1973-12-06

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), filed a notice of motion in these terms:
That the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, presented to the House on Wednesday, December 5, 1973, be concurred in.
I may point out that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) filed precisely the same motion.
My point of order relates to the position these two motions have been assigned for the order paper. As of today they are simply on the notice paper, but the notice paper indicates where they will be when they are transferred tomorrow to the order paper.
Their position on the notice paper indicates that they will be listed for debate on Monday next under motions made pursuant to Standing Order 58(4) (a). As everyone knows, Monday next is to be an allotted day on which it is thought there might be a non-confidence motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
My contention is that, since these two identical motions relate to the adoption of a report of a standing committee, they should appear on the order paper under Routine Proceedings in the same place where half a dozen or more similar motions are already listed. Some of them have been standing for quite a while. There is one in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), one in the name of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and several more.
My point is that the motions filed yesterday for concurrence in the report of the standing committee should be given treatment identical with that given to other such motions. I suspect the reason the Chair and the Table have put these motions where they are is because of Standing Order 58(16) which reads as follows:
There shall be no debate on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates which have been referred to it except on an allotted day.
I have to point out that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates is not, strictly speaking, in fact in any terms, a report on estimates themselves. Rather, it is a report on a matter that arose in that committee out of consideration of the estimates. Just to identify it so that we will know what we are talking about, the actual report contains a recommendation that matters having to do with the administration of Central
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, including in particular the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki, should become the subject matter of a reference by the House to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. That is a recommendation made to the House arising out of consideration of estimates that were referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but in no sense is it a report by the standing committee on the estimates.
I can tell by that winsome smile on Your Honour's face that you are ready to tell me the report is out of court on another basis. That, of course, is a separate issue. I am not now arguing the question whether the report itself is in order. I am contending that the place where the motion should have been set out is where other motions for concurrence in reports of standing committees appear, namely, under Daily Routine of Business.
Your Honour might ask what is the difference, since the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby or the identical motion of the hon. member for Calgary North will be reached in due course. I point out that if these motions appear under Daily Routine of Business it would be the prerogative of either of these hon. members, any day on motions, to ask the House to proceed thereon. But if those motions appear under the item of an allotted day one is faced with the fact that on the next allotted day, namely, Monday, December 10, a non-confidence motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be filed.
Since Your Honour has the responsibility, when several motions are set down for the same day, to decide which shall take priority, if you have to choose among motions proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, the hon. member for Calgary North and the Leader of the Opposition one can imagine which one you would feel should be given priority. In such circumstances the motions in the names of the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would never be reached at all. If they were placed under Routine Proceedings, at least one or the other of the two members I have named would be able to move concurrence in his motion and, thereby, concurrence in the report.
I realize there are arguments about the validity of the report. It seems to me a case could be made for the right of a committee dealing with estimates which have been referred to it to make a recommendation about a matter arising from those estimates. This, indeed, is what happened in the committee. There was a discussion of the estimates of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and particularly with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki, resulting in this recommendation that the whole matter be referred by the House to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, the committee to which housing matters are normally referred.
8462

December 6, 1973
Certain Motions' Position on Order Paper
As I say, the validity of the report in Your Honour's eyes is another issue. But to enable even that question to be decided it seems to me the motions ought to be in a place on the order paper where (a) they are entitled to be, and where (b) they will be reached. If they are put under the order for Monday's opposition day I assert they will never be reached. My point of order is, therefore, that they should be placed under Routine Proceedings.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I understand fully why you smiled, Mr. Speaker. I was smiling at the same time at the valiant effort of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to demonstrate to us that we are not dealing with a report on estimates. It has to be a report on estimates. The reference from the House was on estimates, and if the report has any validity at all that validity must be founded on the fact that it is a report on estimates. If it has any standing at all it ought to stand where it is. I think it would be a splendid thing in this case if it were never reached because, for other reasons, it is obviously a breach of the rules.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment on the point of order. It is true that the committee on estimates has made this report. But it is the Prime Minister who said on several occasions in the House that this vehicle could be used to discuss the matter and to interrogate the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation about this very serious affair. It happened to be the committee on estimates that made this report, but deserves the place on the order paper which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said it should occupy. It was the Prime Minister who directed the House as to which committee should initiate action, and I submit the motion of the hon. member from Calgary should certainly be dealt with right away.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who preceded me referred to the substantive seriousness of the content of the motion and I should like to speak very briefly on that point before I get to the procedural issue. As has been indicated, the committee was quite properly dealing with the estimates that had been referred to it. In conjunction with that task it also touched on the important matter of social housing and the firing of Mr. Rudnicki. The committee decided that it would be inappropriate, in the context of discussing estimates, to pursue that inquiry and referred the subject back to the House so that the appropriate committee of the House, at a different time and with instructions by the House, could deal with the issue.
I point out that a clear majority of the committee, and therefore a majority of the members of the House, have said that they want the dismissal of Mr. Rudnicki and the government's social housing policy investigated, and this seemed to be the only way that this majority view could get a fair hearing. Whether Your Honour decides that my motion should be in its present place on the order paper or elsewhere, it is certainly my firm wish that you rule that, whatever the location, the motion itself is in order.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to this motion. The problem that arose in the miscellaneous estimates committee was that only an hour and a half was devoted to the consideration of this matter. When there is an important matter like the wrongful dismissal of Rudnicki one wants to discuss it, but during that time government members, backed up by a biased chairman, would not let us deal with the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member who has no right, on a point of order, to rise and accuse the chairman of a committee of bias. I think that is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what other word to use. He made it very clear when we tried to rise on points of order that he would not even listen to us. Even when we raised a point of order just before the ending of the committee itself, he would not allow us to speak to it. What else can you say? Certainly he was prejudiced, and he was backed up by his own members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we might limit ourselves to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre some minutes ago. I invite hon. members to take that into account. We have already spent some time on the point of order and, although it is an important one, we certainly should not at this point revive proceedings that took place in committee. The hon. member for St. John's East a few days ago raised by way of a question of privilege certain matters which took place in committee and a ruling was made at the time. I would hope that aspect of the situation might not be revived in the present circumstances but rather that we would limit our discussion to the very important procedural point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I am sure that the hon. member for Calgary North, with his experience in the House and elsewhere and his intimate knowledge of the rules of the House, can give very valuable guidance to the Chair on the procedural aspects of this matter.
Order, please. I am not sure whether I can assume that all that might be said for or against the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has now been said. I had thought for a while that perhaps I should reserve my decision and think about it, but in all honesty I have to tell hon. members that since the notices were given to the table yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby I was placed in the situation where I had to give serious consideration to the whole matter.
The weakness I see in the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he refers to motions already on the order paper is that he does not take into account a point of order raised, I think, on June 15 or June 16, followed by a ruling which was made on June 18. At that time the Chair received the benefit of excellent advice which was given by hon. members who went at length into this matter and gave their opinions. After
December 6, 1973

considering the advice and counsel given by members, the Chair felt at the time that the only way this type of motion could be considered was on an allotted day as business of supply. It would be very difficult for the Chair to reach any other decision. When hon. members look at Standing Order 58(16) they will see it states:
There shall be no debate on any motion to concur in the report of any standing committee on estimates which have been referred to it except on an allotted day.
How can the Chair rule that there can be a debate on the report we now have before us on a day other than an allotted day as part of supply business? I think I would be remiss in my responsibility if I ruled in any other way. I think the House would embark on a rather dangerous procedure if, when we refer estimates to a committee and receive substantive reports on matters, which I think can legitimately be considered by the committee, we received reports and considered them from day to day under motions. The House would then turn not to the consideration of the regular business, and we would possibly never get to the question period from day to day if we were to consider these many reports with recommendations, very valid, I am sure, in many instances, but coming from the estimates committees where these committees are required substantially to consider and report to us on estimates.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members have raised the point that perhaps this report is out of order in that it should not have been accepted at all. I am not prepared to go that far. I am not ruling whether the report is in order. But I am saying that if it has any validity at all it must be as a report of the committee on estimates, and therefore it should be considered as required by Standing Order 58.
I have some qualms about the work which is assigned to these committees, and particularly to the miscellaneous estimates committee. I see no reason why all or most of the estimates should be referred to that particular committee. I am referring to the supplementary estimates. I wonder whether, by agreement, there should not be some arrangement whereby this work might be spread over a number of committees-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -rather than heaping it on the miscellaneous estimates committee and its poor chairman who is then called upon to allocate time, perhaps with imaginative timepieces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members will have sympathy for the chairman of that committee. If they were placed in a like position they might feel they had to resort to that kind of extreme measure to ensure that all the estimates of the different departments are considered before the time the report has to be made.
For all these reasons I think hon. members will agree that it is perhaps generous on the part of the House to suggest that this particular report should stand as supply business rather than under the heading of motions.
Certain Motions' Position on Order Paper
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has suggested it is up to the members who are the sponsors of the motions under routine proceedings which are called from day to day to have them debated. I suggest to him that if he reads the ruling made on June 18 he will realize there would be considerable resistance on the part of the Chair to this being done. It was my impression when the ruling was made that there was at least a tacit understanding that these motions perhaps ought not to be where they are now and that certainly we should think twice before we embark by common consent and with the sanction of the Chair on the consideration of motions or reports of this kind from the committee charged with the responsibility of considering estimates.
For these reasons I hope hon. members will see their way clear to the accepting of the decision of the Chair to allow the notices of motions in question to stay where they are at least for the time being.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a further point of order very briefly. I believe that the restlessness of the House and the motivation for the first point of order arise out of what has flowed from the ruling of June 18 and the inability of the House to express itself in respect of any particular item in the estimates. Because of what happened last June, when a committee of the House after due deliberation varied an item in the estimates and expressed the opinion of that committee as charged by the House to do so and the government then moved to restore that item, the House is denied, as a result of the ruling and the move by the government, an opportunity to express itself on that particular item. The House must accept a vote on the entire set of estimates rather than on an item.
With the greatest respect I suggest that was not the purpose of the rule when it was introduced. I was a member of the procedure committee which considered these matters. I was not happy with the abolition of the committee of supply and never have been. But, Mr. Speaker, hon. members have in previous years posted particular items in the estimates and the House was asked to express its views with regard to those items. Only twice have we been denied that. I would say that the frustration expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in trying to move as he has on this occasion, and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and all of us goes back to this ruling that we cannot express ourselves with regard to any particular items. I would invite reconsideration of the ruling in June and the previous one and the practice of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will not engage in a debate with the hon. member for Edmonton West, but the ruling of June 18 had nothing to do with the point now before the House. I appreciate the difficulty to which the hon. member has alluded. I realize the difficulty, but my suggestion in the past has been, and I express it again to hon. members, that perhaps the time has come for the House, or for the House through a committee, to look at the rule which hon. members feel has not been operating well.
But certainly the duty of the Chair is to see that the rule regarding votes on individual estimates as it is clearly written-perhaps it does not represent the intention of the

December 6, 1973
Business of the House
hon. member for Edmonton West or is not what he wanted to see in the rule itself-is observed whether or not the Chair thinks it is right. Again I say with all respect to the hon. member that I agree with much of what he has said in the sense that certainly hon. members do not have an opportunity to debate or vote on certain items in the estimates, but that is not the responsibility of the Chair. It should be the responsibility of all hon. members who feel a better procedure should be evolved to get together and see that the procedure is changed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report in both official languages of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Duquet.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief statement with respect to the business of the House. Yesterday, after some discussion, I undertook to reconsider a package of legislation that might be passed without debate and about which we had almost reached unanimity. As a result of that reconsideration, I am prepared to make a further proposal which involves the deletion of one of the items included yesterday, the addition of another item, and the progression of a third. Possibly hon. members will find a basis for unanimous agreement.
May I begin with government order No. 17, Bill C-135, residential mortgages, which involves the report stage and third reading. I understand there was no difficulty with respect to that.
The second item is government order No. 43, Bill C-190, the Canada Pension Plan No. 1, having to do with the Hutterites or Mennonites. I note that the hon. member for Crowfoot exercised his undoubted right to dissent from giving unanimous consent, and because of that I am prepared to delete this item from the package of proposals. However, because the government attaches importance to its passage, I certainly will seek the conclusion of this bill before adjournment or the prorogation of the House.
The next item is the Parole Act, Bill C-191, involving a report stage amendment and third reading. Yesterday there was no dissent on that point.

The next item is Bill S-4, national parks, for which I sought second reading. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre advanced my proposal and said he would be prepared to carry the bill all the way, including third reading. I am therefore putting that forward as part of my proposal, which I think is sensible.
In addition, I am prepared to suggest Bill C-211, the family allowances bill, concurrence at the report stage, third reading and passage.
Finally, I am making an addition that was not included in my package at any time yesterday, Bill C-224, the Canada Pension Plan Bill No. 2.
If we could agree to deal with these items without debate through all their stages, I would be pleased to suggest that it be done now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader did not give us any notice, of course, of what was to be in this package, both new and old.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: We are primarily concerned with the family allowance bill and the Canada Pension Plan bill because they are welfare legislation, and we object to the fact that they are being used as bargaining items and as blackmail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: The House leader has changed his mind on the order of priority of some of these bills. For example, the Hutterite bill was not on the first list of priorities and it has now been moved to the secondary list.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is an absolute mistake on the part of the hon. member. If he will look at the list I mentioned yesterday, he will see that the first item on the list was CPP No. 1- the very first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He protesteth too loudly.


Thomas Miller Bell: The House leader is carried away with excitement about next Monday. We realize that it is a very difficult time for the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: However, I did not refer to any list of yesterday. I referred rather to the priority list of last week which I have in front of me which contains the seven bills that were discussed at the House leaders' meeting. The list of seven bills does not include this particular bill, and the House leader can check this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw!


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the mistakes the House leader made yesterday, the ones he has made now and the fact that
December 6, 1973

there are changes, we reserve the right to look this over in caucus in a democratic way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are most anxious to see an arrangement of this nature agreed to. Perhaps I might throw a little oil on troubled waters, if there is any oil to spare-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Crude or castor oil?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know whether it is sweet oil, sour oil or bunker oil. My suggestion is that there be a meeting of the House leaders as early as possible this afternoon and that if we can reach an agreement, as I believe we can, we put that agreement into effect later this day.
We stand by our agreement to the initial offer of the President of the Privy Council yesterday. May I say that in the bargaining that took place yesterday, when the hon. member for Crowfoot would not agree to Bill C-190 I made an offer to go a bit farther with the parks bill. I made that offer quite straightforwardly. One or two of my colleagues feel that they would like a committee discussion of that bill but we still agree to no further discussion in the House on that bill. I put in that point of protection, but I do think we could reach agreement on the total package after a meeting of the House leaders this afternoon, and I hope the government House leader will summon such a meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Now.
[ Translation]


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the position of our party is as clear today as it was yesterday when, on behalf of my colleagues, I indicated our willingness to accept the government's proposition without discussion.
What really matters to us, Mr. Speaker, is that the bill concerning family allowances, although imperfect, be passed as soon as possible and without debate. It would still be an improvement over the present situation.
Now that I have risen, Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify a point: yesterday, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) and Progressive Conservative House leader stated, as reported in Hansard on page 8441, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am sure I speak for all members of my party when I say that we will give our sincere and utmost co-operation to this worth-while Christmas-like suggestion, without debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to see that after one day the Progressive Conservatives have started to disagree again. They are going to filibuster so as to prevent the passing of this legislation. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that the Conservatives get together for ten minutes so as to reach an agreement, come back to us afterwards and really work.
Local Initiatives Program


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, of course the answer to the last statement is that we stand by our word but the ground rules have been changed again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: We will agree to a House leaders' meeting this afternoon, and when we see the proposition in writing we will try to make progress later today on what the government House leader puts forward.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that some measure of agreement has been reached at this point. At least hon. members have agreed to try to agree.


PROPOSED TRANSFER OF CERTAIN MOTIONS TO ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, following what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said at the beginning of today's session, and as a result of the legal roadblock which Your Honour, I am sure, reluctantly threw up with regard to what was proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), behind which the government has crept for shelter, I would ask leave under Standing Order 43 to move as follows:
That this House order that the Notices of Motions appearing in the names of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Calgary North under notices pursuant to Standing Order 58 be transferred to the item "Daily Routine of Business- Motions."


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


MANPOWER
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are mind readers on the other side of the House-perhaps mindless rather than mind readers. I ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 pertaining to the manner in which funds under the Local Initiatives Program have been

December 6, 1973
Oil Sands
awarded to the various electoral districts this year. I ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That before this year's Local Initiatives Program is proceeded with any further, this House instructs the government to conduct an immediate and speedy revision of the amounts of funds allocated to individual constituencies with regard only to such things as area need-


An hon. Member:: Did you get too much?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: The Liberals got it all.
-unemployment and project worthiness rather than advice from its political advisers on Liberal party patronage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member for Leeds, as I have suggested to him previously from time to time, that a motion proposed to the House in those terms should not be put. I think it unfair for the hon. member to ask the Chair to put a motion such as this to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege, with all due respect, Sir, I bow to your ruling, but I feel it is the privilege of any member of the House when he notices, as we all have, that the government has divided these moneys on the basis of ministers' ridings and other Liberal members' ridings, to protest. I repeat that we have the right to object when LIP grants are awarded on the basis of cabinet ministers' ridings and other Liberal members' ridings getting more than others.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SANDS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the urgency of the need to develop the Athabaska oil sands since conventional crude oil supplies in Canada will be exhausted within ten years, and in view of the most recent statement by the Premier of Alberta that he would like to see greater public ownership of production facilities and would welcome applications from all sources, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That this House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to submit to the government of Alberta proposals for joint federal-provincial development of the oil sands.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the defence department's decision to cut the budget of the Emergency Measures Organization by 50 per cent, in view of the fact that such a budget cut will grievously affect the operation of many local Emergency Measures Organization groups, resulting in the loss of approximately 1,000 jobs across Canada, and in view of the fact that this cut was decided upon without consultation with provincial governments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House recommends to the Minister of Defence that he reconsider the proposed cut, with a view to reinstating the original budget.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Canadian food industry has reported a serious shortage of edible oils required in the normal conduct of its business, and since the recent major price increases in vegetable oils are already affecting prepared food costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce immediately ban all exports of vegetable oils until such time as he can assure this House that domestic requirements of the Canadian food processing industry can and will be fulfilled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
December 6, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Guay@St. Boniface: We want Horner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with my voice as it is today I certainly will not try to outshout the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in view of the replies he gave earlier in the week that discussions were going on with the government of Alberta about the pricing of oil following the freeze, whether he has been pursuing and seeking an agreement on a mechanism for staged price increases in regard to petroleum products following the end of the freeze, whenever that may be?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, because of my involvement in the House yesterday I was not able to meet with the Alberta officials, but my deputy minister did have occasion to continue the discussion which has been going on for the last two weeks or so with regard, among other things, to the appropriate pricing mechanism for Canadian oil and also the impact of the legislative changes the Alberta government has proposed with regard to oil royalties. I would have to say that to the moment there has been no conclusion to these discussions, or no agreement concluded. I anticipate that there may be a basis for further discussions in the coming week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister tell the House whether he, the department or the government, have taken any initiative in this matter and whether the government is presenting any specific proposal with regard to price increases after January 31, staged or otherwise? If so, what is the proposal that the government of Canada has put forward?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have put forward a number of proposals. Since this is still a matter of discussion, and as the proposals were really put forward ad referendum for the cabinets of both sides, that at the moment I am afraid I cannot say what they are.


