. Members:: An election.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -a national energy conference. I see no reason why the first ministers could not meet some time in December. I see no reason why the government could not take an immediate decision with reference to the construction of a pipeline to Montreal so that work could begin next spring and we could look forward to its completion before the end of 1975.
The minister has put forward certain proposals, and I wish to comment on them briefly. He said he would establish an energy supplies allocation board which would be responsible for allocating oil supplies at the wholesale level. There is no doubt such a board will be needed, and that the government will have to intervene to make sure that supplies are allocated to areas where they are most required and to see they are distributed fairly. Members of this party would, of course, have preferred to see some type of marketing mechanism. If the government had taken the advice of the energy report that the minister placed before the cabinet last April, the suggestion made by the department that a national energy corporation be set up, we might not be in the situation in which we find ourselves today.
I hope that when the legislation is brought down, the minister will be prepared to tell us what plans the government has made with respect to allocating oil supplies so as to minimize the amount of unemployment which is bound to arise if industries are not able to get adequate supplies of energy. I hope the minister will also tell us, when the legislation comes down, what provision he intends to make to ensure that the independent wholesalers are able to get supplies.
The minister told us in his statement he will make sure that the wholesalers distribute the oil equitably. But will the allocation board ensure that the oil is distributed equally to the wholesalers? Everyone knows that the independent wholesalers depend on the independent oil companies for their oil and that they only get it when the major companies have a surplus. Many of these independent wholesalers service important sections of the Canadian public. We sbfdl be anxious to secure from the minister an undertaking that the independent wholesalers will be able to get a fair share of the oil so that their customers will not suffer.
I note that the minister has acceded to the request that the price of gasoline in the eastern areas of Canada be
November 26, 1973

raised between four and five cents a gallon. I want to point out that the burden of this increase will fall upon that part of Canada which can least afford to carry it. That is why we in this party have pleaded for a national petroleum corporation which would be the sole purchaser of imported and domestic oil, so as to pool all oil and equalize prices right across Canada.
When the minister brings down his legislation, I hope he will tell us how he proposes to deal with the particular problem faced by the province of British Columbia. In that province all of the refineries are geared to producing gasoline. The practice over the years has been to send Canadian oil which comes through the Trans Mountain Pipe Line, to the United States for refining and they sell back to British Columbia the diesel fuel, the middle distillates and the bunker fuel.
Recently it has become increasingly difficult to secure these petroleum products. In British Columbia they have gasoline running out of their ears, but they are having difficulty getting middle distillates, diesel fuel, home heating oil and bunker fuel. At this very moment, in my constituency, a ship with bunker oil is being unloaded. This oil is for one of the mills and is made from Canadian oil that has been processed in the United States, and they are paying $9 a barrel for this bunker oil. Surely this is a matter the minister will have to look into. Otherwise the people on Vancouver Island in particular will be cold this winter because they will not be able to get adequate supplies of home heating fuel.
I agree with the minister when he says we should try allocation of oil supplies at the wholesale level first before resorting to rationing. It is less cumbersome and administratively much easier. If it becomes necessary, of course, we can then look at the situation with respect to rationing. The other set of proposals that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made related to an appeal to the Canadian people to impose upon themselves voluntary restraints in the consumption of energy. I have no doubt at all that the Canadian people will respond as they always have to a challenge to work together to solve a problem, because it is in our common interest to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: While I criticize the government, as I have done repeatedly, for its lack of an oil policy, when we are in the situation in which we find ourselves today it is the duty of every good Canadian to co-operate with the government in trying to reduce discomfort and inconvenience to a minimum. However, the minister is going to have some difficulty telling the people of Ontario, for instance, that they should shut off their Christmas-tree lights when Ontario Hydro has asked for permits from the National Energy Board to increase its export of electricity to the United States by over one-third. What makes the situation even worse, Mr. Speaker, is that while the National Energy Board has approved the application and sent it to the government for ratification, the board in the meantime, I am told, has issued emergency permits. It will be very difficult to tell the Canadian people that they have to
Energy Resources Policy
turn off their lights at the same time as we are increasing our electricity exports by more than one-third.


Mitchell William Sharp: What is wrong with selling electricity to the Americans?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I understood the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) correctly, he asked what was wrong with exporting power. I say that it is somewhat illogical to be increasing exports of power by more than one-third at the same time as you are asking the people of the country to turn down the lights. In addition, the minister recommended that we should take the sofa away from the walls and the windows, and also be might have suggested that when young people sit on the sofa they turn the lights out altogether!
It is also going to be difficult to explain to the people who live west of the Ottawa Valley why they should be curtailing their consumption of oil at the same time as we are exporting more than half of our supplies of oil and gas to the United States. I have never suggested that we should cut off our oil supplies to the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Ah!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But I want to remind the government that its stated policy is that we should only export oil that is surplus to our needs, and that the first demand upon Canadian resources is the needs of the Canadian people. I would further remind the government that until a few years ago our American friends restricted our exports of oil to the United States to 300,000 barrels a day. Now we are exporting over a million barrels a day. If we had not put on export controls, we would not have any oil left for ourselves.
I conclude by saying that I think much of the minister's statement today, like the statement of the Prime Minister last Thursday night, is an attempt to divert public attention from the fact that the government has procrastinated for so long that it has allowed this country to get into this very unfortunate situation. The minister says that when the Arab-Israeli war is over, we will return to normal. I want to remind him that the OPEC nations, and particularly the Arab states, have made it clear that even when the war is over they do not propose to go beyond the production figures they had prior to that time. I think the day may come when we will thank the Arab states for waking us up to the fact that we must develop a policy by which we can use our own resources for the benefit of the Canadian people; and the sooner we get busy and do that, the better it will be for all concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am informed by reliable sources that it is approximately six o'clock. However, I am wondering whether it would be the sense of the House that the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) be allowed to make his statement at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: This would require unanimous consent, and I am inquiring whether there is such.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.

November 26, 1973
Energy Resources Policy


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. [Translation]
I very much regret to advise the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) that there is not unanimous consent. The House will by happy to hear him at eight o'clock.
It being six o'clock, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not allowed to make my comments after the other political leaders. I thank the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for his kindness, when he came to apologize for his colleague. Another member told me that it was normal for the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to deny his consent, because he had to leave immediately before the closing time of the Liquor Board at 6.30 which enabled him to carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that his comments are out of order. I hope that he will immediately come to the matter now under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I was only reporting what a colleague of the hon. member for Crowfoot told me.
I now come to the subject matter we are considering tonight. I very carefully read the French translation of the English speech I heard last night on channel 7 of the American network in which President Nixon announced the restraints imposed upon the American people. The minister read this afternoon the French version of the speech delivered last night. I see him laugh and he knows that I tell the truth.
Mr. Speaker, in this-


An hon. Member:: This is a delayed reaction.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, a delayed
reaction.


Mr. Lewis:: This is true and amusing at the same time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I know it is true. Once more I can see, as all my colleagues in this House, that we are somewhat aping the Americans. If they decide something, you can hear the same thing repeated in Canada the following day. If the discount rate of American banks is increased by Vi or 1 per cent, "His Excellency" the Governor of the Bank of Canada does exactly the same the following day, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), responsible in a sovereign government, repeats what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe one single word of all the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said about the oil shortage. I heard the people from Alberta say that we had in that province enough petroleum products for the next hundred years. I heard as well Premier Bou-rassa of the province of Quebec, about two weeks ago say that there would not be any shortage in the province of Quebec. He changed his mind when he met with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few days after his statement.


An hon. Member:: After the election.


David Réal Caouette: The Prime Minister of Canada made him change his mind.
Mr. Speaker, I have here a book just given us and written by the hon. Joey Smallwood, former Liberal Premier of Newfoundland for many years and who is surely not a Creditiste. He writes and I quote:
What else does Mr. Smallwood have to say? In Chapter 24, page 471, we may read the following:

This is in "I Chose Canada", the memoirs of the Hon. Joey Smallwood.


Stanley Howard Knowles: En frangais. [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: That is in eastern Canada, not in Alberta: "we are drowning in a sea of oil".
And the minister recommends that we tighten our belts. This reminds me of the years 1929 to 1939. Then, in the name of the world-wide economic crisis, both the Right hon. Mackenzie King and the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett told Canadians: Tighten your belts, this is a world-wide crisis and there is nothing that we can do about it. At the same time, mountains of wheat were burned in western Canada, potatoes were soaked in laundry bluing in New Brunswick, milk was thrown away, and the production was destroyed. This happened in 1934 and 1935.


Mr. Corbin:: I was born in 1934.


David Réal Caouette: That is possible. The hon. member was not there at the time, so he did not need potatoes. But this does not explain why he has stayed in the potato fields all his life.
Mr. Speaker, in those days, people were told: Starve, even though you are sitting on mountains of wheat! This afternoon, in 1973, the minister told us: We have too much oil, you will freeze! We shall freeze because we have too much oil. The minister makes recommendations. He is an intelligent man, but I believe that those who wrote the speech which he gave this afternoon are not, far from it, and I wonder if it would not be better if some of them were in Saint-Jean-de-Dieu, in Montreal, rather than at the service of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, how can one imagine the recommendations that we heard this afternoon concerning motor vehicles?
November 26, 1973

Buy slightly less than a full tank of gasoline. This will prevent wasteful overflow . . .
One should wait till it is full to fear an overflow. Further on it is said:
Remove bugs and foreign matter from your radiator to prevent overheating.
Mr. Speaker, the minister could not stop from laughing while reading these things.


Mr. Laprise:: He had not read the declaration before making it to this House.


David Réal Caouette: There lies the fault, Mr. Speaker. He surely had not read the declaration before making it to this House, for he would never had said such things. I have talked of automobiles. Let us consider energy conservation in the home. Now there's a good one! I have read parts of it to the waitresses in the dining room a minute ago and they were all laughing. Here's one:
(a) Lock windows to achieve a better seal.
That is usually done in the winter. Moreover we are also asked to set thermostats at 68 to 63 degrees at night. I think that just about everyone does that. At night, the thermostat is set so that there is fresh air while sleeping. As for me, I set mine at 60 degrees. I advise the minister that I thus preserve energy.
However, in government offices, if we want to keep the temperature at 65 degrees in daytime, the minister will have to see that employees are provided with mitts. We will still be short of energy. And it is not all.
Mr. Speaker, I read the following:
c)	Open and close doors only when essential
Let us take note of this, the civil servant thought of it.
.. . and for shortest possible time; use doors away from prevailing winds.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in my 15 years in this House that I have so much fun reading a minister's statement, it is so foolish. And a little further:
d)	Close drapes at night and leave them open on sunny days.


Gérard Laprise: Don't you invent a little?


David Réal Caouette: My colleague from Abitibi asks whether I am not imagining things. No, I am not, the minister read that this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, in a more serious vein, there is no doubt that there is not and there will not be an oil shortage in Canada. Nobody will convince me of the contrary. I heard the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the leader of the New Democratic Party, say recently that the tar sands in northern Alberta contain the equivalent of 750 billion barrels of oil. That should be enough to meet the requirements for the next hundred years. Now the minister tells us to save energy. As I said on television and in the House, it was recently announced that a Greek tanker would sail from Vancouver to Portland, via the Panama Canal, to supply Montreal with oil and gas.
Mr. Speaker, I talked at that time about a merchant marine. We have been asking for a merchant marine for at
Energy Resources Policy
least 15 years. If action had been taken 10 years ago we would have it now.


An hon. Member:: In Levis-


David Réal Caouette: That was promised in Levis just before election day. That was promised for 15 years but they forgot to follow up with it.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that it costs more to ship through Panama than with a pipeline. But did you hear the minister speak about a pipeline from the west to Montreal this afternoon? Not a word. There has been talk about it for six months, for a year. Why is that pipeline not being built now?
Mr. Speaker, there are other means of transport. CNR and CPR employees complain that jobs are being lost, that trains are less used. What is stopping this government from using both national railways to move oil from the west to the east? What prevents the use of aircraft? Why not build air tankers? Things are being moved by trucks to the Middle East, in Viet Nam, in short almost everywhere in the world. Why not use aircraft to move oil to eastern Canada?


An hon. Member:: Feed grains.


David Réal Caouette: We are not dealing with feed grains but with oil. We shall settle the feed grain problem later on.
Mr. Speaker, if we took the necessary steps there would be no oil shortage presently in Canada. I say: I agree. They say: It is an international matter. It is the same argument as in 1929. I say that the oil question is used to cause an economic crisis in Canada, in the United States and in all western countries. This is what they are leading at. They will speak of energy shortage and what do you think will happen if we follow the government program? The closing of plants, restrictions for the producers and ration coupons. This is what we are threatened with. We already had the ration coupons. We have seen that during World War
II.	When I was first elected in 1946, we had the ration coupons. A family mother with ten children was entitled to ten ration booklets, in addition to hers and her husband's. To carry those booklets you needed a special bag. The ration coupons were not made to fit a stomach needs. No. They were printed and the stomach had to fit the size of the ration coupon. This is what we did during the war.
Did that prevent people from getting sugar? I know people in Val d'Or, a doctor among others, who bought ten pounds of sugar at a time. When the ration coupons were issued he had five 100-pound bags of sugar put aside. We bought butter 50 pounds at a time instead of two pounds. We had everything. It is so true that they had to destroy sugar in the Cuba area because there was too much of it everywhere and in spite of that we had ration coupons. I mentioned this in the restaurant of Parliament. Butter was rationed at home but at the restaurant of Parliament we did not need ration coupons and we could eat one pound of butter at a time. We, the members, were not rationed, so I said to the right hon. Prime Minister of the time: If we are not rationed, then we have no right to ration our constituents. It took three weeks, a month, but ration coupons were abandoned and people could obtain
8148

November 26, 1973
Oral Questions
normal supplies. Oil ration coupons and the oil shortage are nothing but a hoax.
The one objective is to get the Canadian population panicky and telling it to freeze slowly in the name of the international oil crisis. Instead of coming out with ration plans, the Creditistes would develop our natural resources for the benefit of the Canadian population and reveal the abundance of Canadian production. This wealth should be developed by the minister who should stop talking of shortages, stop lying as he has been doing, not himself but through his department's officials.
Mr. Speaker, those were the comments that I wished to make on the oil crisis which is only a blind, because it does not exist in Canada. It would not prevent us from transacting with the United States or any other country. But please, let us be frank with the Canadian people and let us tell them why we are really talking about shortages when there is abundance everywhere.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding of the special order passed by the House on Friday last is that the House is to proceed now to the 20-minute question period relating to the minister's statement.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, first of all for clarification. Can the minister tell me which is the correct statement, the one appearing in a publication, apparently from his office, dated November 9 in which it is said that 25 per cent of the oil supplies in eastern Canada are from Arab countries in the Middle East, or the statement in the minister's address of today which is that the Arab nations have until recently provided eastern Canada with 30 per cent of its crude oil supplies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the 25 per cent is for the second quarter and the 30 per cent is the third quarter estimate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to get some information about the drop or the anticipated cutback of some 200,000 barrels of oil a day. I should like to ask the minister, what accounts for this cutback, assuming that the 25 per cent cutback in the oil we receive from Arab countries in eastern Canada accounts for 75,000 barrels a day? Is the additional cutback of 125,000 barrels made up from Arab sources of crude oil, or from other sources?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It will depend, I gather, upon the prorating terms in the existing contracts with other sources. I am advised that the 200,000 barrels a day is really the worst estimate of the situation, but it could be the result of the prorating involved on the basis of force majeure provisions in existing contracts being exercised by each of the supplying companies to the Canadian companies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But for reasons of clarification, can the minister say whether we are receiving a reduction of two-thirds in the oil from Arab countries, or a reduction of
75,000	barrels a day from Arab countries, or thereabouts; the other part of the 125,000 barrels a day being cutback from other sources such as Venezuela, Iran and African countries other than Arab countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The figure of 75,000 is the current estimate of the degree of interruption. The 200,000, including the 75,000 is the estimate of the down side, if you like, if force majeure provisions are exercised in the other supply contracts to Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: From other countries?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


OIL SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION IN ENFORCING ALLOCATION AS BETWEEN ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL INDUSTRIES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister some other questions. With regard to his program of allocation, is it his intention to order or otherwise persuade eastern refineries to concentrate on the production of home heating oil for use this winter in the eastern part of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In fact, that is the policy which has been followed by the refineries since midsummer. But we anticipate that as one of the powers that would be contained in the bill to reinforce what in effect has been the operating practice in any event.


David Lewis: I would also ask the minister whether, instead of leaving it all for the time when he produces the bill, he could inform us if one of the criteria to be used for allocation to industrial users will be the question of jobs. Also, will there be any criteria to distinguish between essential and non-essential services including the matter of jobs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The question of jobs will be foremost in the criteria, and naturally there will have to be some judgment exercised by the board-that is why it has been created-as to which criteria should be given priority, and which should not. Again, I will have to say that until the bill receives first reading I cannot respond very well.
November 26, 1973


CONTROL OVER WHOLESALERS TO ENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SUPPLIES
David Lewis: May I ask the minister one other question along the same lines. Would he inform the House whether one of the objectives of his legislation-I appreciate the fact that he cannot go into details- will be to make certain that wholesalers that are not part of the majors' integral organization will be served by the majors so that they can serve their customers, and whether there will be any control over what the wholesalers do to make certain that there is equitable distribution?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can say to the hon. gentleman that one of the concerns we will have about this situation of short supply is that integrated companies not use the opportunity to the prejudice of independent dealers, whether at the wholesale or retail level. We regard this as an important level of the trade, both in home heating oil and gasoline, and the protection of this particular level will be one of the criteria that the board will follow.
[ Translation]


MEETING OF MINISTER WITH PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS- POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING TAXES ON OIL PRODUCTS
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Following his meeting with his provincial counterparts, can he tell the House whether, in view of the shortage and especially of the high price of oil and heating fuel, they foresee any possibility of reducing taxes on heating products?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed discussed this issue. My provincial counterparts have not, however, taken such a decision or confirmed that such a decision had been taken by their provincial governments.
[ English]


PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the urgent need for the construction of a pipeline to the port of Montreal, can the minister advise us whether or not an agreement, at least in principle, has been reached with that province for the construction of such a pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I anticipate meeting my Quebec counterpart in the very near future to continue the discussion which has gone on at the official level and which was interrupted by certain events.


James Balfour: Is it the government's intention to construct such a pipeline with or without the agreement of the government of Quebec?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have already responded to that question. It would be our hope that we would be able to do so in a way that would be found acceptable to Quebec; but ultimately, undoubtedly, we will be held responsible for the security of supply to that market and we will have to continue with the decision taken at the outset.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH VENEZUELA TO SUPPLEMENT OIL LOST FROM ARAB COUNTRIES-EFFECT OF &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot;
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke of force majeure which would account for the potential reduction of 125,000 barrels a day which was not from Arab countries. Would the minister say who is going to call force majeure and where this oil might go to, if Canada will not continue receiving it? Would he say whether his negotiations with Venezuela for royalty oil might supplement and replace the oil we might lose by force majeure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The suggestion of the hon. gentleman could indeed be a response to that situation. My current information is that Venezuela has not decided at the moment to take its royalty in kind rather than in cash. The force majeure would be called in effect by the supplier companies which have the contracts to deliver oil to Canada. I understand this is a standard aspect of the delivery contracts. So far as I know, it has not been called yet. Presumably it would be prorated, I would imagine, to western European parties in particular who would otherwise have been cut off from supply.


An hon. Member:: Would you agree with that?


QUANTITY OF OIL TO BE TRANSPORTED FROM WESTERN CANADA TO MONTREAL
Peter Colwell Bawden: I would like to ask the minister what volumes of oil he projects moving into the Montreal market from western Canada by truck and rail, in barrels per day, and whether he can see a continuity of 50,000 barrels a day travelling from the west coast into Montreal. And can he say whether this might not come very close, along with the volumes presently reaching Montreal, to meet the shortfall?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I believe there will be a continuity of this consignment through the winter of oil by tanker into Portland. My recollection is that the capability of the land transport system to deliver any substantial quantities of crude or petroleum products is not high, and I do not believe it should make up the difference.


Peter Colwell Bawden: How big?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry; I do not have the actual figures here. I could give them at a later date.
26695-4}

November 26, 1973
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT'S SPECIAL EMISSARY NEGOTIATE WITH MIDDLE EAST COUNTRIES TO OBTAIN MORE FAVOURABLE OIL SUPPLIES
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of Canada's suffering a serious loss of oil supplies from Saudi Arabia and other Middle East states, would the minister consider sending a special emissary to meet with King Feisal and other heads of government in that area to clarify Canada's involvement in Arab cutoffs and, hopefully, to negotiate a more favourable supply?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had no information that Canada is going to be subjected to any boycott. We must assume, however, that we, like many others, will suffer from reductions in the production of oil by Saudi Arabia.