INCREASE IN OIL EXPORT TAX TO $2.20 FOR JANUARY- INTENTION RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF WAYS AND MEANS MOTION-DISPOSITION OF INCREASE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the fact that last Friday the National Energy Board informed the oil companies that the export tax for the month of
Oral Questions
January would be $2.20, raised from the $1.90 figure for December. I assume this is the differential that the National Energy Board anticipates there will be between the Canadian and Chicago prices. Does the minister intend to bring in a ways and means motion to implement that tax, and will that tax be levied on exported Canadian crude oil for the month of January?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the hon. gentleman, the National Energy Board advised the industry that the differential between the Canadian price and the export price would be increased by a further 30 cents, to $2.20. There has been no decision yet as to the appropriate treatment of the additional 30 cents from the taxation point of view, or how that is to be dealt with. I might say that this matter comes under the discussions we are having with Alberta concerning the export tax and also the price.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of press reports that the minister outside the House said that the government may let this 30 cents a barrel flow through to the exporting oil companies, is that the government's intention, and why does the government find it necessary to give a windfall of something over $300,000 per day or $120 million per year to the oil industry at this time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was in response to a question as to the possible ways in which the additional 30 cents would be dealt with that I mentioned three possibilities: an increase in tax by that amount, an increase in the domestic price by that amount, or neither an increase in the tax nor in the domestic price, which would result in the amount flowing through. At the moment there has been no decision on which of the three will be implemented.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order that this matter may be put in some legal framework so that we do not have constant decisions and changes of decision by the government as to where this money is to go, how soon does the government intend to bring in a bill to establish clearly the fact that the differential between the Canadian frozen price and the Chicago price will constitute the export tax as an ongoing process?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there has been a ways and means motion for the month of December and we would anticipate bringing forward one for January as well, I hope at an early date. If I might ask the hon. member to wait with regard to the taxation treatment of this $2.20 until later this day, he would have a fuller answer to his question.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
8468

December 6, 1973
Oral Questions
Does he intend to yield certain powers to Quebec in the matter of telecommunications and what position will the government take before Quebec representations?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we are quite aware of Quebec claims at the present time and we have expressed our intention to discuss any matter whatever which Quebec or any other province would want to discuss, provided Quebec or any other province, in making their claims, also accepts to discuss all its legislation as well as its position up to now.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also say what part the provinces are going to play in the field of communications? Will the central government give up part of its jurisdiction to the provinces and will the owners of cable TV firms be submitted to two jurisdictions?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, when you undertake with the provinces a discussion on the matters that the hon. member is raising, it is most difficult to give the answer before the discussions take place. We wanted to rush things with the provinces. They are trying to stall them. They wanted the next conference to be held in June. We managed to gain three months. But obviously I cannot give the answer before we get to some conclusions since this is a discussion in good faith on our part and also, I hope, on the part of the provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that, at the United Nations on several occasions since 1962 and recently at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting in Ottawa, the government of Canada has recognized the right of Angolese people to a freely chosen government and in view of the unfair advantage taken of 15 million black people by 700,000 privileged whites, what will be the position of Canada at the next NATO conference concerning the use by Portugal of NATO arms or of NATO member countries against Angola, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau?
[ English]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Canadian government toward the colonial policies of Portugal has been stated many times, both in the House and outside, and I have expressed our view personally to the foreign minister of Portugal, We are opposed to Portuguese colonial policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: We do not supply arms to Portugal and I think, if I may suggest this, that it is misleading to talk about NATO arms. There are no such things as NATO

arms. There are arms supplied by individual countries which would probably supply them whether they were members of NATO or not.
[ Translation]


ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF FAMINE IN ETHIOPIA
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the recent CBC revelations concerning the thousands of starving Ethiopian children, can the government tell us what further action it plans to take so that Canada may take part in the relief of these victims whose fate is troubling the conscience of the world?
[ English1


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to refer to a committee, I announced in the miscellaneous estimates committee that Canada had decided to contribute $1.5 million to the relief of suffering in Ethiopia. This is our second contribution. Our first was a nominal amount to the Canadian Red Cross of $50,000.


PORTUGUESE COLONIAL POLICY-REASON FOR CANADIAN ABSTENTION FROM UNITED NATIONS VOTE RESPECTING RECOGNITION OF GUINEA BISSAU
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to the first question concerning Portuguese colonial policy and the government's abhorrence of that policy. Can the minister explain Canada's abstention in September with respect to the recognition of Guinea Bissau and, in addition, whether any action will be taken by our government at the NATO conference to determine the legitimacy of the government now commanding the support of more than 90 countries with respect to Guinea Bissau?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we would welcome the independence of all of the Portuguese colonies, including what has now been called Guinea Bissau. As soon as the group that is supporting the independence of Guinea Bissau establishes itself throughout the country as a government that can discharge its international obligations, we will recognize it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could be a bit clearer. In view of the fact that some 90 countries, I believe, voted at the United Nations in recognition of the government of Guinea Bissau, and as we moved for the recognition of the government of Chile with a good deal less public support than that, may I ask what further evidence it will take for the government of Canada to recognize the legitimacy of this regime?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we recognized the new government of Chile because it was in effective control of the country. Unfortunately the militants, guerillas or whatever you want to call them that are now trying to establish an independent government in Guinea Bissau have not been able to establish themselves in the capital and are not able to be in a position to discharge their international obligations. As soon as they are, we will recognize them.
December 6, 1973


GUINEA BISSAU-ATTITUDE OF CANADA ON ADMISSION TO UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about Guinea Bissau. If the Canadian government is so anxious to be of assistance to independence movements, will the minister tell us what Canada is doing with regard to the initiative of many other nations to bring Guinea Bissau into the United Nations? How have we voted or how do we propose to vote on the admission of Guinea Bissau to the United Nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the position we have taken on that question has so far been one of abstention. We are not opposed to the entrance of Guinea Bissau as soon as it is established as an independent country with a government that can discharge its international obligations.


MANPOWER
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the unemployment rate is basically unchanged in the Eastern Townships area, could the minister indicate to the House whether he intends to increase the funds allotted to local initiatives projects at least at the same level as last year's?
[ English]


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been taken on that matter.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSSIBLE RECONSIDERATION OF BASIS ON WHICH FUNDS ALLOCATED
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister intend to adjust the allotments already made or any proposed future allotments on a more fair basis with regard to opposition members in the House rather than leaning toward Liberal members and cabinet ministers?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. The allocation formula was tabled in the House.
Oral Questions ENERGY


NAME OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE ON TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND-ALLEGED CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has referred to his appearance before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Can the minister explain his statement to that committee on December 3 that he was aware of who his departmental representative is on the technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand, bearing in mind his statement in the House on December 4 that he did not know who his departmental representative on that committee was and declined to name him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether it is in order to refer to what went on in committee, but perhaps I can answer the question directly. I am aware of the name of the official. He is a very competent one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: But I suggest it is not appropriate to bring the names of officials who are acting on behalf of ministers into contention in the House of Commons. One ought to address one's questions to ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Simcoe North.


ATTENDANCE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REPRESENTATIVE AT MEETINGS OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF PETROLEUM SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Can the minister categorically confirm that Mr. A. E. Ritchie, Under Secretary for the Department of External Affairs, is the departmental representative appointed to the technical advisory committee. If so, can he also confirm to the House how many times the representative has attended the technical advisory committee meetings, and in what form did Mr. Ritchie report to the minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I could say this is a question that might be placed on the order paper, but I believe it is desirable to clarify the position. Mr. Ritchie did not attend any of the meetings of that particular committee. He designated an expert on Middle East affairs who went to the committee meetings to advise on the Middle East situation.
8470

December 6, 1973
Oral Questions HEALTH


AVAILABILITY OF HYDRAZINE SULPHATE FOR CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the early optimistic reports on the treatment of cancer by hydrazine sulphate, which treatment and research is, I believe, being carried out under the direction of Dr. Burke of the National Cancer Institute of the United States, is the drug now available in Canada through the Food and Drug Directorate or otherwise for research and treatment?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question and inquire into the possible use of hydrazine sulphate in Canada at the present time. As soon as I have an answer, I will inform the hon. member.


URANIUM-REASON FOR DROP IN PRODUCTION OF ELDORADO MINE
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with a slightly different aspect of the energy situation in Canada. In view of the increasing importance of uranium to Canada and the world, why has the production of uranium ore at Eldorado Nuclear Mine Limited of Uranium City dropped from approximately one and a quarter million pounds to an estimated seven or eight hundred thousand pounds this year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to go into the Eldorado situation at greater length, but perhaps I could not do so effectively in the question period.


OIL EXPORT TAX-DISPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL 30 CENTS FOR JANUARY
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I wonder if I might correct a response I gave to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands earlier in the question period when I indicated there had not been a position taken with regard to the treatment of the additional 30 cents. There has indeed been a decision made in that regard and, as I indicated, there will be a statement on that later this day.


PETROLEUM-BASIS ON WHICH SHORTFALL PREDICTION MADE BY MINISTER
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister is quoted as saying that if the shortfall predictions are not accurate the oil companies will be largely to blame. On what basis did the minister make this statement, and does it indicate he has no confi-

dence in the predictions provided to him by the government appointed committee on petroleum supply and demand?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what statement the hon. member is referring. I have indicated we have taken the advice of the committee with regard to the possible shortfall this winter. I have no reason to doubt that it is a competent statement on their part. I suggest that the statement the hon. member is referring to may have been taken out of context.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Meadow Lake had a supplementary to his previous question. I apologize to him. I did not see him rise.


URANIUM-SUGGESTED GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF SALES TO ASSURE DOMESTIC SUPPLIES AND FAIR ALLOCATION TO CROWN CORPORATION
Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: In view of the fact that a private corporation appears at this time to be making all the sales of uranium oxide, is the government prepared to assume responsibility for all sales of uranium oxide so that Canada's long-term requirements may be assured and also to assure that a Crown corporation gets its fair share of the sales?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member there is a contradiction in his suggestion that we should make export sales and assure our long-term requirements at the same time. I agree that in general terms Eldorado should be put on a commercial footing, more so than in recent years, and I will be making some submissions to my colleagues in that regard. I think the appropriate point of consideration, and this will be done by the Atomic Energy Control Board, is as to at what level the reserves should be maintained for domestic purposes.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the Quebec government intends to establish its own family allowances plan and such allowances being taxable, could the minister tell the House whether he has had any discussions with the Quebec government and whether an agreement has been concluded in order that the minimum allowance of $20 will be paid for each child, as provided in Bill C-211, although this bill has not yet been passed by the House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there are several
December 6, 1973

confused points in the question and I have already found unfortunately such confusion among a number of citizens.
First of all, the family allowance to be paid by the federal government to Quebec will be taxable under the terms of the federal Income Tax Act. The situation will be the same in Quebec as in the other provinces. Second, the minimum provided by the federal law is $12, or 60 per cent of $20; and third, the allowances payable by Quebec itself to its citizens, out of its own revenue will not be taxed under the provincial income tax act as they will take the place of the exemptions provided for in the federal act.
I therefore take this opportunity to clarify the matter in order to stem rumours that Quebec is being favoured in relation to the other provinces.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish, first of all to thank the minister for his explanation, and then to ask him a supplementary.
I hope Bill C-211 will be passed and come into effect on January 1. May I be allowed to ask the minister whether the bill that was passed during this session increasing family allowances to $12 will be automatically rescinded and replaced by Bill C-211, without taking into account the one we passed and which took effect on October 12?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that such will be the case if hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party can get organized and decide to approve the bill that it may be passed as soon as possible.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the announced head tax of $2.80 on air passengers means an increase in the Victoria-Vancouver air fare of 2114 per cent and four out of five passengers leaving Victoria are going to Vancouver, is the minister considering any changes designed to make this new tax less discriminatory against people who live on islands or reside in cities and towns on feeder airline routes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


COMMUNICATIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Com-
Oral Questions
munications. I ask him whether he will make the House aware of the application by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Telecommunications for an increase in rates. Will he let the House know what the nature of the application is?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, when those applications for tariff increases are submitted to the Canadian Transport Commission, I think that they become public documents. If a public document has been filed with the Transport Commission, I will be pleased to send a copy to the right hon. member in both official languages.


John George Diefenbaker: It is apparent that the minister does not know what is going on, so I will ask him whether or not there is to be an application for a 100 per cent increase in respect of the transmission of news stories, and whether smaller radio stations across the country have already protested that this increase will create a very serious situation for them financially? Furthermore, will the minister arrange for counsel to represent the minister and the government of Canada before the Transport Commission and take the strongest possible exception to such an increase at this time?
[ Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: It is also quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. member knows very little about the matter. I explained to the House not very long ago-and moreover it seems to me that the right hon. member was there-that the minister, unless there are quite exceptional circumstances, refrains from making representations to the telecommunications committee of the CTC. The reason is that eventually as minister, he can be called, as he was in June last, to recommend to the cabinet that it should amend the CTC decisions. If he complied with the suggestion of the right hon. member, he would therefore find himself in the position of the lawyer and subsequently the judge in the same cause.


John George Diefenbaker: The high spirits of hon. gentlemen opposite today indicate that their fear of defeat on Monday has been removed. I ask the minister: does he say there is no example of a government being represented by counsel before the Transport Commission to object to an application for rate increases? Does he say this has never happened?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, under a Progressive Conservative government everything could happen; so this may well have happened too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a very interesting exchange between the right hon. gentleman and the minister, but I wonder whether we might not now move to the next question.


John George Diefenbaker: The fact that it has been done indicates it was needed. The fact that the minister is not going

December 6, 1973
Oral Questions
to do it indicates that the people are to be mulcted because of the failure of the government to protect them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that various studies estimate that one firm, Imperial Optical, owns between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of all retail optical outlets in Canada, thus constituting an effective monopoly in this field, and in view of recent findings by the Saskatchewan department of health that people are being charged two or three times as much for eyeglasses as they should be, has the minister set in motion an investigation by the Combines Investigation Branch of this situation which is against the public interest?


Hon.   Herb. Gray@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: A research inquiry into this matter is already under way. The director and I found an opportunity for a useful discussion of this issue when I met with the Saskatchewan minister of consumer affairs in Regina the other day.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Following a question I asked on November 30, the minister promised to look into ways and means of encouraging competition by importing lower priced eyeglasses from China. Can the minister inform the House as to the results of his initiative to date?


Mr. Gray:: I do not have a report for the hon. lady yet. I shall endeavour to get one for her as soon as possible.


DISPUTE BETWEEN CIAU AND COLLEGES-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERCEDE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the minister responsible for amateur sport. I have given him notice. Will he intercede in the present CIAU dispute with several colleges across the country, affecting college basketball and Canadian championships and tournaments to be played shortly over the Christmas season, especially in view of the fact that a discriminatory by-law passed by the CIAU is before at least one commission on human rights for resolution?


Marc Lalonde: I have much sympathy with universities and colleges in the Maritimes with regard to the particular problem they face. But the hon. member knows I have no

power or authority to give instructions to the CIAU. I will be pleased to raise the matter with the CIAU, but the matter is now the subject of discussion and representations among the members of the CIAU. I can only add that the organization is going through the same problems that a lot of Canadians are going through, trying to get Canadian independence at the same time as getting the best players possible. They will have to resolve the problem in their own time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate in part the minister's answer, but in view of the fact the CIAU and the national championships are funded by Sport Canada, would the minister intercede until the human rights commission has at least come to a decision on whether it is a discriminatory by-law on the basis of nationality, race, colour or creed?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said in my answer that I would indeed make representations to the CIAU but that I am in no position to give instructions to the CIAU.

[ Translation]


PROPOSED RETURN TO DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources.
Does the minister intend to change his mind about reinstating summer time, or daylight saving time, in order to save energy now that the United States have accepted a suggestion similar to the one I made in this House on October 31?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.

[ English]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On November 13, in answer to a question of mine, the minister asked whether I was prepared to table some documents. I am now prepared to table a representative sample, and I ask the minister if he would afford me the vehicle for doing so.
December 6, 1973


INDUSTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the ministers of industry, trade and commerce, DREE or national defence, all of whom have been given notice. Does the government intend to take any measures to scrutinize the decision of Hawker Siddeley of Canada Limited to close its large forging operation at Trenton, Nova Scotia, the largest such press in Canada, which by its nature has a good deal of effect on some regional industries?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had notice of the question but I will be very pleased to look into it and report back to the hon. member.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Perhaps he has had notice. I apologize to the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce. I thought I had given him notice. Has the minister made any assessment of what effect the loss of this unique press and forge capability will have on other related industries in the area such as the Sydney steel plant and so on? If not, would he look into the situation and report to the House?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly do the latter. I have to advise the hon. member that it may well be that there is something on my desk that I did not see this morning, but like my colleague I did not get notice either.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. I want to advise him before I proceed with my question, if I may, that Mississauga is the seventh most populous city in Canada and has direct air service to Regina.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Mississauga should follow the good example set by the hon. member for Peel South and ask a question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, as I said, my question is for the Postmaster General. Will he advise me and the House how long it should take a special delivery letter with a 40 cent stamp on it to go from Regina to Mississauga?
Oral Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we are building one of the most modern mail handling centres in the hon. member's constituency; as soon as this is done, I am sure the service will be excellent in that region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and the hon. member for Mississauga has had both a statement and a question. The hon. member for Don Valley.