CONSTRUCTION OF A PIPELINE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since he maintained that security of supply is uppermost in his thoughts, is the government still considering the project to build a pipeline through northern Ontario and if so, would any urgent matter be contrary to this plan?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House that we had examined the suggestion made by the hon. member and by his colleague from Algoma (Mr. Foster). The main point is the length of time it would take to build an oil pipeline through northern Ontario, considering there is one between Sarnia and Montreal. That is one of the things to be weighed before taking any final decision in that matter.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REFINING OF CRUDE OIL BY PROVINCIAL COMPANIES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question with respect to the refining of home heating fuel and bunker fuel in the province of British Columbia. As the minister knows, the refineries there are geared mainly to the production of gasoline, which involves about 100,000 barrels a day, but about 300,000 barrels of oil a day are shipped to the United States and we in turn buy back the refined petroleum products. Does the minister intend to have steps taken to persuade the refiners in British Columbia to refine petroleum products there, so that British Columbia will not face the possibility of being short of home heating fuel and bunker fuel this winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be sure on a technical question like that, but my understanding is that the capacity does not exist in British Columbia to produce higher levels of middle distillates rather than motor gasoline. The question is one of making sure that we continue to receive the same supplies from United States refineries as we have received previously. That is what will be given priority. I cannot be sure that changing the refining mix will achieve an increase in production.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the minister that the technical people tell me it is possible to do this. I hope the minister will look into it; and also that he will remember that the price of the petroleum products, when they come back from the United States, is much higher than if they were refined in Canada. Also, has the minister received a telegram from the president of the Automotive Transport Association of Ontario in which he says that diesel and gasoline fuel prices in the province of Ontario have risen by as much as 50 per cent in many cases, and that this is seriously affecting goods transportation in the province? I ask the minister if these facts are correct and, if so, how this comes about and what action the government proposes to take to remedy the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, such a telegram may have come in, but I have not seen it yet. I will certainly look for it because an increase in diesel and motor gasoline price, as opposed to home heating oil, except if it is done at the retail level, of course would be contrary to the restraint the companies intended to impose. If that is the case we would certainly refer back to the companies to see if this represents a breach of their undertaking and what they intend to do about it.


PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRESS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, first of all arising out of what was said by the Prime Minister in this House on November 23 in reference to a Montreal pipeline, as recorded at page 8082 of Hansard. I listened very carefully to the minister's statement tonight. I listened to the three spokesmen for the opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will ask the question. You wait. I listened very carefully to the three spokesmen for the opposition parties and I would like to put this question to the minister. Has the projected Montreal pipeline got off the tracing board, who is going to build it, is there enough steel to build it, and has it now gone from the idea and into the planning stage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed in the planning stage. However, there are a number of fundamental questions to be settled as to the responsibility for its financing, and particularly whether or not the public treasury would bear some part of the cost of the additional capacity for security of supply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-
November 26, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North who is rising to ask a supplementary. All the questions asked this evening will be supplementaries, because the order of the House is that for the next six or seven minutes members will ask questions about the statement made by the minister. I will try to recognize as many members as possible. Perhaps we should now try to limit the number of supplementaries asked by each member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, would the minister mind explaining to the country and to the House why the decision to go ahead was not made in 1969, when the industry met with the government and suggested that to guarantee security of supply of crude petroleum, particularly to the Montreal and eastern area, a pipeline should be built? I ask this question particularly in view of this government's knowledge of the national oil policy, which they like to point the finger at, dating back to 1961 but which they endorsed for ten years. Why are we waiting now, in the middle of a crisis, when there is no shortage of energy in Canada? Was it a matter of procrastination on the part of the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows very well, at that time, and really up until the beginning of this year, there was a very substantial price penalty for consumers if western crude came into the Montreal market-


Peter Colwell Bawden: How big? How much?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That price penalty would have been paid if their suggestion had been taken.
[ Translation]


SUBSIDIES BY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT TO MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I should like to know if he intends to recommend to the Minister of National Health and Welfare subsidizing multi-national oil corporations in view of the loss they are going to suffer?
[ English]


OIL-USE BY CANADIAN FORCES ABROAD
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or to the Minister of National Defence. Throughout his statement this afternoon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was alluding to oil import curtailments and to the oil supply situation in Canada, but at page 6 of his statement he said that "to achieve substantial cutbacks in fuel requirements" the Department of National Defence is going to cut back "both at home and abroad." I was curious as to the validity of cutting down abroad in order to get more fuel at home. I would like an assurance that some of Canada's short
Oral Questions
supply of oil is not going out to such places as the Middle East.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.


PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE-PURCHASES OF OIL BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the Montreal pipe line, has the government reached any decision, agreement or understanding with Interprovincial Pipe Line?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker, but as I have said there are a number of important questions being discussed at the moment, particularly with regard to financing.


Harvie Andre: As a further supplementary regarding the supply of crude oil through special purchases supposedly made by the government, to which the minister has alluded, how much oil has been purchased by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, at what prices, and when will it be delivered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this falls under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services. My recollection is that a very substantial quantity has been purchased, to be paid for at the dates of delivery as determined over the period of the winter. I am afraid the hon. member would have to address himself to the minister for the details.


TRUCK TRANSPORTATION OF OIL IN NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. With regard to utilizing commercial traffic on our highways, does he intend to have some of his officials give consideration to the difficulties in Ontario respecting PCV licences, and the fact that all transports travelling out of northern Ontario are loaded and return empty? There could be a saving of about 100 per cent with most of our traffic in and out of northern Ontario.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion and I shall be glad to look into it.


MEASURES TO ENSURE OIL SUPPLIES TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister on behalf of the many thousands of Canadians who are perhaps a little more concerned with this matter than the average Canadian, and for a longer period of time. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories are in a different situation in regard to getting supplies of home heating and other fuels that are vital to survival in the north. What action is the government taking to ensure

November 26, 1973
Oral Questions
continued supplies at current prices and levels in these northern areas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check in detail to respond to that question. It depends on what the hon. gentleman means by current prices. Certainly, any offshore purchases would be subject to the escalation to which I have referred.


PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-EFFECT ON PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE SUPERPORT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Can the minister advise whether the province of Quebec has agreed to a pipeline to Montreal. If agreement exists, does this mean that plans for the proposed oil superport in the St. Lawrence will be abandoned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement yet on this point, but the integration of a superport proposal is one of the matters for intense discussion.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question. Can the minister advise the House whether the delay from the time that the oil pipeline was announced until now is in whole or in part due to Quebec's objection to the abandonment plans for an oil superport?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the fact that there was a rather robust response against the proposal means it is one that we would naturally try to achieve agreement on with the province if we could, and that is subject to discussion.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-ACCESSIBILITY TO WESTERN CANADIAN OIL
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question not only to the minister responsible for energy but to all Canadians, reminding them that eastern Canada does not necessarily include the Atlantic provinces. I ask the minister whether this constant suggestion of the construction of a pipeline through to Montreal embraces the concept that the St. Lawrence River is frozen for two or three months of the year and eastern Canada and the Atlantic provinces, particularly the maritime provinces, should enjoy accessibility to western Canadian oil rather than oil that comes through the Panama Canal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is talking about the longer time frame to which a pipeline to Montreal is related, he would have to consider the additional cost involved by the Atlantic provinces if they were dependent upon Alberta oil rather than offshore oil.


EXPORT TAX AND PRICE CONTROL ON OIL- GOVERNMENT POSITION AS TO CONTINUANCE AFTER JANUARY 31, 1974-EXPORTS TO U.S.A.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in his statement the minister failed to refer to the export tax or price control on oil. Can he can tell the House tonight whether it is his intention to continue price controls after January 31, and whether the export tax will also continue?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I expect to have a further opportunity to discuss this question with the Alberta government, and I prefer to postpone further comment until that discussion has taken place.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since we still export more than we import, can the minister assure the House that if a serious shortage develops in eastern Canada or British Columbia, we will cut back exports of oil to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is in fact what has happened in the last two months of this year. There has been a reduction from earlier this year of about
175,000	barrels a day. The difficulty is the lack of physical transportation facilities rather than the supply, which means that more cannot be taken from western Canada into the Canadian markets which are short.


ENERGY SHORTAGE-IMPACT ON CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With predictions in the United States of zero growth in 1974, a 6 per cent reduction in industrial production and perhaps an unemployment rate of 6 per cent due to the energy crisis, has the minister's department made any study as to what may be the direct or indirect impact, economically, in Canada of the energy shortage?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we are watching this very closely, as the hon. member may be aware. The recent investigation with respect to investment decisions indicate that Canadian businesses were planning to increase their investment in capital equipment and plant by over 20 per cent, and particularly heavily in the manufacturing industries. Obviously in light of the changes right now, reviews will be undertaken on a continuing basis.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have gone beyond the time allocated by the order of the House. The hon. member might ask a supplementary; then I would recognize the hon. member for Shefford and the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain before calling orders of the day.
November 26, 1973


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the minister could confirm that he sees no slowdown in 1974 in the Canadian economy in, say, the auto industry, the trucking industry or the tourist industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I am a seer in the sense that the hon. member may wish me to be, but present indications are that we ought to have a very good year next year. In fact, we had a very good year this year.


SUGGESTION OF JOINT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FACILITIES
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Has the federal government already submitted or prepared a cost-sharing pipeline building project to be presented to provincial representatives at their next meeting in January 1974?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I intend to have further consultation with my Quebec counterpart regarding the pipeline. I repeat it for the fourth time.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the hon. minister tell us if he has presented or intends to submit a project to provincial representatives at their January meeting concerning the building of a Canadian pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we already submitted such a proposal to my Quebec counterpart.


APPLICATION OF &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; BY OIL COMPANIES
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one. Can the minister inform the House on what approximate date he learned that companies might apply force majeure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is of fairly recent date; I would say the last week or ten days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the special order of the House, we shall return to the consideration of government orders.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It will not have escaped Your Honour's keen eye that there is active interest in this subject. I wonder, under the guise of a point of order, if the minister would advise the House whether he will in fact be appearing before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as has been tentatively arranged, so that this interesting subject may be pursued further?
National Parks Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is Thursday afternoon next that I will appear before the committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern development.
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, the question of the establishment of national parks has been met in many parts of the country by a kind of complacent response like, "Yes, we all agree in principle with parks as long as in some ways they do not detrimentally affect our area". Like all others I suppose, I too have taken that line, namely, to agree in principle with national parks. They are nice things for people to visit. But the problem that arises when a national park is about to be established-as was the case in the last five years with the Grasslands national park in southern Saskatchewan-is lack of understanding of the general area and lack of communication with the people involved. There is not usually an in-depth study made about the practicalities of establishing that kind of park. That is what I am dealing with tonight, Mr. Speaker. It is what I was dealing with before my speech was interrupted by the non-statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).
The question of the establishment of national parks is still covered by the National Parks Act. Even with this legislation, the establishment of a new national park will have to be undertaken by the Parliament of Canada.
I am pleased to see clause 2, which makes certain that individual members of parliament affected by a national park in their area will have the opportunity, and indeed the right, to express their views on the establishment of such a park. Since 1965 there have been agreements, disagreements, arguments and consultation between the federal and provincial governments. Earlier today I outlined the kind of partial agreements reached between the provincial Liberal governments and the Pearson and Trudeau governments. It pointed out there were some representations made such as in the Kaplan report, where a bunch of dudes from Montreal went to the Killdeer-Val Marie area for a few days. They then returned to Montreal. Maybe they were friends of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).
On their return home they drew up a report. They compared it with Roosevelt park in the United States. They said it would attract the same number of people as Roosevelt park, which was fundamentally different from

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
the one they were attempting to establish in southern Saskatchewan. It turned out to be a ridiculous report. It pointed out the stupidity of hiring these consultants for this kind of work. The report was so ridiculous that everyone in the area who read it could not believe it was written for any government, federal or provincial.
The possibility of establishing a Grasslands national park in southern Saskatchewan is in a stalemate position. I would like to outline the problems that have arisen and the objections to it. One problem is the cost of buying-out or relocating the ranchers and the farmers. Another problem is the loss of income to the provincial economy. One problem is of a social nature. It involves the social aspects of evicting ranchers, many of them pioneers, from land which they have homesteaded and/or leased for many years. In fact, some families have been there for generations. The lifestyle on a social basis is good in terms of its economic basis. It is a remote and very significant minority in this country. The aspect of that region, in terms of lifestyle, can be found in very few parks in the Dominion of Canada. It is a kind of lifestyle that contributes to the very great interest in that area: it is the great attraction.
There would be a loss of some of the better mule deer and antelope hunting areas, along with complaints from disgruntled hunters-something to which I do not attach as much significance as the province. The Kaplan report suggests building a fence to protect the game. That is contrary to what in fact would happen. A large barrier or fence would keep the animals out of the area to which they migrate for protection during the winter. This is in the high mountains and hills. It allows them to get at short grass in the winter instead of trying to survive in the plains where there are snowdrifts of six, seven or more feet.
There is another very real problem to those who live in the area. There is the danger of prairie fires created by automobiles, locomotives and other mechanical apparatus. The sparks from these could catch the grass on fire and destroy it. Last summer there were two or three major fires in the area; they were put out by local people. Another problem is related to the very narrow outlook of the national parks department and the minister in terms of coming to grips with the fact that this is a large cattlegrazing area. The Kaplan report recommended removing cattle from 360 or 640 square miles and replacing them with a few buffalo. I do not know all the expertise of the environmentalists, but I do know that it is necessary to keep the grass grazed. It would take an awful lot of bison to keep the grass at the grazing level to which it is now kept by cattle. For years the cattle have neither overgrazed nor undergrazed. There is always the odd exception of a producer not being careful. Generally, grazing has been at a proper level.
Another problem related to the establishment of this park is the possible economic loss to towns in the area, such as Mankota where at least one million cattle are sold in the auction ring in any year. Other objections have been raised to this proposal. I have already mentioned the necessary removal of cattle from the park under the national parks policy. However-and this is pointed out in the Kaplan report-cattle-grazing at the present level is not detrimental to habitat or wildlife. They point out that

cattle serve an important function in several respects and, if removed, could probably be replaced only by bison. Cattle do not compete with wildlife presently inhabiting the area.
Constant grazing prevents the long growth of grass which is a potential fire hazard. Most damage was done when people thought they could cultivate this land and use it for wheat or barley production. The land was not good enough for that. This lesson was learned during the depression. Since that time most of the land has been turned back into grazing land. If there is a large influx of tourists, there is the problem of garbage and destruction to the very habitat we are trying to preserve for future generations.
Another area of significance is mineral wealth. Crown reserves in the general area, and the possibility of development of an oil field, do not make the provincial government very excited about establishing a national park which will take away the right of the province to have control over the mineral wealth that may possibly be in that area. I hope the minister and the federal government will avoid areas where there may be mineral development-coal, and so on.
It is difficult at a time when more than 60 per cent of Canadians are living in large urban areas for a member from a rural area blessed with some very beautiful scenery to come to a reconciliation with people whose children are growing up in a society where all they see are cement sidewalks, paved streets and lamposts, maybe concrete, in places like the riding of the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) or other areas of this country like Toronto or Montreal, Regina or Saskatoon. How do we reconcile this with the preservation of a lifestyle, the preservation of wide open spaces that is needed in an area so attractive to people who have not the opportunity to view and to respect the kind of beauty one finds in this Killdeer-Val-marie area.
I believe that if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) wishes to see development in this area there is much that he could accomplish. I, by the way, have respected many of the national parks he is attempting to set up and respected the moves made to preserve some of these areas for Canadians. I believe that if he took the opportunity of working with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) there is a possibility of tourist development in Southern Saskatchewan that is far more imaginative in terms of attracting people to viewing some parts of Saskatchewan I am sure they don't realize even exist. What I am suggesting is this. Saskatchewan was one of the first provinces, I believe, to co-operate in the development of No. 1 highway, which runs from the Manitoba border to the Alberta border and makes sure that people can get through Saskatchewan in a day and a half, if they really want to do so. Each summer, because of the high volume of traffic on that highway, increased by the traffic coming up from the United States and up through Estevan and Wey-burn on to No. 1, conditions on that route are such that I never have, and never will travel that piece of highway during that July-August rush. As far as I am concerned.
November 26, 1973

and it is probably true from one end of the country to the other, it is a suicide run.
What I propose the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion could do if he has a broad enough view of what is needed in regions of this country which have not had the development of the golden horseshoe, is to develop an alternative route off the No. 1 highway down to what is called Highway No. 13 which traverses the southern part of Saskatchewan. I believe that if you bring people off No. 1 down through what is called the Moose Mountain national park, which surrounds Carlyle Lake and Kenosee Lake, which offers plentiful woodland and attractive fishing, where there is a considerable amount of development already; if you bring them in their campers and cars down off No. 1 and across Highway 13, you can take them down through the area of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), where they can see the beauty of Moose Mountain national park, and run them across the southern part of the province to the area of Weyburn where they are developing the Soo Line Historical Museum Society and the Soo Line Historical Museum.
The people here could, I am sure, put on many pageants showing the early life of the pioneers, illustrating the kind of life we went through in the depression and the lifestyles we have developed since. Visitors could move from there to what is called the Big Muddy country which is in the Bengough area of the Assiniboia constituency. In that area, Mr. Speaker, we often go south to see a place called Deadwood. Americans have taken this old, dilapidated town and put in a saloon where they say Wild Bill Hickok was shot. They found a graveyard where they say he is buried and where they say Calamity Jane is buried, and they attract more tourists with those two showpieces than probably any place in the United States with the little they have to show. And what we can do in the Bengough area is show people, if people from large urban areas are interested-and there are many right in Saskatchewan who have not seen it-one of the most beautiful valleys running through the province of Saskatchewan; show them in fact one of the favourite hideouts of some of the most notorious outlaws that ever roamed through Montana and the Dakotas in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
Two or three thousand people took the opportunity to make a tour of this whole area this summer. It could be developed in such a way that many thousands of Canadians could view what I believe to be some of the most interesting and beautiful country in Canada without disrupting the local way of life while allowing visitors an opportunity to see life in a rural community. They can go from there up through an area called Rockglen-Willow Bunch, which is hilly country. Willow Bunch is a bilingual community where they have preserved the French language. Its founders were settlers who came from the province of Quebec almost at the same time as the Northwest Mounted Police. They have established one of the most interesting museums that can be seen off the No. 1. It is bilingual museum. It outlines the whole history of the area. Those in charge of the museum conduct tours of the entire collection in both official languages.
The whole town centres around the work that went into the building of this museum. In this museum is what they
National Parks Act
called the giant, who travelled in all the fairs in North America because of his immense size. There is a display of the kind of bed he used to sleep in, the kind of clothes he had to wear and the kind of very frustrating life he had to lead because of his abnormal size which was, believe it or not, over seven feet.
Mr. Speaker, you can go from there into the Assiniboia area where, with a little government assistance, a man has got together one of the best selections outside the western Canadian museum in Saskatoon of antique automobiles, farm machinery and all kinds of antiques. Many people thought he was a little odd because he was collecting these things for years, but now they are worth a fortune. He is prepared to see them all go into a museum in the neighbourhood. He doesn't want to see what has been happening along that border country-Americans coming up and buying all these things in bulk for a high price and taking them back to the States.
Right on Highway 13 between the town of Lafleche and the town of Gravelbourg there is a small park and regional area that can be developed. To the south is the Wood Mountain regional park which is right along the Killdeer-Valmarie area, adjacent to the very grassland park the minister has been speaking of.
Then there is highway 395 to be developed in such a way that people can view the grassland, where they can view the lifestyle of the area, where they can go straight through to Valmarie and participate in the local rodeos, the local fairs that go on all summer in that country. Some of the best rodeo riding in Canada is done at the Wood Mountain park and across at Radville and other places in the general area. Facilities could be expanded so that visitors could view this area without interrupting the lifestyles of the local people. It would give a tremendous boost to that area economically. They can go from that area to a private entrepreneur in the Kincaid area who has developed a restaurant made out of an old railroad station which was built around the turn of the century. He has turned it into an interesting cocktail lounge and dining-facility and he is thinking of expanding his operation because of the increasing traffic on this southern route.
If that kind of entrepreneur was encouraged to expand that kind of operation into a motel, a few places for people to camp, it would be of tremendous benefit in taking the pressure off No. 1 Highway across the province of Saskatchewan and giving the people a real opportunity to see a part of the province which a lot of people assume is nothing more than flat ground-which is not true-and barren ground at that. They can see the community of Gravelbourg which is a bilingual community housing the College Mathieu, one of the few bilingual colleges left in Canada. It has taken a lot of ingenuity and a lot of work on the part of the local population and their local representative to keep that college going.
Sitting on the prairies are the two communities of Gravelbourg and Ponteiux, both bilingual communities. These are communities in Saskatchewan where the cathedrals are higher than the elevators. If people who practice religion by attending church travel along No. 13 Highway through Assiniboia constituency, they will never be lost

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
for a church to attend. In these two communities there is a kind of cultural development that is not often seen in other parts of the country. Their language and religion have been maintained and have survived, and these communities would attract a great deal of attention.
Once you leave this area you travel through some more beautiful country in the constituency of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), which extends to the Alberta border.


Mr. Fairweather:: Are you going to send out 15,000 copies of this speech?