PROPOSALS TO ALBERTA IN RELATION TO EXPORT TAX AND PRICE FREEZE-DATE OF DISCLOSURE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Has the government placed before the government of the province of Alberta a specific proposal to take effect at the end of the export tax and the price freeze on January 30?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, explained the situation, that his deputy minister had visited the government of Alberta and had put before them a number of possible proposals, and that everything was on an ad referendum basis.


James McPhail Gillies: When will the House be informed of the nature of these proposals?


Mitchell William Sharp: Soon.


APPLICATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO TO INCREASE EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY-DATE OF DECISION BY CABINET
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent application by Ontario Hydro to the National Energy Board for authority to increase exports of hydro power to the United States by more than one-third, I would ask the minister whether the recommendation of the National Energy Board on this application has been passed on to the cabinet for approval and, if so, when is the decision on this important matter to be handed down?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check and see whether the board has indeed rendered a decision. If it has, I have not seen it.


APPLICATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO TO INCREASE EXPORT OF ELECTRICITY-POSSIBLE UTILIZATION TO MEET CRISIS IN EASTERN CANADA
Randolph Harding: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this hydro energy which is proposed for export surplus to Canadian needs

December 6, 1973
Oral Questions
and, if so, has the government investigated the possibility of utilizing this valuable energy source to help meet the energy crisis in eastern Canada, particularly in the Montreal area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of inter-ruptable power and therefore it would have to be found to be surplus to Canadian needs. As to whether it is in fact surplus to Canadian needs, this is what the Energy Board has been holding a hearing about.


SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN IN EASTERN CANADA- REQUEST THAT WHEAT BOARD MAKE SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES AVAILABLE
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, since the minister responsible for the Wheat Board advised the House yesterday that 150 cars would be made available by the CNR for eastern Canadian grain requirements, and since the feed grain supply in the eastern area of Canada is critical, would the minister now advise the Wheat Board to offer feed grain in sufficient quantities for loading into these 150 cars?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should think that the hon. member and all hon. members would appreciate that throughout the situation where feed was in short supply domestically, either in the far eastern or far western parts of Canada, the Canadian Wheat Board has acted in an admirable fashion to make sure that domestic needs were served first.


Fred Alward McCain: Since I have been informed that dealers in the east are unable to get any wheat from the Wheat Board this week, and very little oats and barley, would the Minister of Agriculture please intercede on behalf of eastern agriculture and these mills which have been out of some varieties of grain for up to two weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: That is a representation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that fertilizer is moving across the United States border to the point where Canadian farmers' requirements are not being met, and in view of the fact that fertilizer is being used to fertilize Washington forests, would the minister inform the House whether or not Canadian farmers are going to receive first consideration, or United States forests?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member recognizes, and remembers as well as I do, that the commercial fertilizer plants

were built on the basis that a certain percentage volume of production would be exported. As I have said before, I am optimistic that the needs of all farmers in Canada will be looked after. We are compiling a report that I hope to submit to the House in the very near future.


SUGGESTED FREEZE ON CLOSURE OF COUNTRY ELEVATORS TO CONSERVE FUEL
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and arises out of the energy crisis. If this crisis does exist, to conserve gas and possibly save longer hauls by farm trucks would the minister put an immediate freeze on the closure of any country elevators? This action would not only conserve fuel, but for a change the minister might do something that pleases the farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hillsborough. Order. The hon. member for Marquette is rising on a point of order, but I am sure he appreciates that a question asked in those terms is hardly in order. Perhaps the hon. member would rephrase his question. Although we have reached the end of the question period, I will recognize the hon. member for Hillsborough afterward.


Donald Craig Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to rephrase my question. Will the minister put an immediate freeze on the closure of country elevators?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of whether the country elevators close or do not is, of course, one for the elevator companies themselves, the largest of which are the farmer-owned co-operatives which make decisions in the best interests of farmers. I do not think I should interfere in those decisions even on the question of energy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the federal milk subsidy has been made operative in the nine other provinces, will he advise us when, oh when, will it be operable in P.E.I., and also reveal the reason for the delay for which Premier Campbell blames him?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether Premier Campbell blames me, but I am pleased to announce to the hon. member and the House that the agreement has been signed to begin as of December 10 for one complete year from that date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 6, 1973


Eugene Whelan: For a complete five cents a quart roll back.


Mr. Speaker:: I see there are two members seeking to ask supplementary questions, but we have reached the end of the question period. I wonder if the Chair might recognize those hon. members and others seeking to ask supplementary questions tomorrow, knowing of their interest in this subject.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Last evening, Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking on the bill before us I indicated I felt the government had acted largely on the advice of a technical advisory committee, and that is confirmed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). I also indicated it was particularly pertinent that members of this House should inquire into who actually sat on that advisory committee, what meetings were held, what form of report did the committee make to the minister and, most important, what was the basis of the committee's judgment which led to the recommendation to the minister.
It is particularly interesting that we have been unable to date to get the minister or the government to reveal who, in fact, sits on this technical advisory committee. Attempts were made in this House and at the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee to determine exactly who are the members, by name, from industry and from governmental departments. To date, we have not succeeded in having a candid disclosure in this regard.
I would go even further, because I think it is important to note on the record, that I believe there has been a misrepresentation concerning the membership of that committee. I should like to refer to the reports of that committee on Monday, December 3. As reported at page 57:29, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp):
I understand that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has established, with industry, the Technical Advisory Committee on Petroleum Supply. Are you familiar with this committee?
The minister replied:
Yes, I am.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I then asked:
That Minister has also informed us that you have a representative on the Committee. Is that correct?
The minister then replied:
That is right.
I then asked:
Who is the representative, Mr. Minister?
The minister then said:
Mr. Ritchie, nominally, is the member. If he cannot attend, then another official of the department replaces him.
I asked:
Who would that other official be?
The answer was given by Mr. Ritchie, who also attended the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee meeting. He said:
It could be Don McPhail, the Director-General of the Economic Bureau.
Subsequently at that Miscellaneous Estimates committee meeting I asked Mr. Ritchie how many meetings of the technical committee he had attended and he initially indicated two or three. Then, on further questioning he finally said he had not attended any of the meetings of the technical committee. I feel it is pertinent to draw this to the attention of the House, particularly when we remember that the day after the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee meeting, on December 4, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked similar questions in the House by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The Secretary of State referred the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who at page 8385 of Hansard said in part:
-I am afraid I cannot say who the individuals were at the moment. However, representatives of various departments have been designated.
The Leader of the Opposition persisted and, as recorded on the same page, asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
-will he tell us who this individual is.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs finally replied:
-I do not know who it is who has been designated for this purpose.
Surely, it is very strange that within 24 hours the minister should be able to reverse himself so dramatically on a simple question as to who has been appointed to a committee, bearing in mind that this committee has tremendous importance as far as our debate today is concerned.


Mr. Baker:: Reversal is not unusual for this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: How would you know, Wally? You see everything upside down.


Walter David Baker: I am looking at you all the time, perhaps that is the reason.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I felt this government had put Canada in an extremely unfavourable position as far as the private international oil companies in the world are concerned, and that I felt it

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
must be held responsible for that position. I feel that was perhaps indicated yesterday in the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to this House when, as recorded at page 8442 of Hansard, he said:
Industry has urged the government to put in place a mandatory allocation program as quickly as possible-
Industry has made the request, and it would appear on the evidence which has been produced, that the government is responding basically to the request of those industrial leaders. I suggest this is nothing new.
It is interesting to note that there is a standing committee of this House known as the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. On March 8, there were some very interesting questions and answers between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and certain representatives of opposition parties on that Committee in respect of fuel security problems in eastern Canada. I think that exchange should be put on the record as recorded at page 4:9 of those proceedings, the minister was asked whether he would be willing to enter into negotiations on a direct government-to-government basis, for example with Venezuela, in an attempt to secure oil supplies for eastern Canada if a crisis should arise. The minister stated:
That is a possibility. In these arrangements with the supplier countries we have inclined not to get into a direct government-to-government basis. Dr. Howland has represented Canada in the OECD discussions in this regard and the approach taken generally within OECD is that it should not be on a government-to-govern-ment basis as between consumers and producers but it should be left on the company basis.
Surely we do not have to reiterate the fact that the minister has continually said it is a private international company matter and that we in Canada must accept their position as to whether, in fact we have a shortfall in Canada.
I should like to come back to those minutes shortly, but dealing with the international companies I think it is helpful if we review the names of the international companies to which the minister is responding. One might refer to them as the group of seven because they are seven in number. There is BP Trading Company in the United Kingdom. There is Exxon from the United States, Gulf from the United States, Petrofina from Belgium, The Royal Dutch-Shell group from the United Kingdom and Holland; Sun Oil from the United States and Texaco from the United States. Those are the international companies to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has told us we must respond. The size of those companies is truly large. For example, Exxon is the second largest corporation in the United States, ranking only behind General Motors in sales but ahead of General Motors in terms of total assets. Exxon is based in New York and has sales of some $20 billion, which is even greater than the budget of the Minister of Finance, and it has assets of $21 billion.
The other companies I have listed are among the largest in the world. This is true, but I would suggest that no company, regardless of how large it is, should be able to push Canada around the way certain of these companies apparently are pushing our government around. Every one

of the group of seven has a subsidiary in Canada. I think it is interesting to note that while a great deal is made about the foreign ownership of companies in Canada, it would take relatively little investment on the part of Canadians to shift control of all those subsidiary companies from foreign ownership to Canadian ownership. I am not speaking-and I would emphasize this-of state control. That is perhaps the only type of control, of which the government thinks. I am thinking of investment by individual Canadians. If the government would facilitate it, the shareholder control of literally all the subsidiaries of the group of seven in Canada could be shifted so that they could be Canadian owned. This would require an expenditure by Canadian investors of something in the order of $2'/2 billion. This may sound like a large figure until we relate it to the total worth of all companies in Canada.
For example, if we look at the Toronto Stock Exchange we find that the amount which it would take to shift control of these subsidiary companies to Canada from the international oil companies would be approximately one per cent of the total value of all stocks trading in Toronto.


Mr. Whicher:: That was last week.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, that is today. We took the total off at noon today. I, of course, do not know, because of government action, whether the Toronto market has fallen since noon.
Yesterday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources read at great length from a publication he put out last June called "An Energy Policy for Canada". I thought the minister was not particularly careful when he was reading from this publication to make clear that the publication was put out for discussion purposes only last June. The government emphasized at that time it was not necessarily bound by the policies suggested in the analysis but felt there should be perhaps two years discussion before the government actually took a decision on energy policy. It may be that on a lot of other matters on which the government has procrastinated it has not been caught off base to date, but here we have a clear example of where the government's lack of policy and planning has caught up with it. The energy situation in the world caught them.
I would point out that while the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred to page 121 in that report, he was very careful not to flip over the page and read from page 122 where we find the following:
Methods of increasing our security of supply over this medium-term period have been suggested by industry and others and include:
Under that heading various things are listed that could be done or have been suggested to be done. I would point out that even today most of those items have not even been suggested to be done by the government to ensure security of supply in eastern Canada. For example, the first item listed is extension to eastern Canada of pipeline facilities from western Canada. It may be that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) likes to appear on television and tell the people that a decision has been made to build the pipeline, but the fact is it was only being discussed in June. We in this party say build it and build it now.


An hon. Member:: You did not say that last fall.
December 6, 1973


An hon. Member:: We sure did.


Gerald William Baldwin: I said it last fall.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on that point I would ask the Prime Minister, in his statement later this afternoon in this House, to tell us definitely if the pipeline is to be built, and when and how. I believe the Prime Minister should indicate to us exactly what type of a pipeline it will be. Will it be a reversible pipeline? We say it should be.
The second point referred to in that analysis is that there should be added capacity for fuel storage established in eastern Canada. We in this party have been saying for a long time that such capacity should be built, and I say to the Prime Minister today that he should let us know if they are going to do it. Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to implement staged price increases after the freeze but keep the Canadian price somewhat below world prices. That is our position and it is time the Prime Minister let us know what his position is.
If the Prime Minister does accept that position from us, I hope he will go the second step and offer a quid pro quo to those in western Canada on such things as transportation facilities to ensure that they can compete in world and national markets more readily than they have been doing. While the Prime Minister is speaking, I hope he will also indicate if the government is considering a home heating oil price shelter,-subsidized by the federal treasury if necessary. I mean for all Canadians who will need such assistance in this coming winter. That is our policy, and I would be interested to learn if the Prime Minister is able to agree with that point.
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in a very preliminary way that we do not feel we have sufficient facts before us to properly determine whether Bill C-236 should be accepted in its many ramifications. We believe that the facts must be disclosed. I have referred to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works, but I would point out that that committee has not sat for six months, and that is the committee that was established by the House to consider energy matters. Yet, the government has seen fit to allow the committee not to sit in order to hear witnesses and attempt to arrive at the actual facts regarding the current situation in Canada.
It has been suggested to us by the government that we have a crisis.


Gerald William Baldwin: Its sits over there.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I emphasize that the committee which you would normally expect the government would have asked to look into the question of energy, suitable security of supply for eastern Canadians and a pricing program, would have been the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Yet it has not been called for six months. As one of the hon. members has mentioned, we, on this side of the House, have asked repeatedly that that committee be called. We believe the government has not made a case to substantiate their position I hope the Prime Minister will attempt to indicate to us what case they have
Energy Supplies Emergency Act for stating there may be a major energy crisis in Canada this winter and for their belief that this crisis warrants the wide powers which the government wants under Bill C-236.
Here again, if I may, I would like to refer to the resources committee because at its March meeting, to which I have already referred, the question of a possible fuel shortage in eastern Canada was raised. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in turn referred the question to Dr. Howland who was the chairman of the National Energy Board. Dr. Howland at that time said that based on a possible 25 per cent reduction in world fuel supplies, Canada would not have a serious shortfall for 5.5 months. I feel we should have the right to know what has caused the difference in the ensuing months. Why are we now told that a 20 per cent possible world shortfall first of all, has to be accepted by Canada because the international private companies say we must accept it, and secondly, why is such a 20 per cent shortfall going to have such dire consequences in Canada when the former chairman of the National Energy Board told us that even a 25 per cent reduction, if it were shared by Canada, would not be felt in any serious way for 5.5 months?
I feel that the Prime Minister owes this House clarification of the situation concerning the export tax, which he has said is not permanent. What does the government propose to do with this tax revenue, what new measures might they substitute? I notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is with us today, and I must say how absolutely amazed I and my colleagues were that the Minister of finance and his deputy minister were not even aware that Canada has had export taxes in the past. In fact, they did not know that there is an existing statute, the Export Act, that provides for export taxes.
Surely, the government is totally adrift. They have lost their course. They have no policy and, unfortunately, it is showing up with respect to energy. During the Prime Minister's remarks I hope that he will offer a statement on how he intends to help the poor pay for higher fuel costs this winter. What steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to ensure that the poor who may feel the crisis as it is described by the government, will be relieved from its maximum impact?
So far I have touched on questions related to oil and energy generally, but I think we should bear in mind that we are being asked to approve at the second reading stage a bill that is extremely wide in its ramifications. I think it is fair to say that not only should we have the facts on matters touching on energy which I have outlined, but it is time that this government indicated to us what they believe will be the unemployment situation in Canada in 1974.


Gerald William Baldwin: We know what it will be after the next election.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What, in fact, do they believe will be the industrial production level in Canada in 1974?


An hon. Member:: High.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What will be the real growth level and what will be the rate of inflation?

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


An hon. Member:: Low.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I hope that is on the record. The answer to my first three questions was "very high" and the answer to the last one was "very low". I believe it was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) who made that comment.
In truth, this is more of a crisis within government than it is an energy crisis. We have a power hungry Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: He could generate enough gas for all of Ontario.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister sees an opportunity to take unto himself and his department new powers, presumably at the expense of other ministers to whom he sometimes refers as colleagues.
In considering this bill, I believe we should remember that Canada is unique in the industrial western world. In 1973, we are 118 per cent self sufficient in oil. Surely we are owed an explanation by the government as to why a country that is 118 per cent self sufficient in oil has to live with a bill such as Bill C-236. In short, we are a net contributor to the world oil pool, and I think the minister owes us an explanation, which he did not give yesterday, as to why a nation such as ours, a net contributor to the world oil pool should have to live with a world shortfall.
The minister has sometimes said that we must be a good international citizen and that is why we must live with this shortfall. He has referred to such countries as Sweden as the ones he feels might need oil which would be diverted from Canada. Surely he is totally ignoring the different circumstances of the countries concerned. Sweden does not have the unemployment problem that Canada has, and to be casually stating that we must accept a shortfall because someone other than the Canadian Government has decreed it, is an unfortunate position to put Canadians into without further explanation. If we accept world sharing now, so be it, but I feel we do so only because the government has allowed us to drift into that position without proper arrangements being made in anticipation of the present world crisis. The government knew such a crisis could occur.
I have referred to the committee proceedings that took place up to June 6, that is the National Resources Committee. There was all kinds of testimony before that committee as to possible shortfalls, and how those shortfalls could be covered if they materialized. The government to date has been negligent in its efforts, and we today are faced with a crisis which is really a crisis within that government.