William George Knight: Then you can travel across the southern range and up through the provincial Cypress Hills park, a park long established by the provincial government. Parks are established by both levels of government. Furthermore, there are two major highways connecting the area to United States markets. The hon. member says I should send out a lot of copies. I hope that the Conservative member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will join me in supporting the principle of park development, because southern Saskatchewan is a very interesting tourist route which in my view shows great promise.
I remember listening to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak about vision. If I may say so, this little project has been one of my personal visions. I do not care who carries out the work, but I do think it has a great deal of merit. I realize a lot of rumours have been circulating about the national government setting up a national park, and this was not all the minister's fault. A lot of political conniving was taking place-but I will not go into that. People were told they would lose their leases. They replied that the land had been in their family for five generations, that they had always preserved it in their own way, and now it was going to be taken over, and so on and so forth.
With the alternative method through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the whole of southern Saskatchewan can be developed and made attractive to the tourist trade. People who unfortunately are stuck with living in large urban areas, young people who have to look at the concrete world of Toronto and elsewhere, will come to realize there still is beauty in Saskatchewan and in many other areas of the country that have not yet been explored.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with others who have entered into this debate of a bill that has come to us from the Senate, Bill S-4, which purports to make some minor changes to the existing act. I want to make one or two observations that I trust will be national in scope, as well as some remarks at a later stage that will be directed to what is at the moment a somewhat tentative proposal.
It was only a very short time ago that the present government saw fit to introduce legislation to set up an independent authority which, had the bill passed instead of being withdrawn by the government after debate in the House, would have had the power to expand and contract lands which were believed to be held, for whatever pur-

pose, in right of the Crown and in the person of the minister responsible.
It was with some pleasure that I recall we moved from that concept to yet another concept, which I gather the government supports, namely, the principle that the government believes it has jurisdiction to expand or contract public lands held by people in the right of Canada. I welcome this because it seems to me to be an advancement over the concept enunciated in this chamber a couple of years ago. The government does learn; there is no question of that. Unfortunately, it learns slowly and in most instances much too slowly. Nevertheless, it does learn, and hopefully the comments that will be made in the course of this debate will convince the government that it can learn something not only from the people in this chamber but from the people of Canada.
What I am suggesting is that if a government can move within the space of a couple of years from a concept that removes from political control the right to buy and sell, or to expand or contract parklands to a concept of the kind espoused in this bill, which provides that notice of intention to issue a proclamation shall be published in the Canada Gazette 90 days prior thereto, together with a description of the lands that it intends to buy or sell- because it is a two-way street-surely it should not be too hard to get the minister, honourable, distinguished Canadian that he is, to consult the people affected.
It does not matter whether the bill provides for 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, or even ten years' notice; let the minister talk to the people of Canada. They will not hurt him. He does not have to be afraid, because they will not bite him. If he feels he can convince them, let him also listen to what they have to say. But do not attempt to legislate control over their land.
As a responsible Canadian viewing national parks policy over recent years, it would be irresponsible of me to conclude other than that the provinces should retain unto themselves, leasing to the federal authority on a short or long term basis, lands for any national park. I suggest this simply because there has been no clear evidence in recent years on which Canadians generally can base their trust or confidence in the federal authority in which they have vested certain lands. These are lands held in trust and which they for legalistic reasons the federal authority takes unto itself to purchase or sell, which in itself, to say the least, is a little presumptuous. This is a magnificently arrogant and presumptuous analysis in the absence of a clearcut national parks policy.
I have just pointed out how the policy of this government moves from one direction in principle very quickly to another direction. I could elaborate in respect of a second reason Canadians do not with alacrity have confidence or trust in this government which has no substantive national parks policy. Let me refer to the method proceeded with in the establishment of the last five national parks in Canada. I have referred to the principle involved in the Gros Morne national park where the government negotiated a 99-year lease with certain riders attached. I will not go into detail, but I am sure hon. members know of the principle involved.
November 26, 1973

Let me refer to a statement in respect of the Gros Morne national park made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) at the joint signing of the agreement establishing this national park, dated August 13, 1973. That was just a few months ago. I quote from page 3 of that document:
Rights of inheritance are undisturbed. Residents who wish to relocate will have specially prepared options available.
Surely that is not compatible with the agreement negotiated by the province of Quebec for the 99-year lease. Somewhere along the line the federal authority has obviously decided that any agreement entered into by the province of Quebec in respect of a lease for 99 years is none of its business. I suggest that at some point in the future there will be difficulties as a result of this attitude. Let me repeat the very clear words of this statement:
Right of inheritance are undisturbed.
There is nothing like this in Nova Scotia; I suggest there is nothing remotely comparable in terms of national parks. There are three entirely different concepts involved. How can the people of Canada have confidence in the Government of Canada when it is not consistent in its decisions in respect of national parks? I am not denigrating for one moment the very sincere desire of the present minister to carry out his responsibilities in setting aside national lands for the future generations of Canada. I do not attack that concept.
What I am suggesting is that it is not fair and right for the Government of Canada to deal obliquely and vaguely with one province in relation to land for the purpose of developing national parks while at the same time not dealing with another province on the same basis. In the past it seems that one province has been dealt with ideally and equitably because of previous negotiation in respect of provincial rights, while another province is dealt with inequitably with little or no notice. This may be a very simple and minor point but it goes very much to the root of the unhappiness of concerned people in various provinces. People who pretend to lead Canadians must have respect for them, and where there is a demonstrated absence of respect there is a tangible concern on the part of the people involved. As a result, frustrations and indignations occur. People become angered by the actions of governments that have this lack of concern.
The proposed amendment to the act does nothing to change this situation but seems to perpetuate the direction in which this government is moving. This direction does not take into account the views of the people who are directly concerned with the development of national parks. I suggest this is bad government and the type of government that the people in this country have had for ten years too long. This is the type of government which does not foster good will among our residents. Whenever there is inequity on the part of the government, there is frustration on the part of the people. When there is inadequacy in terms of a national concept, there is frustration and distortion of meaningful national unity.
Without going into detail as to the background of our national parks policy, I should like to give an example of the direction in which this government is moving with particular reference to the development of national parks in Nova Scotia. I refer to a communique issued by the
National Parks Act
Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on August 25, 1972, in which it is stated:
Canada is to have a new national park in Nova Scotia according to an agreement signed today in Halifax by Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Benoit Comeau, Minister of Lands and Forests, province of Nova Scotia.
Prior to that date there was not one public meeting, not one public discussion, not one opportunity for anybody in that province to talk to this government about the establishment of this national park. I am referring to the fostering of distrust and the creation of anger in the minds of the people involved. This is something that should be brought to an end in this country, because it destroys confidence and leads to mistrust.
There are several ways we can approach this situation, but we do not approach it by threatening hundreds of people in a 125 square miles area without talking to them. We do not do this without holding public meetings. There have been two public meetings following this announcement, and during the second meeting the people appointed by the federal authority withdrew. That was over a year ago, and we have not heard one public word since about the government's intentions. Not one public meeting has been held or any contact made with the hundreds of people involved in Nova Scotia.
In spite of the lowest form of political opportunism by both the federal and provincial authorities in respect of parks, there has been not one word spoken nor one public forum held, or one response. Not one letter even has been forthcoming from a member of parliament in response to a simple request for basic information in which questions are asked, such as is the project going ahead and what is the form of it to be? When we do things which would intimately affect the lives of people and families, why do we not go to them and speak to them? Why can we not find the time to do this? Why can we not listen to them when they try to explain to us that although what is being done seems to be good, possibly it may affect them? Why do we withdraw and act in secrecy? Why do we do these things? Why do we not have a national parks policy? Why does the government not speak to these people?
The government has a moral responsibility to place in front of these people a clear and definitive statement about the course of action the government intends to follow. This should be done in the form of a written parks policy. I have been looking for a parks policy in Canada for eight or nine years. I tell you that is eight or nine years too long. This is simply inadequate. This is not the way to embrace what essentially is a very good concept on the part of this institution. I refer to the desire to make additional land available. It is a good concept in principle and philosophy, but the act which supports it is lousy and stupid, and the people who continue to support it without amendment and without bringing it up to date are equally stupid because they do a disservice not only to the people they are attempting to serve but also to the institution which the people believe serves them. The fishermen in my community do not blame the Liberals for what has been done; they blame the federal authority.

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
As one member of this chamber, I plead with hon. members opposite to be aware of this as we enter a most expansive phase in the development of the national parks of Canada. They must recongnize that whatever is done, the people concerned have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. They have that right especially when what we are talking about is their home, their right to fish and their right to hunt. I am not speaking of a bamboo rod at the water's edge; I am speaking of the salt water fishermen and the inshore fishermen. I might tell hon. members opposite that if Canada had not had the wealth from these inshore fisheries between the years 1735 and 1860 in what is called central or Upper Canada, if we had kept this at home, the story of Canada's development might have been a little different. Eighty per cent of the development capital came from that region of Canada, the rural areas of Canada, in this period and up to about 1923 or 1924. It came out of rural Canada.
This is where the parks are built, apart from the abortive efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and his park in Toronto. All the national parks that are of value to Canada came out of the rural areas, the wilderness areas, wherein live Canadians of substance and concern who are willing to trust. I counsel them not to trust institutions which fail to keep abreast of changing times, the needs and the necessity to offer to one part of Canada exactly what is offered to another part of Canada.
I should like to ask the minister if he has browbeaten the province of Nova Scotia or whether he has let Jerry Regan browbeat him into anything in respect of Gros Morne. The minister does not answer. He looks blandly. Why should he not look blandly when Garnet Brown has not taken the time to tell the people in eastern Halifax county what is proposed to be done by the distinguished minister and himself? I hope that whatever is done, is done in parallel. I hope that whatever is done in respect of parks in Canada is done on a common base.
The distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) is here. He knows about my love and affection for his end of Prince Edward Island. He knows of my love and affection for one of the most beautiful spots in the world, not to mention the tuna in the waters off that shore. He knows the difficulties there are when the people concerned are not told what is going on. I say to the minister he should make the decisions after consultation with the people concerned. He should not present them with a fait accompli. He should invite the people into his confidence. He should seek their counsel and guidance in respect of simple things such as amendments to the existing National Parks Act.
The policy in respect of the act should be the same in respect of all portions of Canada. He should not say to Halifax or to Nova Scotia that they can have things the way they want them, or say to Quebec it can have things the way it wants them, and say to Newfoundland it can have the world. One cannot live like that. This does not make good political sense. It does not do anything to encourage trust and confidence in the leadership of this institution. Hopefully, the minister will be able to do something about this, but whatever he does he should be very aware of the frustrations, doubts and concerns that

are raised in the minds of people when he acts from four or five different pedestals.
The minister should not be afraid to call public meetings. As I mentioned earlier he called off some public meetings simply because someone had said to him that he should not go down there because all the people would do would be to scream and holler. Of course they would scream and holler because nothing has been said to them in which they could believe. Everything that had been said to them has been withdrawn. All they receive is little snippets in the press telling them that everything is fine, that there will be no deprivation and that no one will suffer the loss of his home. That may be good for one provincial politician, but unless and until the federal government, in the person of the minister responsible, gets up and says that not only is nothing planned but that he is determined to allow the people to participate in discussions, the minister will continue to do a disservice to the institution he pretends to serve.
When he does a disservice, he does it to the entire House, not only to his own colleagues on the treasury benches or his government supporters in the backbenches. He does it to the people in Assiniboia. He also does a disservice to the people in adjacent communities and ridings. He does a disservice to the people in Dartmouth-Halifax or in any other constituency in Canada where he might wish to establish a national park.
Amend your act by all means; there is nothing wrong with that. You are changing your mind every day, anyway. But this is not really important. What the Canadian people find to be important is the total inability of the government department to devise a national parks policy which is clear to one and clear to all. Until that is done, there will be confusion. Seeds of doubt and ad hoc approaches will remain in what is a vital and important aspect of Canadian life, that is, the preservation of wilderness and semi-wilderness areas, areas that are attached and adjacent to large and growing urban centres, the total concept of open space for people. There will be doubt and there will be no ready acceptance.
I suggest to the minister that rather than play around with ad hoc arrangements, he would be well advised to put on the order paper at the earliest possible opportunity in the next session some meaningful researches and a well thought-out new national parks policies. I appreciate the attention which hon. members have given me in this matter which is important to the people. I believe very sincerely, as I hope everyone in this chamber does, that governments exist to help people, not themselves.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to follow two distinguished speakers tonight, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), who spoke of the national parks policy and the way in which he feels it should be applied, particularly as it relates to his beautiful part of the country, and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) who took us on a travelogue through Saskatchewan and through beautiful parks, which we all appreciated. But we each speak from the context of the part of the country from which we come
November 26, 1973