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


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in my statement of November 22 on national television I said that the government's first priority in the

face of the current oil shortage was to assure necessary fuel supplies to all Canadians this winter, no matter what developments took place abroad.
I described the measures that the government was taking to assure the supply of oil to regions where shortages were most likely to occur. I indicated that Canadians would be asked to co-operate in a program of voluntary restraints to economize on the use of energy. I added that mandatory allocations at the wholesale level would be required to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of available supplies.
On November 26, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), after consultation with the provinces, presented to the House a set of guidelines to conserve energy, and outlined the main features of the mandatory control system. On December 3, the minister tabled a bill to establish an Energy Supplies Allocation Board and to give to it the powers which it needs. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate which ensues.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the potential seriousness of the problem which led us to take these actions. Other countries, day by day, are taking the measures they think necessary to meet the same or greater difficulties. The government nonetheless believes that, barring some unforeseeable events, the Canadian shortterm energy problem can be overcome.
We are confident that no Canadian need fear serious shortages of oil and fuel this winter, provided each one of us plays his part and contributes his share. We are also confident that the Canadian economy is flexible and resilient enough to adjust quickly to changing conditions and to maintain high levels of production and employment. I want to take this occasion once again to urge all Canadians to study and follow closely the guidelines given by the minister, and to ask the House to give early passage to the bill which it is now debating.
But my immediate task, Mr. Speaker, is to place before the House proposals which will set the basis for a new national oil policy. The objective of that policy, to be reached before the end of this decade, is Canadian selfsufficiency in oil and oil products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: During the intervening period we must create in Canada the physical capacity necessary to give us security of supply, and protection against the type of emergency now threatening us. In moving towards its objective, the government will also wish to maintain a reliable capacity for some continuing export of oil to the United States and a market in Canada for reliable foreign suppliers of oil to us.
[ Transla tion]
The new policy will abolish the "Ottawa Valley Line". The Canadian market for oil will no longer be divided in two, one for domestically produced oil and another for imported oil. It will thus be a "one-Canada", not a "two-Canada" oil policy. The western provinces will have a guaranteed outlet for increased production; and the eastern provinces will be guaranteed security of supply.
December 6, 1973

The creation of a national market for Canadian oil is one essential requirement of a new policy. Others are, first, a pricing mechanism which will provide sufficient incentives for the development of our oil resources; second, measures to ensure that any escalation in returns and revenues as a result of any higher prices will be used in a manner conducive to security and self-sufficiency; third, the establishment of a publicly-owned Canadian petroleum company principally to expedite exploration and development; fourth, the early completion of a pipeline of adequate capacity to serve Montreal and as required more eastern points; and fifth, intensification of research on oil sands technology to permit their full and rapid development.
I intend placing these proposals before the meeting of first ministers of the federal and provincial governments. I am suggesting to the premiers that the conference should be held on January 22 and 23, immediately before the meeting of finance ministers now planned for January 24 and 25. In the meantime, I have asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to consult with all provinces in preparation for the conference.
The construction of a pipeline to Montreal, which the government announced some time ago, is the single most urgent step towards the attainment of our national goals. Without a pipeline, eastern Canada will never be certain that it can meet its requirements should overseas supply be interrupted.
Moreover, without a pipeline the government is unable to guarantee a market in Canada for Canadian oil at a level sufficient to ensure the development of the oil sands and other Canadian sources of supply.
The federal government is taking all necessary measures to ensure that construction begins at the earliest possible moment in 1974. The government has directed the Canadian Commercial Corporation to determine whether the project could be expedited in any way if it were to place orders for steel or for pipe immediately. If such action would help, the government will direct that it be taken at once. Any steel or pipe so ordered would be re-sold at cost to those undertaking construction of the pipeline. Of course before construction can begin the National Energy Board must, under the law, hold hearings and be satisfied that the proposed route, the financial arrangements and the proposed rates will best serve the public interest and that adequate compensation will be paid for the rights-of-way. The government has asked the Board to carry out all proceedings in a manner as expeditious as the law will permit.
A second requirement for self-sufficiency is a rapid and significant increase in oil production in Canada. In 1972, Canada produced 1.7 million barrels of crude oil per the day and consumed 1.55 million barrels. We exported 950,000 barrels and we imported 770,000 barrels. We were, in a mathematical sense, self-sufficient. We will continue to have the necessary conventional reserves for some time, but not for long. The reserves from conventional sources- mostly from the oil fields of Alberta-are known and no major new discoveries can be hoped for at present. Production from these existing reserves is expected to decline towards the end of this decade and will then be insufficient to meet current and projected rates of consumption.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Canada must therefore move and move immediately to develop its frontier and non-conventional sources of supply so as to be able to reach a situation that will permit self-sufficiency. We do not want to cut off our exports and we do not want to reduce imports from reliable suppliers. However, we do want, and we do intend to put ourselves in a position where, in case of need, we do not have to depend on imports with all the risks we now know that dependence entails.
Canada is rich in oil. The Alberta oil sands alone are estimated to contain over 500 billion barrels of oil, as much as or more than the presently estimated reserves of the Middle East. Exploration activity, in the Arctic and off the Atlantic Coast, shows considerable promise. But none of these sources is anywhere close to producing oil in the quantities required to meet the challenge of the seventies and beyond. In the case of the oil sands, technologies must be developed which do not yet exist in order to permit the development of 85 per cent of the sands which are deeply buried. The development of the oil sands and other frontier resources will require major effort in which all Canadians must, directly or indirectly, join and participate.
A characteristic common to all frontier oil, and oil from unconventional sources such as the tar sands, is that it is much more expensive to develop and to bring into production than wells in the southern parts of Canada. This simple, undisputed fact is often ignored because it contains an unpleasant truth. It means that the days of abundant, cheap energy for Canadians must come to an end. It means that the cost of producing domestic oil must go up before too long. It means that Canadians must be prepared sooner or later, in some way or another, to pay for these additional costs or go without oil. Any attempt to hide these facts, and to formulate future policies without taking them into account, can only lead in the longer run to even greater shortages and, hence, to even higher prices than Canadians are now experiencing in the eastern provinces. In short, we must in the long run allow the price of domestically produced crude oil to rise toward a level high enough to ensure development of the Alberta oil sands and other Canadian resources but not one bit higher.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And how much is that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the opposition wants us to decide this unilaterally or if they want us to consult with Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You would not consult, anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The Prime Minister has the floor.


Mr. Hees:: Stick to the straight stuff, Pierre, the humour is terrible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: However, while prices must go up in the long run if we are to have adequate supplies, that does not mean that they must go up at once.
On September 4, I announced that the government had requested the oil companies not to raise the price of domestically produced oil during the period ending January 31, 1974, and that the companies had voluntarily agreed to this request. The outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East has resulted in a sudden rise in the price of international oil to a level which few, if any, expected at the time of my statement on September 4. In recent weeks there have been some discussions with the province of Alberta and with representatives of some of the companies about the timing and the extent of any price changes. Not unexpectedly, both are anxious to see such changes begin as soon as possible.
After careful consideration, the federal government has come to the conclusion that there is neither need nor justification for changes in the price of domestic heating oil during the present heating season.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: If you want to see if David is smiling, he is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will, therefore, undertake new discussions with the government of Alberta and with the oil companies to secure their agreement to maintain the price of domestically produced oil at the current level at least until the end of this winter.
I hope they will understand the reasonableness of this request and will accept it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We know the reason.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was happy to hear, Mr. Speaker, as I was coming in, that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on behalf of the Tory party was indicating that he would support this approach, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly appreciate that this unanimity in the House will make it easier for the oil companies and for the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The federal government will continue to levy a tax or, after February 1, a charge equal to the difference between our domestic price and the export price as determined by the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The federal government's offer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must call again for the co-operation of hon. members who may wish perhaps to allow the Prime Minister to continue with his remarks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The federal government's offer to share the proceeds of the tax to January 31 with the producing provinces on a 50/50 basis of course stands. We will discuss with first ministers the disposition of the revenues forthcoming from the charge levied from February 1, 1974 onward.
While it is hoped to defer any change in the level of domestic oil prices as long as it is possible to do so, and while it will be the government's objective to ensure that they do not at any time go beyond what is required to ensure the development of the Alberta oil sands and other Canadian resources, the current increases in international prices as well as any adjustments in domestic prices in the future have serious implications for the people of Canada generally and for the national interest.

So far as the people of Canada are concerned, changes that have already taken place in landed prices in St. Lawrence and Atlantic coast ports impose a burden on low income families. For those in greatest need, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already informed the provinces that the federal government would view favourably related increases in welfare allowances paid under the Canada Assistance Plan. The federal government pays half of such allowances. Payments under OAS/GIS and under the CPP are now tied to the cost of living index. That index will reflect the higher cost of oil and oil products. The higher family allowances, which will be paid as soon as the necessary legislation is passed, are also tied to the cost of living index. The federal government recognizes that all these higher payments will not in themselves in all cases offset the increase in oil prices, especially in the eastern provinces. Something more may well be required. This is a further matter I will raise at the meeting of first ministers.
So far as any future change in domestic prices is concerned, I want to make clear that the government feels that there will be a national interest to be considered and protected. We will not be prepared to acquiesce in any situation in which windfall profits accrue to private corporations simply because of unusual and unpredictable circumstances of shortage created by major world producers for political and economic reasons of their own. Nor do we feel that it would be fair or just to have any windfall financial benefits accrue only to the producing provinces, leaving all the rest of the people of Canada with nothing but the burdens. There is, in the view of the government, strong justification for a national share in any unforeseen benefits just as there is a national assumption of unexpected costs and losses.
For we must consider the national action and the national commitment that will be required in achieving the capacity for self-sufficiency which is our objective. The pipeline to the east and the rapid development of western oil resources will require very heavy investment.
December 6, 1973

The market in the east for Canadian oil going through the pipeline must be certain. It must not disappear if international oil suddenly and temporarily drops in price. In short, we are proposing a national commitment to develop oil resources; there is a national strategic interest in them and there is an over-riding national interest in security of supply.
I should point out too that the rate and scale of development of oil resources in the west thus far has been the result in part of national action. The "national oil policy" established in 1961, with the protected market in central Canada in the years since then, together with federal tax and other incentives, have helped to develop what is a national and not a purely provincial productive capacity.
[ English]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What benefit will central Canadian industry derive from that? Five times as much.
[ Trans la tion]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These are strong and, to my mind, compelling reasons for a national sharing of the proceeds of any unusual increases in oil prices that may result from artificial international scarcities.
In asserting that there is a national interest which may have to be considered in any adjustments imposed by circumstances in the future, the federal government realizes that it is touching upon an area where strong views are held. The government is doing so because it feels it is necessary to be frank about something that may have to be considered in the interest of the citizens and taxpayers of the country as a whole. I trust this will be equally true for the hon. member for Edmonton who seems to have only one city, only one province, in mind.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You may laugh, but that is the whole population and not only half.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be with this interest very much in mind that the government will continue its discussions with the producing provinces and consult with the others.
I would merely ask the hon. member to consult his colleague from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). When they have reached an agreement, they can then perhaps come back to speak to us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He has just said that you are wrong.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You shouldn't address yourself to me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You did not listen to him, you did not understand him.
[ English]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One of the instruments of the new national oil policy is a national petroleum company. A bill will be introduced at the next session of parliament to establish such a company and at that time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will present full details to the House.
The new company will serve several purposes. It will undertake exploration for conventional oil and gas in the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act provinces as well as in areas under the control of the federal government, namely, in the Yukon and Northwest Territories and the Atlantic and Pacific offshore coastal areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will assist and participate in the research and development work necessary to develop an in situ technology for the production of the vast amounts of oil from the oil sands which cannot be extracted by presently known methods. To this particular end, it will invest approximately $40 million over the next five years in co-operation with the Province of Alberta and private firms. Should the Province of Alberta prefer some other arrangement for carrying on this project, such as an independent Canada-Alberta Institute, the government would be quite prepared to discuss it with them.
The company will have a capacity to invest, in agreement with Alberta, in the development of the oil sands in those portions of the deposit which are exploitable by existing technology. The company could assist in oil sands development by way of equity investment, for instance, so as to ensure that this capacity to produce advances as rapidly as is industrially possible and as is environmentally and economically sound.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Forty million dollars!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No. It is $40 million for research. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) could hear above the noise of his own members he would know what I am talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The company will not be precluded from developing other reserves which it may discover through its exploration activities, but it may choose to hold part of such resources as a reserve for the long term security of the Canadian market. This is a function which private investors often find it difficult to perform for understandable reasons, and it is a function to which the government attaches importance. Finally, the company will assist in ensuring reliable and adequate imports of oil to meet present and foreseeable needs for foreign oil.
The government has found in recent weeks that it can play an important role in purchasing petroleum and petroleum products. It proposes to exercise this role through the company. Finally, the company will not be prevented by law from entering the refining and distribution fields, but its more immediate and present tasks may not lead to this for some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Why don't you just nationalize the whole industry?


Mr. Bawden:: What happened to the Liberal party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The national petroleum company will add significantly to the industry's total capacity to identify

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act and bring into production Canada's oil and gas resources. It is not, however, intended in any way to displace the private sector.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Look what has happened to the Liberals!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is none over there.


An hon. Member:: Get to the part about the election.


George Harris Hees: I am glad the Prime Minister has a sense of humour.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For a time I thought I might at least succeed in unifying the Tories, but I see from some of their faces that they are not unified even on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nor is it intended to discourage investment by foreign companies which will continue to be welcome. The company will be ready to enter into joint ventures with other firms in that industry as well as with the provinces, both in exploration and in development. The government will, however, look to this corporation to contribute to an increased Canadian presence in petroleum exploration and development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are you going to move its head offices to Vancouver, too?


An hon. Member:: Move it to Mount Royal!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will, in its joint ventures, attempt to involve smaller Canadian-controlled firms which currently find it difficult to sustain costly and lengthy development efforts. It will thus ensure for Canadians a more significant role in the development of their own resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is Jim Richardson?


Some hon. Members:: What about Turner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will re-read the last phrase. I should like it to be on the record that the hoots of the Tories are opposing this phrase-"It will thus ensure for Canadians a more significant role in the development of their own resources".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You don't know how or where!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are doing it again, Mr. Speaker, but I will not read it for a third time.


George Harris Hees: Once more, with feeling.


An hon. Member:: We did not believe it the first time. [Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: En frangais, then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is even worse than-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In our future self-sufficiency, it is the government's hope that a significant role may be played by resources on the Atlantic continental shelf. While exploration has proceeded there it has not been as rapid as we would wish. I doubt if it has been delayed by the failure thus far to reach agreement with the five eastern provinces on offshore oil administration. We are, I think, much closer to agreement and I hope it may be achieved soon. In future exploration and development, there will be a positive role for the national petroleum company, either acting alone or through joint ventures with oil companies.
Any oil policy must, if it is to be effective, take account of the larger energy picture. It should be so designed as to be consistent with the conservation and prudent use of all sources of energy while at the same time encouraging the substitution of relatively more plentiful resources for relatively scarcer ones.
Canadian natural gas is already supplying a substantial portion of our energy needs and some of those of the United States. Enormous quantities of gas are available to be transported from the far north. A major development is the proposed gas pipeline up the Mackenzie Valley to move Alaskan gas to United States markets and at the same time to make it possible to move Canadian northern gas to Canadian markets. While this project must, of course, be submitted to the usual regulatory proceedings and cannot go ahead until it has been approved by responsible Canadian authorities, the government believes that it would be in the public interest to facilitate early construction by any means which do not require the lowering of environmental standards or the neglect of Indian rights and interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can see no reason why Canada could not give suitable undertakings as to the movement, without discriminatory impediment, of Alaskan gas through a pipeline across Canada to United States markets provided all public interest and regulatory conditions are met in the building and operation of the pipeline. An undertaking of this sort would, of course, be reciprocal, with the same assurance being given to Canada regarding our oil and gas shipments through the United States.
The development of nuclear power in Canada presents a third major potential source of energy which may be of considerable assistance in achieving the goal of security and self-sufficiency in oil. The success of the Ontario Hydro reactor at Pickering has shown beyond a doubt the soundness and viability of Canadian atomic energy technology. Ontario and Quebec already have nuclear reactors and more are being or will be built in those provinces. In
December 6, 1973

order to reduce the present and future dependence of other provinces on oil for electric energy, the government will enter into discussions with any of them thaf may be interested in assistance in financing construction of the initial nuclear generating station in each province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At present the Atlantic provinces are very much dependent on oil for fuel in the production of electric power. In the case of New Brunswick, most of its hydroelectric power potential has been developed. Additional electrical capacity must essentially be thermal, based either on imported oil or on nuclear energy. The government has had discussions in recent months with the government of New Brunswick concerning construction of a nuclear reactor in that province under the new policy to which I have referred. The federal government has offered to help finance 50 per cent of capital cost of a new 600 megawatt nuclear power station, both to meet growth of demand in New Brunswick and, by interconnection with Quebec and Nova Scotia, to tie more closely the regional power system in eastern Canada.
Before ending my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the government and people of the United States that, while we must move toward security of supply and a capacity for self-sufficiency, we will not do so in a manner which is destructive of the beneficial ties that have developed between our two countries. Obviously, the first duty of any Canadian government must be towards its own people. But we will wish to consult with the United States, and we will plan the development of our oil resources in such a way as to continue to export for some years yet. We probably will also continue to meet part of our total requirements through imports for at least some period, even after the pipeline to Montreal is completed.
The policy I have outlined is one that I am convinced is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of Canadians in all parts of Canada. I recognize that there will be differences of view on various aspects of it. The policy is, however, coherent in its relationship of current and future prices to current and future needs for energy in Canada. It will establish, too that security of supply which can ensure that we will not at some future time incur the hazards and inconveniences we now face. I hope the policy will justify and receive the co-operation of the provinces and the approval of this House.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for York North is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we can determine from the Leader of the Opposition if he would care to call off the vote on Monday now?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party is no better at humour than it is at policy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Compton on a point of order.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will allow me, I would like to ask him a simple question and I trust he will want to answer it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I think the hon. member's request could well be accepted, first with the consent of the Prime Minister but also with the consent of the House because the Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). If the House does not object and the Prime Minister agrees to answer the question, I will recognize the hon. member for Compton.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I will be quite pleased to answer the hon. member. I have to give a press conference but, of course, I would be very glad to answer questions from hon. members first as long as there are not too many of them.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in view of the new developments considered by him such as the extension of the pipeline and the development of the tar sands in Alberta, whether he intends to use various financial institutions to render beneficial the transactions in which the government will be engaging with respect to the financing of those large projects. I would also ask the Prime Minister if he intends to ask the World Bank for interest free loans as other countries do for developments of that size?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that we do not always share the same views on economic theories. As far as I am concerned, I am not all that prepared to accept the suggestions made by the hon. member, but had the people of Alberta not so massively rejected the Social Credit theories at the last election, that province of course might very well make that suggestion to me but they are no longer interested.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the miracle of expediency that we have just witnessed makes Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus look like very small scale stuff.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister. He has misled the House. The financial situation of Alberta was fantastic under a Social Credit government. Most

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act of its problems started when it got a Progressive Conservative government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member will agree with the Chair that the issue he has referred to is far from being a point of order. It is a simple argument. I must therefore return to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have just witnessed the presentation of Liberal policy made solely to please the NDP, with the obvious purpose in mind of avoiding defeat on the vote we are to have on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No, we want an election.


An hon. Member:: Let's have one now.


George Harris Hees: I am told that the two parties, the Liberals and the NDP, have worked very hard in the last two days to put this policy together. It is interesting to hear this afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make a presentation of policy which right up until this moment the Liberal party steadfastly, again and again, refused to adopt. Now, all of a sudden, to please the NDP in the shadow of a vote on Monday night, they give us this new Liberal policy. I suggest that the words we have heard this afternoon were those of Pierre Trudeau, but the music was that of David Lewis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: This kind of policy making which changes from day to day has, unfortunately, been slowing down decisions of the oil and gas industry which they must make immediately if there is to be a satisfactory expansionary exploration program for the additional energy resources we will need so that this country may become truly self-sufficient in the very near future and for the months and years ahead. It is about that I wish to speak for the few minutes I have available to me this afternoon, and I will then conclude my remarks at eight o'clock.
I want to talk about what is necessary to bring about self-sufficiency in energy in this country. This can only be done by bringing about conditions which make it possible for the only people who can find the oil and gas reserves in this country, that is the oil and gas industry, to expand their exploratory program and, in so doing, produce the additional energy we will need to satisfy not only our present needs, but those of the future which will be far greater than today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: In the situation that has developed as a result of the Arab-Israeli war, we came to see very clearly just how dependent this country has become on not only the Arab oil producing countries but on the multinational corporations which handle the offshore oil we have been using up to the present time. It has become painfully obvious that we can no longer allow this country to be subject to decisions made outside this country over which we have no control, and which can have such a disastrous

effect not only on this country but on the people who live here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you for your support, George.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I listened this afternoon to the Prime Minister outlining some specific measures that should be adopted by this government. This is the overture of soothing approach orchestrated to please the NDP in respect of matters the government has refused steadfastly to introduce up to this moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: We heard the Prime Minister this afternoon talk about the great necessity, of which everybody knows, of building that Montreal pipeline without further delay. The very first thing that must be done is to acquire rights-of-way so that the pipeline can be laid, but we heard nothing about that this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: You weren't listening.


George Harris Hees: The Prime Minister has not the slightest idea of what is to be done. There is no plan for acquiring the rights-of-way; there is no plan for acquiring the steel and there is no plan for building that Montreal extension of the pipeline that we hear about as something to please the NDP in advance of Monday night.
We have heard reference to the adoption of another position of the official opposition in respect of building this Montreal pipeline. It was in 1969, four years ago, that the official opposition first started urging this government to build that Montreal pipeline as a means of making this country not nearly so dependent as we are on Arab and foreign produced oil. At our policy convention in Niagara Falls, at that time, we said that as a government the Conservative party would "strengthen the National Oil Policy by including a pipeline to Montreal as a security protection against the interruption of oil supplies from potentially unstable areas". That is what we said four years ago; that is what we urged the government to do, and that is what the government refused to do. I suggest that is why we are in the situation we find ourselves in today. Now, the Prime Minister comes before us and tells us that because the NDP have been urging this, and because we told the government it should do this four years ago, they have been converted like Paul on the road to Damascus, so they are now great advocates of this Montreal pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock.
December 6, 1973



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-external affairs-suggested invitation to Saudi Arabian and Algerian oil ministers to visit Canada; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Public Service-arbitration of salaries of clerical staff-government position in light of salaries recommended for managerial levels; the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty)-external affairs-protection of Canadian visitors to United States against being stranded if gas rationing introduced.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions, papers and public bills.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order; I believe there is a general agreement that private member's bill No. C-49 be considered today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my understanding that following an agreement made last week the House has decided to proceed today with the consideration of Bill C-49, appearing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East) moved: that Bill C-49, respecting disclosure of credit rating records, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, which has been on the order paper now for a year, first reading having been given on January 15, 1973, is to protect Canadians from unfair credit reporting. It can be cited as the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
We have just concluded in this House a debate on the wiretapping bill to protect the privacy of Canadians from this modern source of electronic surveillance. We all know the consequences of electronic wiretapping in wrong hands. It is interesting to quote the present Minister of
Fair Credit Reporting Act
Finance (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Justice. In a paper he delivered at Queens University he said:
The orbit of privacy will be an ever shrinking one, but the need for privacy will become more paramount than ever. The law must ensure that the right to privacy remains sacrosanct.
He went on to conclude:
The erosion of privacy is the beginning of the end of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I can think of no better quotation to put forward in support of my bill than those very eloquent remarks by the Minister of Finance when he was Minister of Justice. Robert Merton in his book "Social theory and social structure" said:
Privacy is not merely a personal predilection; it is an important functional requirement for the effective operation of social structure. Social systems must provide for a portion of the self which is kept apart, immune from social surveillance.
It has become trite to say that we are in a cashless society, an age of credit cards, an age of computerized data banks. As I look around at this insidious erosion of privacy represented by these data banks and widespread use of credit cards, one gets the impression we are all in a race to 1984. Certainly, it seems as if the government, which is one of the chief offenders in respect of the improper use of credit reporting-and if time permitted I could refer to the Income Tax Act-and the private sector are in headlong competition to 1984, and yet we are all the losers as a consequence. Each of us will lose unless we become seized of the problem. I realize that there are those who will put forward the argument of jurisdiction and the constitution. Certainly, it is true to say that the provinces under our constitution have great responsibilities in this area which unfortunately, at least it seems to me, all too few are prepared to discharge. The two exceptions I think of are the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. I shall have more to say about that in a few moments.
I believe the federal government has a very important responsibility in this area because only the federal government can provide the protection under the law which will ensure a standard of privacy with regard to credit reporting right across the country. Only the federal government can provide the legislative protective framework to protect Canadians from inter-provincial and international trafficking in individual credit information, because this is what is taking place today. We have as a result of sophisticated techniques and the use of date banks, a traffic developing in credit information about each one of us, interprovincially and internationally. Indeed, it can be said that credit reporting and credit information about each one of us, has become big business. It now can be said to be a saleable commodity. It is to protect Canadians against this international and interprovincial trafficking of credit information, which is all too often erroneous, that I put forward this bill in the spirit of the constitution, given the responsibility of the federal government to protect Canadians and ensure to all Canadians the right to privacy.
Credit bureaux provide what they submit to be factual material. In their opinion this material is factual, but the whole basis on which I build my case is that all too often this material is far from factual and all too often contains

December 6, 1973
Fair Credit Reporting Act
very false, misleading and damaging information in respect of the individual concerned. The fact is that they do provide this kind of information in respect of more than six million Canadians per year. They have various and different methods of investigation. For example, they usually obtain information from secondary and questionable sources such as what would appear in the public media, in newspaper stories or whatever information they can obtain from the neighbours and friends of the individual under investigation. Consequently, their method of operation is not noted for its accuracy.
I might quote from the author of "Canadian Consumers Handbook", J. D. James who said:
Credit investigators churn out files on individuals the way a sausage factory turns out sausages. Many are paid piece rate for each report turned out. The fact that there are many inaccuracies is not hard to understand.
A further quotation which I think is relevant is from an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine. Maclean's magazine did an expose of this whole business of credit reporting. They quote a credit investigator who said, according to Maclean's:
I always tried to get one good source anyway, but I cooked up most of the supporting ones. Some guys cook an entire report, sometimes often in alleged updating of old reports, but it's too dangerous. I've seen a man dead six months being written up as enjoying good health, seen recently, steadily employed, etc.
I will agree that that is probably an exaggeration and probably does not happen too often, but the fact is it is happening in varying degrees. The general manager of the Associated Credit Bureaux of Canada says that credit is a privilege and you must lose some of your privacy to prove you deserve it. I do not agree with that statement. I do not believe that credit can any longer be considered a privilege. Credit now is an absolute essential, an absolutely vital part of this new cashless society. In any event, I question that we should have to lose any part of our privacy in order to qualify for that.
However, it is more than a slight loss of privacy when some of the questions of credit reporters and investigators relate to very personal affairs, matters of a personal nature such as a man's drinking or driving habits, his weight, or the kind of influence that his wife has on him. All of our rights are limited unless we do something about it. The consumer, the average Canadian, has no idea of what information is on file. He may not at any time see the information that is contained therein, even though this may be vital to his very welfare or the welfare of his family because this information is kept from him and there is no law which demands that it be divulged to him on request. There is no provision for review or revision, and no provision for challenging the information contained in such files. There is no limit on the length of time that information, which is all too often erroneous or no longer relevant, such as a bankruptcy or a minor conviction for impaired driving, is to be kept on file. In other words, there is no statute of limitation.
The Consumers Association of Canada, in a survey of various Canadian cities, discovered that the accessibility of credit records to consumers was at best difficult and all too often impossible. The British Columbia privacy act has

taken the right step in the direction of consumer protection, in my view, by making it an offence, actionable without proof of damage, for a person wilfully and without claim of right to violate the privacy of another.
It is worth quoting from the Ontario Law Reform Commission report of 1968 which is still, in my view, the most definitive work on this subject, notwithstanding the fact that it was brought down some five years ago. It proposes that:
The collection of economic, commercial and social data about an individual for the use of the collector should be governed by the basic rules of (1) consent and (2) non-disclosure to others.
Therein are contained the basic elements of the protection of privacy for which my bill is put forward.
The other recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission which I think are relevant concern the collection and disclosure of such data as relate to protected areas of information which should not be included, for example, religious affiliation, mental health, personal hygiene and so on. It recommended that the collection of economic, commercial and social data about individuals done with the intention and purpose of disclosure should be licensed by the province. It went on to recommend that the risk of whether a report is libelous should be placed upon the reporting agency and its source, not upon the injured individual.
Another of its recommendations is that a duplicate of every formal report made be automatically sent to the person concerned, and a periodic listing supplied in the case of informal disclosures. It recommended the setting up of machinery whereby the individual can challenge the accuracy of any item in his credit rating and require the bureau to correct its records. It recommended the placing of a time limit on the period that undesirable material may remain on file, and that the making or publishing of a false credit report should be a serious civil offence for which the injured party would be offered damages resulting in a penalty to the offender.
Unfortunately, time does not permit me to go into the very excellent legislation which has recently been brought down by the Ontario legislature, but it certainly stands as the hallmark and the guiding light for all jurisdictions in Canada, including this jurisdiction which, in my view, notwithstanding my limited knowledge of constitutional law, has a responsibility in this regard.
It might be worth putting forward an example of what can happen and what often does happen. There is one particular case which was reported, but how many cases go by undetected and how often are the lives of Canadians permanently damaged, careers destroyed and families broken up because of irresponsible credit reporting, the using of false, misleading and unreliable information. This is a story which was published in the March 1970 issue of Maclean's magazine. It is about a gentleman by the name of Bruce McGrath-no relation-and it reads:
When he was 27, the future looked good for McGrath. He was the branch manager for a finance company at Sarnia, Ontario. He had climed aggressively, rapidly in five years, through the hierarchies of three companies. He had made some enemies on the way up. But Sarnia was home and he was well known-especially as a 150 pound but terribly tenacious quarterback of the Sarnia Golden Bears and Sarnia Imperials. Then he resigned for personal rea-
December 6, 1973

sons, which Maclean's is satisfied had nothing to do with his ability, business judgment or honesty.
With his background, McGrath has no trouble getting job interviews with, he says, 12 different firms. In some instances he was told he was hired-but there was always a final rejection. He couldn't find out why. Then a Sarnia-based businessman offered him a job, and McGrath told him, "I don't know what it is, but something is wrong. I've had a dozen jobs offered and then withdrawn". The man called on the McGraths a few days later. He brought a personnel file compiled by a large firm that specializes in such reporting.
That report quoted unnamed previous colleagues as saying McGrath had been fired. The reason given was the unspecified charge of "loose morals".
I will not read any further, but it turns out that the information was totally false, totally erroneous. The reverse was true. As a matter of fact, he had been offered a promotion at the time he resigned, but this had seriously affected his whole life. After this gentleman had shown him the file, he tried to obtain agreement from the credit agency to have a look at the file, only to be denied it. Ironically, the gentleman who showed him the file did so at great risk because he was breaking the agreement with the credit agency by divulging that information. Furthermore, the same gentleman withdrew the very job offer which resulted in the file being divulged. The whole life of that man was altered drastically. I do not know what became of him, but I hope he has been successful. I understand he graduated from law school and probably is now a very successful lawyer. He has served us all well by having the courage to come forward to tell us what happened to him, to document what can happen to all of us and what does happen to many of us even though we never have the opportunity to know about it.
The bill before the House goes a long way toward providing the kind of privacy and protection from irresponsible credit reporting that has been brought down by the Ontario legislature. This bill will provide that kind of privacy right across Canada. It will protect Canadians from trafficking in false and misleading credit information. It will protect Canadians from having damaging information retained on their credit files, information that is no longer relevant. In other words, it will apply the principle of statutory limitation. It has a number of very good areas of consumer protection.
I am not naive enough, Mr. Speaker, to think this bill will pass today. It merely serves as a vehicle for some of us to put forward our views on this matter, and to express our concern about it. But perhaps some day it could be the subject of further investigation and study by a parliamentary committee, and perhaps even the subject of legislation by a government that expresses concern for the privacy of Canadians, the same kind of concern that was embodied in the wiretapping bill. Perhaps that concern can be carried forward to produce this type of legislation to provide protection to Canadians against irresponsible credit reporting.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have major issue to take with the remarks just made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), but I do feel that in this short debate there are a few points that
Fair Credit Reporting Act
should be underlined. I want to start by looking at some of the provisions in the bill itself.
For example in clause 8(3), concerning the permissible purposes of reports, it is important to read that it provides: To a person which it has reason to believe (a) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the .. . review ... of an account of, the consumer;
or alternatively for review we can substitute:
-or collection of the account of, the consumer;
On these two points I have some doubts in my mind as to their adequacy, and believe there should be a considerable expansion of the intent. I feel that they leave themselves open to considerable misuse if allowed to pass in their present form, and I just want to draw this to the attention of the hon. member.
I also want to draw attention to clause 14(5), about which I also have reservations. It reads:
Except as provided in sections 20 and 21, no consumer shall have any claim against or bring any action or proceeding in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence with respect to the reporting of information against any consumer reporting agency, any user of information, or any person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency, based on information disclosed pursuant to section 13, 14 or 19, except as to false information furnished with malice or wilful intent to injure such consumer.
My reservation here is the simple one that the statements may in themselves be correct but not necessarily complete. We are all aware of what can be done with a half statement. Again, I am concerned lest there should be room here for misinterpretation because of insufficient or inadequate reporting of information.
There is one other point I want to underline, stemming from my study of the bill, and that concerns clause 15 dealing with the procedure in case of disputed accuracy. My concern is with clause 15(1) where it reads:
If the completeness or accuracy item of any information contained in his file is disputed by a consumer-
And further down the page in subclause (3) it again refers to "disputed by the consumer." My concern is that the item itself has to be disputed and not the total impact, not the effect of the report on the person reading same.
Just for a moment I wish to turn, as the hon. member did, to what has happened in the provincial field. In the statement of findings of the Consumer Affairs Conference held at Charlottetown, P.E.I., from September 10 to September 12 this year, it was reported that several of the provinces have already legislated in this area, and they advise that the procedure is working out reasonably well. It was felt that the Manitoba legislation was attractive but the Manitoba delegates pointed out that medical information was exempted in the act, as was qualified privilege, and they felt that further consideration might be given to those areas.
The provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island indicated that legislation was under active consideration and was expected to be finalized within the next year. The New Brunswick delegates claimed that they had established a satisfactory arrangement with the credit reporting agencies in their province whereby they allow persons to see their own files and, as a result, the