and about the needs of each part of the country and the people whom we represent.
I wish to present a different view, not one that is contradictory in any sense of the word because I think those views which have been expressed are valid. None of us here who has travelled to other provinces can deny the beauty that exists in this country from coast to coast right up to the Arctic ocean. I think all of us applaud the efforts of the minister in doing what he has done for national parks in this country. I think that could be said on all sides of the House, and we support him with enthusiasm. More progress has been made in his ministry than in all of our history. We can be grateful to him for that and for his foresight with respect to generations to come.
I represent an urban area, or the fringes of an urban area where recreation is needed, not necessarily tourism. I think that tourism is an important part of it, but we should think in terms of the leisure time that is becoming increasingly available to people. They all want recreation and recreational land so that people today can buy easily a waterfront lot without spending a great deal of money for a place in the country. Because we are a mobile society we have the opportunity to move to all parts of the country, but th person in the city appreciates the country in a different way and in some ways needs it even more than those who are brought up in rural areas. They are confined in the cities, and if we believe in the projections that are given to us, by the end of this century some 70 per cent to 90 per cent of our people will be in urban areas. I do not think that is necessarily a good trend but it may be an inevitable one. The fact is that if it occurs, the need for recreation outside the city will become much greater.
In the province of Ontario we have a range of provincial parks which are doing a most effective job but which cannot meet the demands placed on them. Any time I have a holiday in the summer I spend it way up in Georgian Bay where there is a major provincial park, Kilbare, which is a huge park but which is usually crowded by four or five o'clock on Friday afternoon and filled up for the weekend. A high percentage of the people who take advantage of these parks is made up of Canadians who are not born in this country, who are new to Canada. They appreciate our outdoors and the opportunity they have to enjoy it.
But the people in the cities will increase in number and will require greater chances to spend their leisure time. They will have less opportunity to acquire their own land, if indeed that is desirable, and they will have more opportunity to travel to different parts of the country. So in that sense I welcome the expansion of national parks, not for tourists from other countries but for the recreation and leisure time of present and future generations of Canadians.
When there are people in urban communities who do not have the opportunity or the wherewithal to travel very far in their desire to escape from the pressures of our major urban centres, I think it is necessary for us to create an increasing number of large urban parks or recreation areas, and I welcome and applaud the provision and preservation of a major part of the waterfront in Toronto for recreational purposes. That is one type of park and I think it is one of the most valuable things that has been done by
National Parks Act
a federal government, a new initiative that has been taken that has not even been thought of by previous governments or previous ministers.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) is here tonight and I applaud him for his initiative in this respect. However, we will also be in need of recreational lands on the periphery of our cities or within easy access to them, and I suggest that we have some unique opportunities here. However, here we are within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. I think this is an area for co-operation that we should not overlook. To make certain that there are sufficient lands provided is something that has the support of all people.
People today appreciate the need for such facilities. As a matter of fact, part of my constituency has been expropriated for the proposed new airport, and in speaking to the people about land use-some of them are very upset, as you know-and the need for parks, one finds that they say, "If we were expropriated for the purpose of creating a park, we could understand and appreciate it; but the pressures that are being put upon us by the technological society is something to which we object."
There are many areas where we can take initiatives, areas of environmental control where there are major works for the containment of shore erosion, for instance, for the cleaning up of ravines, which should not only be cleaned up and set aside for further development by the municipalities, in conjunction with the provinces and if necessary with the federal government, but should be held and preserved as parkland in these urban areas.
One of the classic examples of the value of an urban national park is the Gatineau national park on the doorstep of Ottawa-Hull. Those of us who spend a great deal of time here have learned a little about that park. On the odd weekend we have been able to go there with our families, and to get out during the winter and ski. We appreciate how great it is having something as beautiful as the Gatineau national park accessible to us.
When we think of airports let us think in terms of Mirabel, where there are about 80,000 acres involved. My guess is that something like 5,000 acres would be adequate for the actual airport facilities, with probably another
15,000	acres necessary for the surrounding noise area. These lands are coming within, or are already within public ownership. Here, again, in trying to preserve the land, because of the noise disruptive zone near an airport we have an opportunity to develop that surrounding area as an urban park for the greater Montreal region.
If we think about it in this way it may not be necessary to dislocate the people living there. There would be no urgency about moving them. There may be urgency to start the project. However, once we commit ourselves to it in this manner we can tell the people that they can stay there for a generation, or indeed that if their children want to stay there for another generation that would not be too bad, but that within a period of one or two generations all this land must revert to the use of the public, particularly for the use of those locked into the city.
If indeed the proposed airport at Pickering does go ahead, again we are talking of something in the area of

November 26, 1973
National Parks Act
17,000	to 18,000 acres, of which only 5,000 or 6,000 acres would be used for the airport facilities. Further, of course, if it is not developed as a major airport but is simply used as a STOL airport, then it is only a matter of 1,000 acres that would be needed for the actual facilities. This would leave 16,000 or 17,000 acres available on the doorstep of Toronto to be used for parkland, for walkways, for trails, in the winter as a ski area, where streams could be cleaned up, dams and small lakes created, all providing magnificent facilities for a major metropolis that desperately needs them.
I can think, too, of our great hydroelectric projects, of the James Bay project and others. Here I am not making a judgment on the James Bay project, but if it were to go ahead, particularly on a limited scale, and if the amount of land it opened up were developed not only as a hydroelectric project site but as a park site, with great thought and care put into its development, its potential is tremendous.
There are other properties that belong to the Department of National Defence that could be developed in this way. Here I think of the Meaford range on Georgian Bay. It has been used as a tank firing range, an artillery firing range. We are told that the cost of clearing it and getting the unexploded bombs out of it is considered excessive. One of my hon. friends says prohibitive. I do not believe it is prohibitive. It may appear prohibitive at the present time, but I point out that the price of gasoline was considered excessive six months ago, yet today it is not considered prohibitive. This land would be invaluable as a park. The sooner we get on with the job of clearing it, the less expensive it will be. Perhaps we could commit ourselves to a ten-year program or a 20-year program to clean it up, and at the end of that time we will have a great facility available for the enjoyment of the people of southern Ontario.
Another area which we have to consider with respect to the development of park land near a city is in British Columbia, where Vancouver will become the third largest metropolis in Canada by 1980. I think without doubt it is the most beautiful city in Canada. I only hope my constituents will forgive me for saying that. But it is locked in by mountains, with beautiful homes still being built right up to the feet of those mountains. It may be inappropriate for a Torontonian to say that a degree of irresponsibility was shown in allowing such development to take place. It is unforgiveable, but now things are changing. As I say, the people of Vancouver are living in the midst of some of the greatest beauty in the world, but within a short few years they will not be able to enjoy it unless we go ahead with urban park planning.
I have spoken in this House on previous occasions about what I believe would be a worth-while program, a national youth service which could perform non-military service in areas such as parks. Think what such a group could do over a period of years. Young people devoting one year to the service of their country could help develop parks and youth hostels. The time thus occupied would be absolutely unlimited and young people would undertake this sort of thing with enthusiasm. It is the sort of thing that is attractive to them. They would realize the worth of it.
True, there are programs such as the Local Initiatives Program that can be used in this way. But I am thinking

on a broader scale, with tens of thousands of young men and women committed to a year of service to their country. There are many things they could do, but one of the most important would involve them in the work of developing recreational areas and national parks. These we need desperately, I do not say to the exclusion of other projects, but urban recreational areas are equally needed with national parks. They must be within access of our major urban areas.
I could go on for quite some time on this subject, as could all hon. members. I conclude by saying the bill envisages a worth-while approach and I commend it to hon. members.


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


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to talk about the Canada Development Corporation. As you know, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the establishment of this corporation in this House he said it would have its head office in Vancouver, British Columbia. When the directors of the Canada Development Corporation were appointed, the federal government expressed the wish that this publicly-funded corporation should have its head office in Vancouver. This was, among other things, to be evidence of Ottawa's interest in western Canada and a determination that the financial importance of western Canada should be upgraded by the government. Now that the two-year deadline is approaching and the CDC claims to have complied with the letter of that undertaking, let us see how things really look.
Item 1. Anthony Hampson, president and chief executive of the CDC, is married. Mrs. Hampson has a good job in Toronto. She has children in school there. It is only natural that family ties might make it difficult for a senior executive to move where his job must take him. But that normally should be a problem for him, not for the city of Vancouver.
Item 2. A Vancouver executive seeking career advancement recently wrote to the CDC concerning employment in the new Vancouver head office. He was told that it was only going to be a small operation and that no staff was being hired.
November 26, 1973