December 6, 1973
Fair Credit Reporting Act
provincial consumer bureau is not encountering any problems. The province of Nova Scotia is now working on regulations, and recommends that the agencies be registered and bonded.
It was noted that a great deal of progress had been made over the past year, and it would appear that the matter will be adequately dealt with by the provinces in the near future. Thus, as of mid-November legislation had been passed and proclaimed in Manitoba, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland passed similar legislation but have not yet proclaimed it. British Columbia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island in statements have indicated that legislation is under active consideration, and only New Brunswick appears not to be contemplating legislation for reasons which I have already mentioned.
I want to refer briefly to the Quebec legislation. The hon. member for St. John's East referred to the legislation passed in Ontario, which I also agree is excellent legislation. In the province of Quebec, provisions respecting a person's right of access to his credit record were incorporated into the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, in sections 43 to 46 thereof, and were proclaimed in force as of July 21, 1971. Section 43 defines as an "information agent" any person "carrying on the business of preparing and distributing to others credit reports respecting character, reputation and solvency of a person." Section 45 provides that any person may, during business hours, see any information gathered, and credit reports in the hands of an information agent, and may make written comments which must be added to his credit record.
He may also, for a fee determined by regulation to be a flat 50 cents, plus an additional 50 cents per page, obtain a copy of his credit record. The information agent is not bound to disclose to anyone the source of his information about him, unless the source appears in the credit record.
A report by Mr. F. J. E. Jordan, who is special assistant to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada, entitled "Privacy, Computer Data Banks, Communications and the Constitution" was addressed primarily to the question of a person's right to privacy as affected by such technological developments as the computer, but many of his findings would be applicable to the specific question of an individual's credit rating, whether or not such a rating was stored or disseminated in computerized form.
Concerning institutions specifically named by the BNA Act as being subject to federal jurisdiction, Mr. Jordan discusses the banks, and the business of banking as an example of a subject area coming under parliament's full jurisdiction. Adapting his analysis to the question of the privacy of credit rating, it could be argued that the Bank Act could be amended to set out the conditions under which banks could supply information about their customers' credit standing to such agencies as credit bureaux. Mr. Jordan finds it not unreasonable to suggest that parliament could go beyond applying its jurisdiction over statistics to the statistics collecting activities of the federal government, and extend it to "similar activities by other persons." Applying this idea to the credit rating area the argument could be developed that, to the extent that information about the credit rating of individuals takes on

numerical or statistical form, the treatment of such ratings might be brought under the control of parliament.
Mr. Jordan also examines the celebrated peace, order and good government clause of the constitution. He comments that the operation of a nationwide computer data banking system might become a subject of national interest concerning the body, politic, and this might suggest that such a data bank ought to come under the peace, order and good government provisions.
Mr. Jordan discusses the possibility of using the federal government's jurisdiction over matters of criminal law as a means of achieving some control over the gathering and dissemination of information via computer banks. He observes that certain activities on the part of data bank operators could be prohibited under the criminal law. Mr. Jordan also observes that the criminal law is in essence prohibitory rather than regulatory and this would, he implies, limit its utility in controlling the activities of data bank operators. It would appear to be questionable also, for similar reasons, whether the criminal law power could be successfully invoked to control the activities of credit raters.
Mr. Jordan discusses certain other constitutional powers of the federal government which could, by some arguments, be invoked to support federal control over data banks. These include jurisdiction over copyrights, jurisdiction over trade and commerce, the federal right to incorporate companies with other than provincial objects, parliament's right to bring within its jurisdiction such works as it declares to be "for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces" even though such works may be wholly situated within one province, and parliament's jurisdiction over "local works and undertakings" that are "connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province."
These constitutional heads have somewhat less interest, in a discussion of credit rating agencies and their control, than they might have in a discussion of computerized information systems, whether or not run by credit raters. It might be noted, however, that if credit raters in Canada computerize their operations extensively, and if such operations develop interprovincial and even international aspects, as could happen if the credit ratings of Canadians were stored in computers beyond the borders of the country, parliament's jurisdiction over local works and undertakings extending beyond the limits of the province might assume considerable significance.
I also want to make some comments about a bill passed by the Senate of the United States, called the Truth in Lending Act. I would mention some rather interesting points about that act which might be borne in mind when any legislation in this field is being drawn up in the future. Under that act, merchants would have to mail bills at least 14 days before payment is due; otherwise, they would be barred from charging interest on revolving credit. If a customer's payment on a revolving account is received before it is due, a finance charge is prohibited. Further, discrimination against credit applicants on the basis of sex or marriage status would become unlawful.
December 6, 1973

If we were to introduce such provisions, I wonder how we would get over our problems in Canada, inasmuch as we have not resolved the matter of equal status and equal rights in other areas. The prohibition against discrimination-I am talking about equal status-would apply in the approval or denial of credit and in the determination of credit terms; and it would cover just about all kinds of credit transactions, including consumer, mortgage and business loans.
Another interesting provision is this: companies that extend credit would be given 30 days to respond to customer inquiries about bills and would be required to settle disputes within 90 days. One problem that some people seem to have encountered is that when they get into a dispute concerning a credit account, the computer keeps on churning out the interest charges while the discussion is going on. Sometimes it seems impossible to stop the machines. Another interesting feature of this bill provides that until a company giving the credit has complied with all requirements for resolving billing differences it would be barred from dunning a customer, threatening him with a bad credit report or taking other action to collect disputed bills.
I am very much afraid that as we are moving into the era of computerized records we, individually, as the hon. member for St. John's East suggested, will face a situation in which, unknown to us, there will be files with information about us and we shall not have any chance to dispute the correctness of the information. Yet that information can be made available to other persons when we are being hired, when we are applying loans or, for that matter, to people acting in many other areas. For example, consider what happens to a husband and wife when they separate or have a dispute and the wife wants to obtain information on what her husband is doing, or vice versa. I am concerned about information which may be stored in computer banks or elsewhere, information of which we have no knowledge and which, therefore, we may not demand to see, not knowing of its existence. That is potentially a dangerous situation.
The bill we are discussing is excellent in principle. I submit it needs to be given a tremendous amount of study and consideration. I suggest that by this discussion we may be opening the door for legislation which is contemplated for the new year, possibly in the next session. I hope we shall see a bill incorporating many of the suggestions made by the hon. member for St. John's East in order to provide the type of protection which I think we have all indicated we find desirable.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has done us a service by introducing this bill. No area of consumer relations or of consumer problems is more complicated and thorny and creates greater difficulties for consumers than the area we are discussing. We run across this problem all the time. Little has been done to cope with it at the federal level. Some years ago we had a study on consumer credit. Not much by way of legislation resulted from that study.
By introducing this lengthy and elaborate bill, I think the hon. member for St. John's East has shown a good understanding of the complexities we encounter in dealing
Fair Credit Reporting Act
with problems of this kind. What he left unsaid, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) may have filled in, inasmuch as he indicated possible abuses connected with computers. Possibly, this bill could be called an act to prevent the invasion of privacy.


Mr. Atkey:: The teeth have been drawn from the government's bill.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Perhaps we ought to call this bill the restoration of privacy act, or a bill for the restoration of privacy in certain areas. We are dealing with a tremendously difficult area. After all, credit is a facility for enabling one to live beyond one's income and, in far too many cases, this ability creates many difficulties. The provinces have probably been wrestling with the problem more successfully up to this point than has the federal government. This is an excellent bill. It is a long and complicated bill. We cannot deal with it in detail today because this is not the proper place to do that. A bill of this type ought to be introduced before an appropriate consumers affairs committee. It should be studied there; there should be careful scrutiny, with witnesses called and all the rest. This matter is much more complicated than meets the eye.
I thoroughly agree with the points that have been raised. The hon. member for St. John's East has been receiving the same type of letters as the rest of us, complaining about neighbours being used as snoopers or being approached to give evidence which is often very unreliable and which forms the basis of irresponsible credit reports.
I have received many complaints. Not only do these snoopers go into how much these people are in arrears, but they go into their personal lives in detail. Neighbours are asked about the marital status of the person being investigated. They are asked whether the individual who comes around in the evening is the husband or someone else. Questions such as this do not have anything to do with a credit rating and are an insult to the person under investigation.
I do not know whether we should have the exact type of credit reporting bureau that is suggested in this bill, but we should have some type of bureau with people who have expert knowledge and can deal with complaints. People have every right to know their credit rating at any time. They should have the same right to know their credit rating as their bank standing. They can go into the bank at any time to determine the state of their account. They should also be able to make the same inquiry as to the state of their credit rating. This could only be ensured by legislation.
My province has been slower than some which have legislation in this regard, but they are now working on it. We have a new consumers department. I know this matter is slated for consideration in the spring session of the legislature. It will be a great blessing to people who are in difficulty because of their credit situation.
I do not intend to make a long speech, because a great deal has already been said. Coming from the west, I can identify with the conditions that have been described on the east coast as well as those described by the hon.

December 6, 1973
Fair Credit Reporting Act
member for Vaudreuil in Quebec. This question is Canadawide in its application and should be dealt with by the federal parliament through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I hope that legislation covering this credit aspect will be introduced before very long. The problem is getting more and more serious as devices for invading privacy become more and more diverse and embarrassing. While my hon. friend may say that all privacy has gone, there are people who have managed to keep a few shreds of it and they would like to be able to maintain that position. I very much hope this bill will be given second reading and referred to the standing committee to be examined at leisure and in depth. This is something for which many of us have been pressing for a good many years.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, as a new member in this House, and having a passing interest in the field of privacy, I was delighted early in the session when I noted the bill before us today, Bill C-49, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Indeed, I think I can say this is one of the most sophisticated pieces of legislation in the field of privacy that we have seen this session. It is to the credit of that hon. member that this bill should come before the House to be debated today and perhaps referred to a standing committee for further consideration.
Three years ago the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs made a few passing references to problems of the sort that are dealt with in this bill. They referred to the interprovincial and international flow of personal information through telecommunication facilities linking computers with central data banks. They pointed out that no new development in trade and commerce has ever had more need for or been less subjected to regulation than the private data being programmed into and transmitted by such systems.
The government of Canada, to its credit, in April, 1971, commissioned a task force on privacy and computers which dealt with many of the considerations which have been discussed in this debate. There is a great deal of valuable information as to existing operations in the private sector and in the government of Canada. As I pointed out on Tuesday of this week, that report went a long way to alerting Canadians to many of the dangers, not only in the credit field but in other fields, of applied computer uses; existing and potential dangers and threats to the individual privacy of millions of Canadians.
In response to comments by a number of members the other night about the work that has yet to be done in the field of privacy, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) gave some indication of government support. I wish to quote briefly from his words as reported at page 8406 of Hansard:
But I do anticipate us coming forward with additional measures, both in relation to computers and in other ways, to further protect individual privacy in this country . . .
We must move to meet these advances and techniques in our time. We are doing so at this particular time in respect of the devices for intrusion related to the conversations of individuals. We will do so step by step and without delay with regard to other areas. It was for this reason that we commissioned the study on privacy and computers, and followed it up with action inside the government to determine how we could most effectively carry out

the recommendations or suggestions which are implicit in the work which went on in producing that report.
Here are the key words:
The House will before long see the fruits of some of that labour, and with that we will continue to do what we are doing in respect of this bill in protection of privacy.
I can suggest no better place to start than for the government to consider Bill C-49 standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East. A few technical problems were pointed out by the hon. member opposite. I do not share so many of his concerns of a constitutional nature. I looked at some of the problems in that field. I think this could provide a good starting point for work in the standing committee. One of the great problems in approaching this field of attempting to alert Canadians to the dangers is to assist them in appreciating what we are talking about when we deal with the right to privacy. The right to privacy is perhaps accepted by many members of the House as a substantive legal right, yet in non-lawyers' language what does it really mean? I think the task force on computers and privacy came close to coming to grips with that question. The task force said:
Thus, the claim to privacy, as we know it, is eminently a phenomenon of the industrial and postindustrial age in which the exigencies of urban life have led to an atomic concept of society in place of the earlier organic model. Formerly, in moving from the country to the city, physical solitude was traded for anonymity. The exchange is increasingly nullified and anonymity is compromised by the spread of information systems and networks while solitude in cities has been largely lost. Moreover, the process is one way: institutions learn more about individuals, but individuals learn no more about the institutions, or even about what the institutions learn about them.
To put that in simple language, Canadians fear the powers of mass surveillance which large corporations can exercise through the use of computers. They fear this power because they do not have access to it and they do not understand it. In a recent book entitled "Private Lives and Public Surveillance", the author, Mr. James B. Rule, referred to this question of the invasion of privacy particularly in the consumer credit field. He used the term "mass surveillance" as an appropriate one to typify the view most people have of the use of computers in that field. In describing mass surveillance and human repression, he said this:
If the erosion of personal privacy represents, for most people, one of unpleasant consequences of mass surveillance, then the abridgement of personal freedom represents the other. People instinctively feel that the appetite of corporate agencies for personal data is not simply whimsical. They feel rather that information so collected is apt to bear on subsequent decision-making, and that such decision-making may work to their disadvantage. The case studies have shown that these perceptions are quite correct, at least as far as they go. The question is: has this inquiry also revealed an over-all trend toward totalitarian repressiveness in the model of "1984"?
I would answer that question in the affirmative. I was interested to note the reference by the hon. member for St. John's East to the experience of a young businessman who later became a law student and then a lawyer in Sarnia, Ontario. This young man, Mr. Bruce McGrath, was a law student of mine and I had occasion to spend many hours with him on a personal basis discussing his situation, one
December 6, 1973

which was so carefully described by the hon. member for St. John's East.
The psychological damage which had been done to this young man as a result of the error which had been made and transmitted, in terms of his job prospects and credit rating, was painfully evident. I understand the agony which this man suffered and I imagine there are thousands of Canadians who have suffered in similar circumstances. If we as legislators can enact laws which will reduce the incidence of this suffering, or even eliminate it, we shall have gone a long way toward making our society a better place in which to live.
Finally, I want to mention a related field involving the use of computers in the collection of data concerning offences against the criminal law. I refer specifically to the Canadian Police Information Centre which is now in operation collecting data on many millions of Canadians, not only concerning offences which have been committed but concerning investigations and personal information on individuals which may or may not be accurate and which, if revealed to certain people, could cause great damage to the person concerned.
This represents one of the most blatant invasions of the individual right to privacy our society has yet seen. For some weeks a number of questions have been on the order paper in my name asking the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) for more information about this system. Answers have not yet been forthcoming. I trust this is another area in which we may see legislation passed giving Canadians the guarantees and protection they require if they are to retain any right of privacy.


Mr. Paul McRae (Fort William):: I see it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. There is, therefore, no time left in which to launch into a discussion of this topic except to say I think there is a great deal of unanimity among all parties that this bill should be looked at very carefully by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in an attempt to fill in the gaps left in the provincial field which make consumer reporting a dangerous thing for many Canadians.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that the time allotted to this debate has expired and that there is not time for the question to be put. I wish to thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate. I appreciate the worth-while suggestion by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and I hope the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will indeed take a look at this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortage or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time an referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when five o'clock was called I was dealing with the latest chapter in the love affair between the Liberals and NDP. Since I finished speaking I have heard the most recent episode in this courtship, and that is that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was contacted-


Gerald William Baldwin: Please!


George Harris Hees: I am sorry, I mean the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was contacted in Alberta a short time ago and was reported to be overjoyed. He is reported to have said that this is the greatest victory the NDP has ever had, and he has assured the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) publicly, as he did privately before he went on his trip, that he would support the government on Monday night. So for the time being that is the end of this delightful little love story, but I suppose more and more chapters will unfold as this session and the next session go on.
I was also talking about the great need for steps that must be taken if this country is to be made self-sufficient in energy, not just in the immediate future but in the years ahead. The first thing I said the government must do is to come to grips with, and not just talk about, the building of the Montreal pipeline. Today the Prime Minister spoke glibly of that and said it was going ahead. We have been hearing that for months, Mr. Speaker. He makes this announcement every few days whenever he thinks that the NDP's love might be flagging a little. Just as you tell your girl or your wife several times a day you really do love her, so he keeps assuring the hon. member for York South that he really is going to build the Montreal pipeline. He came through with a few more goodies today.
The hon. member for Peace River-I am sorry, I mean York South. The reason I keep saying Peace River is that I am thinking of the former leader of the Social Credit party. I mean of course, the hon. member for York South. Any time his affection seems to be flagging, the Prime Minister can be counted upon to come forward with new assurances to keep him in line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are all
mixed up.


George Harris Hees: Besides getting this Montreal pipeline built so that Canadian oil can be used to supply Quebec and the
8492

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Atlantic provinces, we must also find the additional oil that is going to be needed to supply all of Canada's needs in the future. We know that today Quebec and the Atlantic provinces together use some 900,000 barrels of oil per day, which when the pipeline to Montreal is finally completed in some two to three years will amount at least to an additional one million barrels a day that have to be found.
Where is that extra oil going to come from? Obviously, most of that oil has not yet been discovered. We must find this additional oil because we cannot in any way interfere with the one million barrels a day of oil and the 250,000 barrels a day of petroleum products which we deliver by contract to the United States. I think it is obvious to all members of this House and to all Canadians that any attempt to do divert even a small part of that solemnly entered into commitment would have a catastrophic effect both on our trading relationships with the United States, where we export 70 per cent of all our export products, and on our general relationship, on which we rely so heavily, with our neighbour to the south. In order to have enough oil to look after our needs for the future, we will have to discover two barrels of new oil per day for each barrel that we use. If we do not discover new oil at this rate, in ten years we are going to start running out of this fuel.
Let us ask ourselves how we have been doing in this regard in recent years. The sad story is that during the past three years we have discovered only one new barrel for each barrel of oil that we have been using. So the next question is: Where must we find the additional oil we are going to need? The answer, of course, is that it must come mostly from three places, the Arctic islands, the Mackenzie delta, and off the east coast of Canada.
The next question is: How much money should we be spending each year on exploration to produce both our present needs and the additional oil we are going to need in the future? The answer to that given by the oil industry, the people who have to do the discovering, and the only people who are doing this discovery work now, is that we must spend in the future a minimum of $750 million a year. The present indication is that, because of the lack of confidence that the oil industry has in the policies of this government, the amount of money that will be spent next year, 1974, will be only about half of this $750 million. This, of course, will leave this country very, very short of the oil we are going to need, and we must do something about it.
The reason this discovery process is being slowed down so materially is that the oil industry on which we have to rely to find this new oil is very, very dissatisfied with the decision-making process of this government. Unless they can get the decisions that must be made by this government in the very near future, we will be very short of the oil we will need in the future.
What are the oil companies trying to find out? First of all, they want to find out-and have been waiting for 2 Vi years to get this information, with no result whatsoever- the federal government's stand on the question of permits, leases and royalties in respect of Arctic and offshore oil that will be discovered as a result of the exploratory

programs of the oil industry. Until these answers are given to the petroleum industry, the companies which will be putting up the risk capital to do this work in discovery of new petroleum will not spend any more than the projected amount I have given, that is, $375 million in 1974 instead of twice that amount, $750 million, which is the amount that must be spent if we are to find new oil now to enable this country to become self-sufficient in the future.
The government must make up its mind on what it intends to do regarding these matters, and let the oil companies know just what that intention is. It must sit down and discuss these matters with the oil industry and work out mutually satisfactory solutions. When it does that, the oil companies will go out and spend this $750 million. They want to do this and are anxious to do it, but they will not do it until they find out from this government how it intends to treat the finds they make at great cost to themselves. I think we all agree that is a very fair stand for the petroleum industry.
The second thing that has held back the production of additional oil products is the lack of a decision to go ahead with the Athabasca tar sands. This afternoon the Prime Minister spoke glibly about the way this project is going to go forward. It is not going to go forward until the Syncrude Corporation is advised by this government that it is willing to treat the 50 per cent net profit, that portion which by agreement will accrue to the Alberta government, in exactly the same way as any other royalty paid to any other government, for tax purposes, by the federal government. When the Syncrude Corporation is advised that this government is willing to treat 50 per cent of the net profits in that way, then the Syncrude project will go forward. It will not go forward until the federal government makes that information available. It is as simple as that. The Prime Minister can make all the syrupy speeches he wants, trying to build confidence in this country, about how this big project is going ahead; but I tell you it will not go ahead until this government gets off the seat of its pants, does a little thinking and lets the oil industry know what it is going to do in respect of this important matter.
Something that should disturb all of us who are interested in the provision of fuel for this country, and who are particularly interested in the magnificent Syncrude project, is information that the United States government has just issued the first six permits required to develop the oil shales of Colorado. This is a similar type of project to the Athabasca tar sands. If this project gets into production before the Syncrude project, this may very easily diminish very considerably the value of the Athabasca tar sands.
The oil industry in Canada is very worried about this aspect of the whole proposition, but the government does not seem to pay any attention to this concern. It seems to think we have the Athabasca tar sands production all to ourselves, it can do what it wants and take all the time it wants. Those in the oil industry who know of this matter will tell you that the Colorado oil shales represent a very worrying aspect of this whole matter. For that reason, this government should make a decision and so advise the Syncrude Corporation, allowing that very important resource to be developed in the shortest possible time.
Finally, the petroleum industry in Canada is holding back on the expansion of its operations because the gov-
December 6, 1973

ernment has largely removed from the National Energy Board the advisory function that was definitely granted it by the National Energy Board Act when it was passed in 1959. In the years following the passing of that act, the oil and gas industry learned to have great confidence in the recommendations of that board because those recommendations were based upon facts and not on political considerations. These facts and recommendations were made known to the oil and gas industry. The government, of course, had the right to decide on oil policy. But when the National Energy Board had the right to advise the government and make that advice known to the oil and gas industry, the industry knew the government was making these decisions, whatever they may be, on the basis of facts and not just on the basis of political considerations.
The government's oil policy today is decided 100 per cent in this way. What bothers the oil industry so much today is that these decisions are not only political but, as we have seen in the last few weeks, they can be changed two or three times in a single week. When an industry requires up to eight years from the time the decision to develop a project is made until the final production of the oil and gas, one can understand why such an industry cannot have any confidence in decisions based on political considerations, as they are now, and changed as rapidly as are the decisions of this government.
The speech made by the Prime Minister today is the greatest example of how the decisions of this government can change almost daily. His speech contained assertions that the government intends to do those things which a few days or weeks ago it stated flatly, over and over again, it would not do. Now, because the party to the left, the NDP, put the heat on and said it would defeat the government on Monday night if it did not come to terms and do exactly what that party wanted done, the Prime Minister has changed his mind. His speech could easily have been written by the hon. member for York South. My information is that that member did have a great deal to do with the writing of this speech. One thing that has been proved beyond any shadow of a doubt is that in the future Canada is going back to the two-party system; there will be a free enterprise party and a socialist party.
Both the Liberal Party and the NDP have a very celebrated day-December 6, 1973. It is going to be known as "A" day, amalgamation day. They will celebrate it together. There will be bonfires burning in their caucuses tonight, and everybody will be very very happy indeed.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: The same old rag that has not been washed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You should do some washing over there.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that this country will not be self-sufficient in respect of energy for not only the immediate future but the long-term future unless four very definite things are done. I will sum them up. First of all, the government


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A new government.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


George Harris Hees: Yes. This is one of the very reassuring things, that in a very short space of time a Conservative government will do these things. There is no question about it. Don't kid yourselves about that. First of all, the government must stop talking about the building of the Montreal extension of the oil pipeline. It must get down to the question of appropriations and the provision of the steel and the labour needed. It must have an actual timetable in respect of getting ahead with the building of this pipeline. Let them stop talking and let them do something for once. That is the first thing which must be taken on as a project of priority without any delay.
Second, the government must discuss with the petroleum industry the government's ideas regarding the ground rules pertaining to permits, leases and royalties as they affect Arctic and offshore oil, and work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement with the industry on these important aspects of how they will operate. Third, the government must advise the management of the Syncrude project that it will treat for tax purposes the net profit paid to the Alberta government in the same manner as any other royalty.
Mr. Speaker, I have wakened these deadbeat Liberals on the other side of the House. Most of these people have not spoken two words in two months and now they are all jabbering; they are alive and listening. I hope they will learn something, because there is plenty they can learn and I am telling it to them now. The next thing the government must do is transfer back to the National Energy Board the advisory function which was given to it by the National Energy Board Act of 1959. This advisory function was given to it under a Conservative government. This satisfied the National Energy Board. This should be done now so that we will get away from the type of oil policy indulged in by the Liberal government at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I happen to write my own speeches and I do not mind when I hear this clap trap from the minister and his confreres. I say that what is needed in this whole matter is a revision of the government's decision-making process. Really now there is no decision-making process. The only people who make decisions in the conglomeration of Liberals and New Democrats are the New Democrats. They wrote that policy today: it was their policy and not that of the government.
I say, for heaven's sake get down to a policy-making process which will convince the petroleum industry that you know what you are doing, so that they can make their plans, can make the additional discoveries needed and can bring these locations into production so that this country can at long last become self-sufficient in respect of energy. I urge the government to do this in a very short space of time. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when a Conservative government takes over very soon, these are the kind of policies that this country will see.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the Conservative Party which we have seen this evening is one of shock, distress and frustration. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said to me, in his very good rhetoric, a few minutes ago that the
26695-25*

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
distress of the Conservative Party reminded him of the farmer on the Prairies who went to milk a cow during a lightning storm and was left holding the bag.


An hon. Member:: I didn't get it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Anyway, Mr. Speaker. I am very amused by the reaction of the Conservative Party tonight. Their leader said in Vancouver recently that they wanted a staged price increase for consumers of petroleum products in this country, and they wanted that price increase to go away up almost to the level of the international price. This is what the Leader of the Conservative Party wanted for the consumers of Canada.
If we look at the price of petroleum in this country today, we see there is a difference of $2.20 a barrel between the domestic price and the international price. If the Conservative Party wanted to lift the price freeze, it would mean that over the next few years the oil companies of this country, because they have some ten billion barrels of assets in Canada, would be getting a windfall of some $22 billion. This would be the result if we listened to the Conservative Party. That is exactly what the Conservative Party wanted to do. It is very interesting to look at the party to my right and see some of the difficulty that that party faces. I have here an article from the Toronto Star of December 5 which quotes the energy minister of the province of Ontario when speaking to Albertans. He said:
-they have a responsibility to hold the price on our conventional oil and gas and protect the nation and people-
He also stressed that this refers to all people in Canada. He went on to say this, which I find very interesting:
-Canada has proven conventional oil reserves of about ten billion barrels. "If we bump the price by $5 a barrel-and there are plenty of people that are talking about $9 oil in Canada at the wellhead- there'll be a windfall for somebody of $50 billion''-
Those are the words of Darcy McKeough, the minister of energy in the province of Ontario. Here we have a national Conservative Party that wants to take price controls off energy in the country and allow the price to float in relation to what the international price may be, whatever it may be. I do not wish to comment on the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made today, except to say one of the significant things in it is that we now have some public involvement in the oil industry in this country. How much that may be will be seen some time in the future.
We must take this energy situation very seriously. It is an important issue, not just for now but for the future of this country. We must have a policy which includes not only price but also those who own and control the industry in this country. To us in this party, this is very important. We suggest there should be public ownership of the energy resources of this country and that, like electricity, any energy should be treated as a public utility and should not be left solely in the hands of national and international cartels.
I suggest that the announcement made by the Prime Minister today is the beginning of some kind of public involvement in the gas industry in Canada. But I would

like to see all future energy resources in this country treated as a public utility, under public ownership, through joint co-operation between the various provinces and the federal government. I can assure you that some provinces would be very interested in that type of proposal.
The development of energy resources could be financed through public ownership quite easily. For example, we could channel the revenues from the export tax, which will amount to millions of dollars annually if the situation remains as it is, into the development of energy resources for the public. If there is to be a price increase some time in the future, we could earmark the increase over the cost of the oil industry toward the development of that industry under public ownership.
These are just a couple of proposals regarding the future development of gas and oil in this country. Many people in this House have heard complaints that the oil industry does not have enough incentives. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) said that the oil industry does not have the confidence of this country and therefore it will not develop. I wonder why they say that. All they have to do is look at the profit picture for the last year to see whether or not the oil industry has enough incentive.
First of all, we find that the price per barrel that the oil industry receives has gone up by 95 cents in 1973. That is an increase of 37 per cent that the oil companies are getting. This is before any kind of price freeze or export tax has been levied by the government. This increase that the government has granted them has brought the oil companies some $700,000 this year, and some companies have had profits of some 87 per cent. I suggest that that is a hefty increase for the oil companies and a real incentive, as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) said. I think the time has come when there must be public control and public ownership of the energy resources of our country.
I think, for example, that the price control to which the Prime Minister referred regarding energy should not be lifted at the end of next April but should be a permanent part of the energy policy of this country, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said in the House yesterday. There is no reason at all why there should not be some permanent price controls on energy in this country, which would be adjusted only when the oil companies have legitimate increases in cost. And the price should not be adjusted to give the oil industry additional profits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is an idea to which this party wants to hold the Prime Minister when he refers to unnecessary profiteering by the gas and oil industry. It is a selective control that our party is advocating. It is not like the phony 90-day freeze that the Conservative Party is advocating on commodities, on wages and prices across this country. That would not help anyone; it would only hurt the pensioner and the low income earner.
I also suggest that the export tax be a permanent feature of our gas and oil policy. If there are any windfall gains to be made in the gas and oil industry, those gains should
December 6, 1973

come back to the people of this country who own the resources, not to some foreign-based, multinational corporations. The windfall gains that are made could be channelled into a fund, for example into the Canadian Development Corporation for the development of the tar sands, the development of the resources in the north and in other parts of this country under public ownership, so the people of Canada could reap the benefits, rather than the few entrepreneurs who live outside our borders.
All one has to do is look at some of the real effects that foreign ownership has had in our oil industry to realize the emergency proportion it has reached. I find that over $1 billion is leaving Canada this year in terms of dividends and profits from the oil industry and finding its way into the hands of foreign investors, perhaps in the United States. Much of that $1 billion is used for exploration outside of this country, such as in the North Sea. Another statistic I have is that about 86 per cent of the dividends on the earnings made by oil corporations in this country go outside of Canada, and only 14 per cent stay here for exploration, development and expansion. In my opinion, that is an example of the negative value of foreign ownership and control.
It is not only that. When you have that type of control of the oil industry, you find there is a lack of jobs. For example, the petrochemical industry is not developed in Canada, but elsewhere. This is one of the by-products of foreign ownership. You will find that in times of emergency, such as we have now, an oil corporation may divert some of its supplies from one destination to another. Multinational oil companies are huge international private governments; they are huge elephants that stamp around in countries as if those countries were small ants scurrying to get out of the way of the big feet of the elephant. In the House we have a perfect lobby for these companies, namely, the Progressive Conservative Party. We should tell the people of Canada about it as loudly, as clearly and as often as we possibly can.
I think we should do all we can to force the government of this country to become more and more involved in the gas and oil industry on behalf of the people of Canada, because that industry belongs to the people and we have the money, technology and resources to develop it. Therefore, we should develop it for the use of the Canadian people. If we do that, Canada might have a great future, because there is a genuine shortage of energy throughout the world and if Canada developed its own energy industry this could have a real spin-off effect in other industries. Countries in western Europe, countries like Japan, Great Britain and perhaps the United States, will want to import more manufactured goods and have a high energy input some time in the future.
If we in Canada have our own energy resources and an abundant supply of them at the cheapest possible price, we will be able to produce more goods for export to other countries that might be less fortunate in terms of gas and oil. I suggest it is important that we keep pushing the government now and in the future toward getting more involved in the gas and oil industry of this country. As I said, I think we can do it. I think we should be encouraging the government now to buy out the major oil companies. If we did that, we would be on the way to real public
Energy Supplies Emergency Act involvement in the gas and oil industry. If we expanded and used the export tax, the tax revenues on gas and oil, we would have in this country within 10 or 15 years an energy industry wholly owned by the people. We would not have to take over the oil companies. In 10 or 15 years their assets would be depleted and they would be a public utility, under public control and ownership, a people's oil industry that would serve the people of this country. Any profits that were made would stay here, and any oil man will tell you that the oil industry today is very profitable, for they are raking in literally millions and millions of dollars.
Any decisions that were made would then be made here in Canada for the public good, not the private good, and any jobs created in the petroleum industry would be here in Canada. We could develop an industrial structure that was responsive to our needs both social and economic. The bill we are debating today, I see as a small part in the national energy policy that this country should be evolving in the next 12 or 15 years.
The allocation bill we have before us will give the government some of the powers to take the steps that I and others in my party want taken, and that I suggest the people of the country want taken. A Gallup poll conducted a few months ago showed that the majority of the people of the country want the energy resources of the country, including gas and oil, brought under public ownership and control. It also showed that the Liberals and Conservatives surveyed preferred to have energy resources owned by the people rather than by foreign-based, multinational corporations. That is the direction in which we should be moving. We can move in that direction. Other countries have done so and there is no reason why Canada should not.
We have the resources, Mr. Speaker. In the oil sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan we have in oil reserves as much as all of the Arab states put together. We should not allow the tar sands to be sold out in the same way that the oil industry to date has been sold out to foreigners. As a result, the oil policy of this country has been established by foreign-based, multinational corporations in the private sector. The time has come to change that policy and have a public input on behalf of the people of the country.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted today by the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) in which he clearly illustrated that the government intends, in a very forece-ful and dramatic way-
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be disagreeable to my colleague, but according to an established tradition of the House, after a ministerial statement, a spokesman for each party is asked to make appropriate comments. In this circumstance, I think that it would be entirely normal for the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) who is the spokesman for the Social Credit

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Party of Canada in the House. I respectfully submit this point of order so that the established customs of the House be followed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his intervention. The Chair does its best to recognize hon. members according to the number of members in the parties. I can advise the hon. member and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), to whom I have just directed a note, that after the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) completes his speech, and the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) speaks, the hon. member for Lotbiniere will be recognized. I hope this will be done before ten o'clock. It is the practice of the Chair to try to see that at least one member of each party is recognized during any one day of debate. The hon. member for Ontario.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I started off by saying I am delighted with the statement made by the Prime Minister today, indicating in no uncertain terms that the government intends to exercise control over the development of our natural resources and to see that the corporations, multinational or otherwise, act in such a way as to maximize protection for the consumer, particularly the consumer of home heating oil products.
Bill C-236 clearly restates our desire to have complete control over emergency supply allocations in Canada and is a welcome move. It is an emergency step to deal with the emergency situation in which we now find ourselves, but if passed by parliament it will be available as a permanent piece of legislation for use in any other such emergencies in times to come. The broad powers provided under the bill are necessary in order to protect our economy, the essential services of the country, and more particularly the oil consumer in terms of supply and prices.
It will also protect something that is very close to the hearts and minds of all Canadians, in that the independent distributors of petroleum products can now be assured that they will not be squeezed out of the marketplace by the multinational corporations who may have a vested interest in serving themselves rather than the independent dealers with whom they were happy to deal in the past.
Through this bill we are also ensuring the best use of our distribution system-ship, rail, truck and pipeline-to see that the private sector behaves in a good corporate way in meeting the national objective of getting energy supplies to all Canadians and to the essential public services which require them. Of course, at a time of crisis and high demand we must hedge the public against what might be termed corporate greed, against the self-interest of the multinationals who can arbitrarily dislocate the economy and national well-being of our citizens at large. This crisis has provided Canada with a tremendous opportunity to act now and dramatically exert national control over multinational corporations to make sure they serve the best interests of all Canadians, and to ensure that for years to come, for centuries to come, this country will be self-sufficient in energy supplies.
The Prime Minister spoke not only in terms of oil supplies but in terms of delivery systems. However, Bill C-236, now before the House is directed more toward

delivery than supply. There is no question that supplies are a problem of a worldwide nature, and in particular for developing countries. It was interesting that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) did not seem to recognize this point, and I gather that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) does not recognize it either.
The hon. member, speaking of supplies, talked about the Syncrude project and indicated that as a result of the Americans going forward with their shale development project in the United States this might well lessen the value of our tar sands unless we develop them rather quickly. To me, this implies a feeling on his part that once these two projects are developed we will have a world surplus of oil then and in the future. That flies directly in the face of the well known fact that, with the passage of time, the world will still be in an energy crisis and alternative energy supplies must be developed. I do not know how the Conservatives can have it both ways, one talking about the tremendous energy crisis and another saying we had better hurry up the development of tar sands because, if we do not, the Americans will beat us with their shale project and therefore we will not have anything worth while in Canada. That does not seem to be at all consistent.
Another matter with respect to the rather nebulous position of the Conservative Party in regard to this overall problem is the fact that during the 1972 election campaign, and afterwards, I was under the impression that the Conservatives were the party who wanted to have wage and price controls. The simple fact now is that every time controls are put on one sector of the economy or another by the government in order to protect the consumers, the Conservatives cry "foul". Their leader, when in Vancouver the other day, indicated that when the petroleum price freeze is lifted he would like to see staged increases. That does not sound very consistent to me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have heard quoted two or three times today what my leader is alleged to have said in Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: Don't you know what was said?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would mind keeping quiet.


An hon. Member:: What is your point?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: At no time did he make that statement.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have seen the script.