Item 3. The square footage of the premises rented for the Vancouver head office can be imagined if you will step out into the street, looking both ways for traffic, and pace off a 14-step square. That is 1,700 square feet. Does that look like the head office of a billion dollar company?
Item 4. Hampson will be working out of the Toronto "operations office." As befits a subsidiary location, it has
6,000	square feet, a little under four times the space of the office in Vancouver. Maybe the extra space is to store the money they hope to make.
Item 5. Early in September, Vancouver was graced with its first CDC board meeting. Until scuppered by the western directors, there was a plan to start the meeting at 7 a.m. because that was a convenient ten o'clock in the time zone that the eastern directors were operating on. When it did start, the meeting was speeded up so that officers and directors could catch a 2 p.m. flight back to Toronto.
Item 6. The CDC for a time looked at a group of western investment opportunities which, for example, would have kept another 26 per cent of Bethlehem Copper Canadian and would have led to the investment of some Canadian money in Canada instead of simply buying out the U.S. shareholders of Texasgulf. They backed off, in part one suspects because the portfolio that would have shaped up would have made a real western head office inevitable. Texasgulf, on the other hand, has had its major asset conveniently located in Ontario which of course requires a Toronto listening post, close to the amenities of central Canada.
The officers of the CDC are leading us down the garden path. They take offices in Vancouver that are not big enough for the firm of "Wynken, Blynken and Nod" and pretend that it is a head office. They put up a smokescreen that it does not matter where they live-they will divide their time. There can be no question what they are up to. The president of the Bank of Montreal is from Toronto via Vancouver but his head office is in Montreal. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress is from Nova Scotia and the vice-president is from British Columbia, but they live, with their head offices, in Ottawa.
The head office of the Hudson's Bay Company used to be in Winnipeg-and still is in theory. But now the chief executive officer is in Toronto and that is where the real head office is by definition. When the head offices of Cominco and the Teck Corporation moved to Vancouver from Montreal and Toronto respectively, their chief executives came with them.
In this day of sophisticated communications, the CDC can do business with eastern interests from a Vancouver base. It can better serve western development potential from a western base. And we should remember that CDC is not selling, it is buying. People who want money will gladly come from all over the continent if the officers do not feel like travelling.
The sham "head office" ploy did not work and the ball is back with the government. The first step is to call an extraordinary shareholders meeting and fire Hampson as chief executive officer. The second step is for the government and the board of directors to find a truly outstanding Canadian to take over this job, move the head office to
Adjournment Debate
Vancouver as intended and get on with what has to be one of the most exciting challenges in Canada today. The CDC has had the opportunity to meet so many challenges for one two years, but we still have not seen anything at all in the way of selling shares.
I see my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. members on the Liberal side have been smiling. Maybe they think that I have been cruel to the government, but I should like to tell them that the speech I made tonight is just about a replica of one made by Gordon Gibson in Vancouver. He was with the Liberal government in recent years. He knows the people of Canada and, like them, he knows why this government has few seats in that part of the country and will have even less after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the intervention of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) with respect to the Canada Development Corporation was that the head office of that corporation would be located elsewhere than Vancouver. We know now that such is not the case but I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House about the developments that led to that decision by the government to set up the head office of that corporation in Vancouver.
The whole thing goes back to a statement made in the House of Commons on November 27, 1971, when the Board of Directors of the CDC held its first meeting. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced at that time in the House that the government had informed the Board of Directors of the CDC of its wish to see the head office transferred to Vancouver within two years. Section 10 of the CDC Act provides as follows and I quote:
The head office of the company shall initially be at such place within Canada as may be designated by the Governor in Council and thereafter at such place in Canada as the Board of Directors may determine subject to section 21 of the Canada Corporations Act.
The Governor in Council had already decided that the head office would originally be located in the National Capital area. So the decision to later transfer the head office rested under the act with the Board of Directors of the CDC.
Although the time said by the Prime Minister in his statement on November 29, 1971, expired only at the end of 1973 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was in a position to announce in Calgary on July 26, 1973, at the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities that the CDC Board of Directors had decided at its meeting on July 24 to transfer the head office of the corporation to Vancouver. Surely, it was normal that a reasonable period of time be necessary to make such a transfer. The minister indicated that everything could be done in October.
On September 25, 1973, the CDC directors met in Vancouver for their regular meeting and the president was then in a position to announce officially the closing of the Ottawa office and the opening of the new headquarters in Vancouver, at Grandville Square. On that same occasion, the president announced also the opening of an office in Toronto. The senior officials of the corporation are expect-

November 26, 1973
Adjournment Debate
ed to share their time between the headquarters in Vancouver and the Toronto office,
Unfortunately, the opening of the headquarters in Vancouver was somewhat delayed by strikes that affected the installation of elevators in the building where the CDC had rented its office space. However, Mr. Speaker, I note in conclusion that the headquarters of the CDC have in fact been transfered to Vancouver within the time limits announced by the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Paproski:: That was a political speech.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-DAMAGE TO HMCS &quot;RESTIGOUCHE&quot;-REASON FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGAL INQUIRY FOLLOWING INITIAL INQUIRY REPORT-COST OF REPAIRS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), I will try to keep this speech non-political. A little better than three years ago, HMCS Restigouche, a destroyer escort in service with the Canadian armed forces, was sent in for its half-life refit, which put it out of service for about two years. When it was built about 15 years ago it cost in the neighbourhood of$26 million. The refit involved an expenditure of an additional $6 million to bring it up to current service requirements.
Just before going back into service, the normal sea trials were conducted by the Canadian armed forces to determine whether the refit had been carried out to their expectations and requirements. During those sea trials it was discovered, and I quote from issue No. 13 of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, page 51:
A formal inquiry into corrosive damage to the propulsion system of HMCS Restigouche has revealed that the damage was caused by hydrochloric acid which produced general corrosion and pitting through much of the steam system resulting in the seizing some valves and turbines.
That damage resulted from taking the ship to sea. It resulted from the normal checks on the feed water system not being carried out before the ship went to sea. Hydrochloric acid very quickly damages propulsion systems in ships if it is found in feed water. There was a board of inquiry. The board produced a 400-page report of the reasons for the damage. That report has never been made public. Numerous attempts were made to obtain the information. On March 1, March 2, April 2 and May 9 I asked questions in the House and placed questions on the order paper to discover what happened and when we might expect a statement. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) asked questions. The sum total of our efforts is the following statement by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) which appears on page 46 of the same committee report: Restigouche had also been accepted from the contractor by DND on 12 May 1972 but before the ship was placed into operation, extensive corrosion was discovered in the main propulsion and auxiliary systems.
It is normal practice, whenever significant damage to DND facilities or equipment occurs, for a board of inquiry to be convened, and this was done on 4 August, 1972. The board's purpose was to determine the most probable cause of the damage, to
[Mr. Comtois.)
identify any administrative procedures which may have contributed to the damage, and to identify what repairs were necessary. Hearings of the board took place from 21 August to 14 September, 1972, and its report was delivered on 18 September. On 29 September 1972, the department made a press release . . .
The Department of Supply and Services is assessing the legal aspects of any claim which the Crown may have for the recovery of compensation, resulting from the corrosion damage. The board's report is one of the documents being studied by DSS in this regard. Consequently, I will not go into detail on the report of the inquiry at this time.
We have heard nothing more. I have had this question slated for months for debate on the adjournment motion, but I was requested by the Department of Supply and Services to delay bringing the matter to the floor of the House because those concerned were expecting the report of the legal inquiry which, I understand, was designed to determine whether there was any legal liability and whether any action could be taken for the recovery of the cost of the damage which amounted to $750,000, plus the lengthy period which the ship was out of service. I was asked to delay until such time as the report had been received, and I agreed to do so.
I have waited six months, during which time I have not heard again from the department. I still do not know whether the legal inquiry has been completed, whether a report has been received by the minister or, should he have received it, what recommendations it contains. I do not know whether there is ground for legal action against the shipyard. It is certain that no action is to be taken against the navy, because I know that a court martial is not contemplated. I think it is time, considering the large amount of money involved, that the people of Canada, through this House, found out what happened and why. It is time we were told whether the government intends to take action against those responsible for the treasury incurring this additional expenditure of $750,000. I believe we should be given this information now.


Herb Breau: In May, 1970, as a result of a competitive tender, Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited, Halifax shipyards division, was awarded a contract for the half-life conversion and refit of two Restigouche class escorts, HMCS Kootenay and HMCS Restigouche. The value of the contract for known work was $5,174,259. In addition, Treasury Board authorized an allowance of $1,505,790 for design changes, thereby creating a total authorized budget of $6,680,049 for both vessels.
After the contractor had completed performance trials, the Department of National Defence accepted Restigouche in January, 1972, and moved the vessel to the DND dockyard, Halifax, to undergo further planned alterations. During the course of the work, extensive corrosion was discovered in the turbo-driven, forced lubrication pumps as well as in the main engines, main boilers, superheater tubes and some auxiliary machinery. The preliminary investigation indicated the corrosion appeared to be related to the chemical cleaning of main boilers performed by Chemi-Solv, a sub-contractor of Halifax shipyards, during the conversion work.
November 26, 1973


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where are you going to sell it after you have put another $12 million into it? China?


Herb Breau: We are not going to sell it. In consultation with the Department of National Defence, the Department of Supply and Services determined that it would be both imperative and cost-effective to proceed immediately to arrest the persistent erosion and repair the known damage. A contract was negotiated and placed with Halifax Shipyards in October, 1972, at an estimated cost of $583,000.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


Herb Breau: The work was completed in May, 1973, at an approximate price of $400,000. In accordance with normal practice in cases of this nature, the Department of Supply and Services initiated a legal investigation by the Department of Justice to determine the responsibility and liability for rectifying the cost of corrosion damage to the Restigouche, and related costs. This investigation, which included an examination of the DND report of the board of inquiry convened in 1972, has now been completed as far as it is presently possible to do so and a provisional recommendation on the liability aspect has been made by the Department of Justice.
The recommendation was qualified to the extent that at no time has the corrosion damage or liability question been discussed with Halifax Shipyards or Chemi-Solv. It is always possible that the disclosure of additional facts from these sources would alter the recommendation, and thus it would be premature to reveal its nature at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Who wrote that stuff?


TRADE-PULP-DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE PURCHASES BY CHINESE WITH PRIME MINISTER DURING VISIT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, some of the things that come out from the ministry are really rather humorous. I address you tonight in connection with a question I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on October 19 in regard to his trip to China, and particularly about the possibility of exporting pulp to that country. I raised the question with the Prime Minister because of a report I had from the media which suggested that one of the things we might export to China was wood pulp.
In his answer to me the Prime Minister suggested that there had been no definite commitment to export pulp, and that there would be an investigation of the forest industry when Chinese representatives came here to determine which forest industry products we might export to that country.
We have for too long exported from the forests of this country, from our mines and from our wells, job opportunities that belong to Canadians. We have for too long sold commodities that supply the industries of other countries. Pulp is one of those items, like zinc, copper and benzine, that we ship out of this country in vast amounts. With them we ship out our jobs, our future, our hopes and our aspirations.
Adjournment Debate
I draw your attention to the fact that in the forest industries in the province of Ontario, prior to the coming into power of George Drew, we used to ship out pulp logs to Michigan and Ohio so they could make their own paper and paper-oriented products. Those exports were stopped. Then under Leslie Frost as premier we stopped the export of pulp. But we never seemed to learn in the rest of Canada. Going over the export figures for 1972, I note that we exported from Canada some 6,200,000 tons of pulp out of a total production of 19,100,000 tons, or close to one-third. The rest of our production was turned into paper or paper-oriented products, but none the less we still exported more pulp last year than the year before, and more the year before than the year before that.
We never seem to learn that you cannot do a thing with pulp. You cannot eat it, you cannot sleep in it, you cannot wear it, you cannot burn it. All you can make from it is paper-oriented products. You can make J-Cloths with it, you can make toilet tissue with it, you can make newspaper with it, and you can make other kinds of fibres that you can wear. But you cannot do a damn thing with pulp except process it further into other manufactures.
If a nation like China, which has no huge timber resources, needs wood fibres, surely it can buy from this country wood fibres manufactured to the highest degree possible. Any suggestion by this government or any other government that we should sell wood fibres in unprocessed form is a stupid suggestion. Indeed, what this government should do now is to lay out a new industrial policy for Canada. As far as wood fibres are concerned, it should say clearly that while last year we exported some
6,100,000	tons of pulp, next year we will export less, and the year after that even less, until we reach the stage where we no longer export pulp. We will retain this commodity for further manufacture in Canada.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that pulp in many cases is produced in areas of Canada that are short of work and work opportunities, areas where industry remains undeveloped. Because it may be convenient and profitable for a corporation to sell pulp rather than to set up industry to manufacture paper or paper-oriented products is no excuse for exporting economic growth and the development of economic enterprise. This government has had before it this possibility for a number of years, yet it has refused to take any positive action to cut down the export of the raw lifeblood of this nation.
At no time has this government said to any industry, "You will export no more of our raw products: You must export these products in the most highly-finished state." It is high time we had this kind of industrial policy and leadership in Canada. Canada should no longer be considered as hewers of wood. That is what we are asked to be and that is what we have become as a result of exporting pulp. I would ask the parliamentary secretary tonight to give a commitment to the people of Canada that this government will introduce legislation that will over a short period of time eliminate the export of wood pulp from this country.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, Canada

November 26, 1973
Adjournment Debate
is developing its trade in pulp and paper with China steadily. In 1970 no pulp was exported to that country by Canada. In the following year almost 23,000 metric tons were sent; and in 1972, 16,000 metric tons. During the first eight months of this year some 7,000 metric tons have been exported.
Naturally, Canada is interested in developing trade with the greatest possible Canadian value added. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated on October 19, there is to be a visiting delegation which will look at the total subject of the forest industries. At that time there will be an opportunity to make the Chinese aware of the vast range of paper grades available from Canada. It will also be possible to impress upon them the necessity, if they
wish to develop export trade in world markets, of being able to provide adequate packaging for such goods. Canada will thus have an opportunity to foster trade with China, not only in papers rather than in pulp but also in our expertise in such fields as paper manufacture and packaging.
The Canadian government had already taken initiatives in developing trade with the People's Republic of China through the mechanism of the Peking Solo Fair which took place in August, 1972. At that time Canadian businessmen and Canadian government officials were afforded an opportunity to show to officials of the Chinese government and to discuss with them Canadian goods and Canada's capability as a supplier.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
November 26, 1973


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Introduction
The Department has investigated possibilities for reducing the consumption of energy in its buildings on a short term basis. Typical buildings and their systems were simulated, taking into consideration design standards, a number of possible operating conditions and the pick-up capacity of plants and systems. Theoretically, recommended conditions could produce BTU savings of the order of 40%. Further savings can be achieved by improving plant efficiencies and power factors. Additional emphasis is to be placed on maintenance procedures which have a direct bearing on efficiency of energy usage. Subsequent paragraphs outline in more detail guidelines to be followed in reaching the objectives.
Plant Efficiency
Improved efficiency of fuel utilization is to be accomplished by tuning up all of the boilers in the Department's heating plants and/or boiler rooms.
Three main aspects are involved. These are:
(a)	adjusting burners for the optimum fuel/air ratio;
(b)	calibrating and adjusting combustion instrumentation and controls to maintain this ratio over the full firing range and
(c)	cleaning heat transfer surfaces.
Load Reduction General
For most office type buildings, the greatest energy requirements in descending order are for lights, ventilation (outside) air, heat loss through walls, roofs, windows, doors, etc., and the electrical requirements for the operation of mechanical systems and equipment. Conservation resolves itself around reducing requirements in these four areas. Generally, the major reductions in energy consumption can be obtained by shutting off all lights and electrical equipment when not required and only using that which is absolutely necessary; reducing the quantity of outside air brought into the building for ventilation purposes and only bringing this air into the building when the building is occupied; reducing the temperature inside the building to 68°F-70°F and lowering the temperature another 5°F during the time that the building is unoccupied. Each building has its own characteristics because of design, construction, location, and schedule of operation, consequently there may be limitations to the things that can be done immediately to reduce energy needs. For this reason the following guidelines have been developed defining the objectives to be reached wherever possible.
Larger Buildings (more than 25,000 square feet).
(a)	Perimeter Areas: (outside wall office space) Ventilation
-Set rate at 0.1 CFM/sq. ft. maximum between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays. (CFM-cubic feet of air per minute)
-Shut off outside air dampers completely from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 weekdays and during weekends and holidays.
Thermostats
-Reduce thermostat setting to maintain a maximum of 70°F between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
-Set back the temperature to 65°F between 6:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. weekdays and during weekends and holidays.
Air systems
-Shut off all air systems from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. weekdays except for air heating systems (dual duct type). Also shut off the primary air system of induction systems.
-Shut off all air systems including primary air of induction systems during weekends and holidays except for air heating systems (dual duct type) which have to remain in operation but set back thermostats to maintain 65 °F as stated above.
(b)	Core Areas: (interior office space)
Ventilation
-Operate same as the perimeter areas except where these areas are served by a separate system in which case outside air is to be allowed to meet cooling requirements as detailed below under air systems.
Thermostats
-No reduction is required in thermostat setting for these areas. Reheat coils should not be allowed to function by completely cutting off their energy source.
Air Systems
-Shut off air systems from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. weekdays and during the weekends and holidays.
-Reset supply air temperature not lower than 68°F. This also applies to the cold deck of dual duct systems.
-Set return air and outside air dampers to maintain supply air at 68°F without using any additional heat. This also applies to the cold deck of dual duct systems serving core areas.
-Shut off all energy sources to all terminal reheat coils and central reheat coils except for the reheat coils of the hot deck in single fan dual duct systems where reheat should not exceed return air conditions.
Smaller Buildings
-Set thermostat to maintain 68°F-70°F between 8:00 and 5:00 p.m. weekdays in office type accommodation. For all other times, set back the temperature to 63°F-65°F.
-Clean humidifier and replace elements, if necessary. Maintain 30% relative humidity and reduce this to a
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1973
level that will prevent excessive condensation from occurring on window surfaces as outside temperatures decrease.
-Ensure that furnace filters are serviced or replaced as required.
-Keep the furnace fan in warm air heated buildings "on" all the time, if possible, to distribute the internal and solar heat to all parts of the building.
-Check ceiling insulation under the roof and add more insulation and fill voids, if necessary (4" is minimum but 6" is better).
-Look for cracks where infiltration occurs and tape them.
-Install weather stripping at all outside doors and on all opening sash, and restrict door and window opening as much as practicable.

[Stage Direction]
The successful application of voluntary conservation measures to motor gasoline could result in savings of anywhere from 15%-25%. A 20% saving would result in a saving to the nation of up to 3.75 million gallons of gasoline per day over the next year. For the individual motorist this might mean a saving of $100. I am including here a checklist of practices that motorists can observe to reduce gasoline consumption.
1.	DRIVING TECHNIQUES
(a)	Reduce highway driving speeds. Gasoline consumption increases significantly at speeds in excess of 50 mph. Reducing speeds from 70 mph to 50 mph will reduce gasoline consumption by 20%-40%.
(b)	Drive smoothly, with gentle starts and stops. Press the accelerator down only as far as necessary to reach normal driving speeds and avoid pumping the accelerator or racing the engine when the car is not in motion.
(c)	Prolonged idling wastes gasoline; if the motor idles for more than a minute it uses more gasoline than it would take to restart it.
2.	MAINTENANCE
(a)	Check your gasoline mileage regularly; a sudden drop in miles per gallon may indicate mechanical problems.
(b)	Keep your car tuned to the specifications in the owner's manual.
(c)	Use the proper grade of lubricants and the most economical grade of gasoline.
(d)	Buy slightly less than a full tank of gasoline. This will prevent wasteful overflow and leave room for expansion in warm weather.
(e)	Check tire pressures regularly; underinflated tires put a drag on the engine and require more fuel.
(f)	Remove bugs and foreign matter from your radiator to prevent overheating.
(g)	Use a block heater in winter; this minimizes idling time and can increase mileage for short distance urban trips by 2 to 4 miles per gallon.
3.	CAR USE
(a)	Try to curtail or consolidate the number of trips by:
-using public transportation where possible -forming car pools
-planning your driving route to combine many short trips into one efficient trip.
(b)	If you have more than one car in your family; use the one that is more energy efficient whenever possible.
(c)	Eliminate unnecessary weight in the car; check your trunk and storage compartment.
(d)	Remove unnecessary attachments which might increase wind resistance such as roof racks.
(e)	Car pools are an important source of saving. Talk to your employer about setting up car pool bulletin boards or taking other steps to encourage the formation of car pools.
4.	EMISSION CONTROL STANDARDS
Many 1973 and 1974 model cars contain emission control equipment that reduces the efficiency of gasoline use. Estimates of the fuel savings that deactivation of emission control equipment would provide, at the most, amount to no more than 2%. And this would be at the expense of environmental damage. The savings from the measures I have outlined above are much more significant, and consistent with environmental objectives, and I would urge that motorists do not consider deactivating emission control equipment.

[Stage Direction]
In the text of my statement, I mentioned an estimate of 2-5% reduction in fuel requirements for each degree of temperature reduction in space heating. Maximum savings will result if steps are taken to increase the efficiency of heating equipment and to decrease the heat lost from buildings. There are a number of simple and relatively costless measures that consumers can take in this regard:
1.	To increase the efficiency of heating equipment-
(a)	Ensure that equipment is inspected and cleaned at least once a year by an expert.
(b)	Remove dust from registers and ducts.
(c)	Replace or clean filters regularly (at least once a month).
(d)	Close registers in rooms that are not being used and close inside doors to these rooms to prevent heat leakage from the rest of the house.
(e)	Insulate heating ducts that pass through areas of the dwelling where heat is not required.
If heating equipment is well maintained, a potential energy saving of 10% or more can be realized. A layer of one half millimeter of soot on the inside of an oil fired furnace can reduce efficiency by as much as 50%.
2.	To reduce heat loss from buildings-
(a)	Lock windows to achieve a better seal.
(b)	Ensure that interior doors are closed if windows are open.
November 26, 1973
[Stage Direction]
(c)	Open and close doors only when essential and for shortest possible time; use doors away from prevailing winds.
(d)	Close drapes at night and leave them open on sunny days.
(e)	Add weatherstripping around loosely fitting strom windows and doors.
(f)	Cover cracks in the fit of interior windows or in attic areas.
(g)	Add storm windows and doors where necessary.
(h)	Add insulation, especially in attic spaces and floors over unheated crawl spaces.
(i)	Use kitchen exhaust fans as little as possible (one hour of running time is capable of removing all the air from an average sized home).
(j)	Ensure that the fireplace damper is closed, and fits tightly, when the fireplace is not in use.
In many houses, as much as 30% of the fuel consumed for space heating is used to warm cold draughts that can be easily eliminated. Spots where cold air is leaking in may be located with the help of a candle flame, and should be
covered. Storm windows or insulating glass will reduce heat lost through window areas by as much as 50%, while reducing or eliminating draughts and increasing comfort. It has been estimated that an investment in storm window will pay for itself in less than seven years and thereafter return an annual dividend of 13%-18% in terms of savings of fuel bills.
3. To increase comfort at lower temperatures investigate the possibility of:
(a)	Moving chairs and sofas away from walls and windows.
(b)	Making greater use of humidifiers; the same degree of comfort can be achieved with lower temperatures and higher humidity.
It is estimated that about 2.5 billion gallons of heating oil will be required in Canada this winter. If consumers can reduce their requirements by 15% we will save about 375 million gallons of heating oil. This might amount to a national saving of as much as $125 million and a saving to individual consumers of about $50 or four weeks supply of oil over this heating season.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, November 27, 1973