An hon. Member:: But were you there?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously, a point of debate has arisen. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) will be recognized, as I indicated before, immediately following the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), and he can read into the record what was actually said. I think we should proceed in the traditional method
December 6, 1973

of debate. If hon. members disagree with each other, this is a free place; they have the right to rise and state their disagreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair. The point concerns him, but this is the essence of debate. In a few minutes he will have a chance to present a rebuttal of the case presented by the hon. member for Ontario.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, surely, notwithstanding the rules of debate, the truth is important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare has the floor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I say, with due respect to the hon. member for Calgary North-I do respect him-that it is evident that I am quoting from what I believe to be the statement made. I do not think I am wrong.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am sure the record will show in due course that what I have read from the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) indicates that he has advocated the staging of price increases after the freeze has been lifted on January 31, 1974. If that is not true, that will be fine: I will be glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition has come to his senses and realizes that this is not a good position to advocate.
In any event, this government certainly does not subscribe to that position. The Prime Minister indicated eloquently today that we do not believe there ought to be staged increases after the price freeze comes off. He said in no uncertain terms that it was his view that we should have voluntary controls until at least the end of the present heating season. I subscribe to that view.
An bon. Member: Then how high would it go?


Norman Augustine Cafik: An hon. member asks, "Then how high would it go?" Finally, Mr. Speaker, what we have preached has finally stuck, has finally come home. We have said that wage and price controls advocated by those on the other side of the House would, once the lid had been lifted, only serve to create artificial pressures.
As has been said several times, the price of oil in Canada is not related to the cost of production in Canada but, rather, to market value in the world. That market value is not related to costs but is related to the shortage of supplies and the cutback in production in Arab countries. Therefore, we are simply saying that there is no justification for an increase at this time, as costs have not gone up, merely because there is an opportunity for the companies to garner more money from the people of Canada and of the world as a result of the tight supply situation.


An hon. Member:: How high would the price go after the freeze?
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Norman Augustine Cafik: I presume the hon. member would recant what has been said on behalf of the Conservative Party about the putting of a lid on wages and prices, in view of the dangers which would arise once the lid was taken off. If that is the hon. member's position, then I am delighted to hear that he and other members of his party have come to their senses in that regard.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question. How high would prices go then?


Norman Augustine Cafik: One thing is sure. If the opposition party were in power today, oil prices in this country would be higher than they are today. A freeze would not have been put on, because I think hon. members opposite are the biggest lobby for the large oil corporations in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I think all Canadians welcome Bill C-236 which would clearly establish energy supply allocations in Canada through a board which would control the movement and distribution of petroleum products.
I now wish to say something about the over-all problem of energy in this country and what I think ought to be done about it. Without doubt, the people of Canada are sick and tired of what they believe to be the corporate rip-off by the multinational oil corporations.


An hon. Member:: Now you are really recanting.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member opposite may laugh, but I will tell him one thing: his attitude shows he does not care. That is not true of my party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The Prime Minister responded properly, f thought, by saying that we would keep controls on and see that the best interests of all Canadians are protected. I welcome the establishment of the Canadian petroleum corporation because I think it is essential for the Canadian government to involve itself in exploration in conjunction with the private sector. I particularly welcome the emphasis the Prime Minister gave to.our supporting and helping, in exploration activities, those smaller Canadian-owned petroleum corporations which find it difficult to compete with the large multinational corporations. I think that will do much to help give us a greater degree of Canadian control over our natural resources.
The Prime Minister mentioned the pipeline from the west to the Montreal area. That is very important. I am delighted with the urgent priority given to this matter. May I make a suggestion, which is not really original to myself, which might be considered. In the interim, at the appropriate time we might be able to take advantage of some of the excellent personnel in the armed forces who could help in the development of this project and speed it up.
I think the new Canadian petroleum corporation could be used as a vehicle for development. Under its aegis we could set up a development fund into which special taxes and depletion allowances as presently available to the

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
large oil companies in this country could be funnelled, so that we could establish a sizeable fund for developing our own natural resources, which would include not only the tar sands but offshore resources and resources in other parts of Canada.
The oil export tax, established in Canada some months ago over the cries of "foul" by many Conservative members, I think has been a useful tool for ensuring that the government of Canada, in conjunction with the government of Alberta, can build up funds for those very developmental purposes. The export tax which many were led to believe was a tax against the consumers of Canada is in fact a tax to protect them. It was to make sure that people in Canada are only paying Canadian prices, not prices according to the Chicago market. Because of the export tax there has been a considerable increment in funds to be used for national purposes such as the development of oil projects in future. I welcome that.
Many Canadians are not fully aware of the enormous rise in the price of oil which has taken place in the world, and how much we have to be thankful for in this country because we are not permitting international prices to be charged on the domestic market. Recently, for instance, Nigerian oil has been sold for $16.40 per barrel; Tunisian oil for $12.60 per barrel. The Chicago market price, as best I can calculate, with our tax added is $6.40 per barrel. The Canadian price is much lower than that, being in the neighbourhood of $4 per barrel, only because the government has put the lid on and made sure that the corporations do not line their pockets because of the international energy crisis.
Another area that concerns me a great deal is the need for us to develop and stimulate alternative sources to fossil fuel for energy purposes. A good example of what we can do has taken place in my own constituency. For example, the Prime Minister referred to the Pickering nuclear plant. That has been a phenomenal success, something of which all Canadians can be proud. It is much more successful than any alternative form of developing hydroelectric power tried by any other country in the world, including the United States. The fact that it uses uranium rather than enriched uranium causes a greatly reduced operating cost of that plant.
I welcome the suggestion by the Prime Minister that the federal government will participate, as it did in the Pickering project, in developing similar plants in the provinces across Canada. By doing this, the impact can be phenomenal in terms of reduced fossil fuel use. For example, the Pickering plant is at present capable of generating enough power to heat every home in Toronto and light every light at peak periods. All this can be done by one nuclear plant. That is quite an achievement.
I think in the long haul we ought to give more emphasis to this kind of energy and less to the conversion of homes to the use of natural gas and oil supplies for home heating purposes, particularly in large metropolitan areas like Toronto, Montreal, and so on. It is now proposed to double the plant in Pickering. After that is completed, it will generate an enormous amount of power. It will take some of the pressure off the use of fossil fuels. I am sure it will

serve as an enormous export boon when the world becomes aware, as it has increasingly been doing, of the tremendous project we have in the Pickering generating station.
There are other things we must do, perhaps in conjunction with the United Nations or at least other countries. We should evolve massive projects by numbers of countries in the world to look into the problems of solar energy. This is enormously expensive to develop. We must develop hydrogen use and other forms of energy production. There is no question that in 20 or 30 years, which is not long in the lifetime of a nation or the world, we will have to look at these other sources. I believe Canada can set the pace and an example in the development of that kind of approach in which we will conserve our energy, keeping it for a longer period of time in areas where it is really essential and not using it in areas where alternatives are presently available.
The same is true with regard to the use of automobiles. On a recent trip to England, I was quite impressed with a milk van which, when full, carried 40 cases of milk. It was powered by electricity, two batteries, one on each side of the vehicle. It travelled over 50 miles an hour, with a range of 250 miles on one charge. It is plugged in at night and then used for a full day for the delivery of this product. I do not know why there is not more emphasis given in this country to that clean form of operation for delivery vehicles. Even with its limited use, it can certainly be used much more extensively than at the present time.
Energy is a long and involved subject. I am delighted that the government, through the speech of the Prime Minister today, illustrated its determination to control this field and see that the consumers of Canada are protected, in terms of delivery and supply, in both the short run and the long run and are protected in terms of price so that they will not be gouged now or in the future because of artificial pressures and shortages that have been created.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in order to get the debate back on the rails, may I point out that this is a second reading debate on Bill C-236. I think members opposite have lost track of what this debate is about. I was rather surprised today with the panic of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government over this crisis. It is really a government crisis and not an energy crisis. The Prime Minister's statement has been called a new national oil policy. There was not anything new about it. We have heard on several occasions the same announcements he made today. However, there was one that struck me forcibly. I will call it as a witness in my opening remarks. I will name the witness. It is very interesting. It is a very fresh piece of evidence. This is what the witness said: "It means that the cost of producing domestic oil must go up before too long. It means that Canadians must be prepared, sooner or later, in some way or another to pay for these additional costs or go without oil. Any attempt to hide these facts and to formulate future policies without taking them into account can only lead in the longer run to even greater shortages and hence to even higher prices than Canadians are now experiencing in eastern provinces. In short we must in the long run
December 6, 1973

allow the price of domestically produced crude oil to rise ..."


Marc Lalonde: That's right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) says that is right. If he says it is right, it is right: ".. . toward a level high enough to ensure the development of the Alberta oil sands and other Canadian resources but not one bit higher." The witness who said that this afternoon was the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It was him, and not our leader, who talked about increased prices of oil. When he is dealing with the Syncrude project, he is dealing with a very expensive producing cost in an expensive process. If he says the cost must go higher than the cost of the Syncrude plant production, the Prime Minister is talking about a price of a barrel of crude petroleum in excess of $10. Compare that statement with any statement that our national leader has made at any time.
I am sorry the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) has left the chamber. He said it was the Conservative leader who talked about increases in price. Today the Prime Minister, the head of the government, said "any attempt to hide these facts and to formulate future policies without taking them into account" would not be realistic. There is the evidence. Tonight we have before us the bill. I want to deal briefly with how I see it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Just keep on reading.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I always like to see the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) here. I will say this about him: he is active.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I just want you to keep quoting the Prime Minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will leave it to you to study what he said. I quoted what he said about increases. I wonder of the hon. member could once in a while bear to listen, rather than ramble along. I have studied the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) as they are to be found at page 8442 and subsequent pages in Hansard in reference to Bill C-236. What is this bill about? It is a bill to set up a federal board to be known as the emergency supplies allocation board. I will quote one sentence from the minister's speech. He said:
I discussed such things as the rapid increase of movement through the St. Lawrence Seaway, government purchases of products on world markets and the organization of transportation through the Trans-Mountain pipeline system and the Panama Canal.
What he is really saying is that there is a shortfall. Whether it is as a result of the force majeure clause in contracts, the possibility of those contracts being performed, or whatever it is, what he is really saying is that we now find ourselves in desperate straits because for ten long years the government did nothing about the most serious problem which now faces us-transportation.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Representatives of the industry came to Ottawa in 1969 and begged the government to take action to see that a pipeline was built so that Canada's oil supply would always be secure. At the moment, the only answer that the government has to meet the emergency affecting Quebec and the maritimes is to send tankers all the way from Vancouver down the coast, through the Panama Canal and up to Montreal. Then on September 4, the Prime Minister announced he was going to build a pipeline to Montreal through Sarnia. When we questioned him about it, this is what he had to say-and this is on November 23. I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister two questions arising out of the statement he made last night and what he said today. I should like something to be clarified.
I went on to deal with the price. Then I asked a further question:
Yesterday the Prime Minister dealt with the Montreal pipeline and said it had been announced. We have had various announcements about this pipeline. As the pipeline is important to ensure supply, how far has the project gone? Who is going to build it? When is the project going to commence, and is the government assured of enough steel so it can go ahead?
I repeat that on September 4, 1973, four years after the government had been approached, he finally announced that a start would be made on this undertaking. Then, on November 22 he appeared on TV promising a pipeline for a second time. And as if that music were not sufficient on two occasions, he sings the same hymn this afternoon. It is all words and no action. The Prime Minister says the pipeline was announced on September 4. It was such a great speech he made today: "Following that announcement, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have been putting together the answers to the questions asked by the hon. member and they will be announced soon in the usual course".
Now we have been given a further announcement, but what we want to see is some action. These emergency measures would never have been necessary if the government had planned and encouraged the building of pipelines guaranteeing the sufficiency of supply of natural gas and crude petroleum to the area east of the Ottawa Valley, and, indeed, the Maritimes. What really happened was this: they relied on imports. Nobody wanted western Canadian crude petroleum for years. We couldn't give it away. Finally they woke up when imports were cut off, and now they are going to transport oil through the Panama Canal. What a policy! How many miles is it by tanker from Vancouver to Montreal?


Paul Edmund McRae: The same as from Montreal to Vancouver.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is 7,202 miles. Compare that distance with approximately 2,000 miles from Alberta to Montreal, the distance over which the pipeline would transport crude petroleum, as the crow flies. The minister made a confession of the government's mistakes, as hon. members will see if they turn to page 8442, when he said:
The picture which emerges indicates clearly the possibility of shortages of middle distillates and heavy oils in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and to some extent Ontario. There is also the possibility of local shortages of these products in British Columbia.
8500

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
If this bill is passed by parliament and if the board becomes a living reality, then I fear it will be merely an instrument of the minister's power complex and an image of his political conscience, rather than a board which will deliver sound economic decisions for the good of the con-sume^and for the good of the country. All this bill really does is set up a super-department which will carry out the ideas and policies of the minister. It will be the minister who makes the decisions by order in council and the board will carry them out. He will be the general. The board will merely be an instrument by means of which he will invade the rights of the provinces and the civil rights of the people.
I also fear it will be used by him to pit one part of the country against another. The government has been very good at this. The board will be made up of an army of people carrying out the minister's will, the minister's authority. It will help realize the government's desire for political advantage for the purpose of retaining and regaining political power. It will exercise political muscle without any appeal from its decisions being possible. No checks and balances will control its power. The jurisdiction of this board will stretch out into every field of energy like tentacles grasping and controlling the destiny of the various provinces and of the people of Canada, killing off industrial incentive which would assure a continued oil supply so necessary for Canada's security.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), when he led off this debate for our party, described the board as owned, operated and manned by the minister. This board is being conceived in an atmosphere of failure of decision on the part of the government. It is being conceived in the climate of a desperate minority government clinging to power. It is being conceived at a time when the government wishes to bury its procrastination or, at least, to have its procrastination interpreted as Liberal pragmatism and action.
It is a great disappointment to me, and I know it is a great disappointment to all western Canadians who realize that Canada has become self-sufficient as far as energy supplies are concerned, to find that the government cannot use its power as it ought to be used because of deals with its NDP friends. What is really happening is this. We have an NDP government with a rump on the other side directing the policies of the government, both parties standing, speaking and voting together and planning a socialistic state.
Once this board is set up, all-powerful and all-encompassing, the minister-I can almost hear him now-will answer questions put to him in reference to autocratic and arbitrary decisions, or decisions which are wrong and unjust, by saying these are decisions of the board. It is the board, he will tell us, which made those decisions. He will pass the buck to the board while he himself dons the veil of innocence. I have no doubt that the board will be used as a political vehicle and as an instrument for granting privileges to favoured political areas while creating adversity for others. It really is a super-department set up under the control of the minister to carry out his will as if he were a general in the field fighting a battle.

One has only to examine the grants made by the Liberal Party under the LIP program to know that the government cannot be trusted and will continue along this road of being political and partisan to the extent of being irresponsible. Once you give the minister the power that this bill gives to him, he will make decisions in one province which may be very favourable because the political climate is very favourable to him in that province. But he will make other decisions in other provinces which do not vote Liberal, just as the LIP program was a political slush-fund for Liberal interests and Liberal candidates everywhere.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend says never. I ask not to get into that argument, but let him check the figures that Rosedale, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, gave and you will see where half a million dollars went anyway.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Rosedale is a depressed area.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As my hon. friend says, anybody who knows anything about Rosedale knows it is a depressed area. It is quite within the realm of imagination, when you examine the bill, to learn that the minister will use his super-board to ration gas in Calgary, or in a city in a province where energy is produced, whereas gas will be pumped into tanks in other provinces without any restriction or control. This board has the power to act on a regional basis, as is apparent when you read the sections of the bill. I imagine they could ration gas and oil in Alberta and remove rationing in other provinces which do not even produce the commodity. If they can do what they did to the LIP program, then they can manoeuvre as far as the energy program is concerned.
Let me give a few examples of the sections contained in the bill. Clause 15 gives the minister power over provincial rights to control all energy and fuel, even electric power. I wonder what the province of Quebec will say when they find that by clause 15 of this bill the government, through this board, can step in, take over electrical energy and the hydro plant of Quebec, direct how it will be operated, direct the price, direct the imports and exports, and direct and control the operation itself. If that is not an infringement of provincial rights, nothing is.
Let me refer to clause 17(4) and clause 18(4), at pages 11 and 12 of the bill. What do they say? Let me just show the House what the bill does say. Clause 17 deals with the regulation of imports and subsection (4) provides:
In the event of a conflict between any regulation under this act and any provision of the National Energy Board Act or any regulation made thereunder, the regulation under this act prevails.
In other words, the National Energy Board, which was set up as a quasi-judicial body to make independent decisions on supply, to control supply, to control imports, to control exports, to give inventories of energy supplies from time to time, is having its jurisdiction taken away by this board whose only power lies under the direction of the general, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
December 6, 1973

What does clause 18 have to say? After all, we are debating this bill. It says:
(4) In the event of a conflict between any regulation under this Act and any provision of the National Energy Board Act or any regulation made thereunder, the regulation under this act prevails.
This section is dealing with regulating exports, obtaining an inventory and sizing up the situation as between imports and exports. When this bill is passed it will permit the minister to veto any decision of the National Energy Board, which as I say was set up as an independent board and has worked very well since it came into operation in 1962. It is interesting also to look at clause 21. Hon. members talk about civil rights. Clause 21, at page 14 of the bill, provides:
Where pursuant to a regulation under this Act any person is required to do or to omit to do anything contrary to the terms and conditions of any contract entered into by that person, the contract is modified to the extent necessary to enable compliance to be made with the requirements of the regulation.
In other words, any contracts made between corporations or people as far as natural gas, crude petroleum or other forms of energy are concerned can be altered or changed by the minister at will for his power lust. This is part of the bill we are asked to approve. The strongest provision comes on page 15. I often wonder, when I listen to some people, if they ever read the bills they are talking about. Clause 23 gives the minister this power. It provides:
Where in order to comply with any regulation under this act a person would be required to enter into any agreement, arrangement or course of action that might cause him to contravene the Combines Investigation Act, such person may apply to the board for an order exempting him from that act in respect of that particular agreement, arrangement or course of action.
In other words, this bill gives the minister the right to allow people to enter into contracts contrary to the Combines Investigation Act and do away with all competition. What will the result be? If that does not result in higher prices to the consumer, then no terms or conditions or any act would. As I see it, that is the effect of the bill.
I have spoken of some of the weaknesses of the bill as I see the situation. The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon, and one of the questions we have to analyse is his credibility and the credibility of the minister. Today, if I heard him aright, and hon. members can check his speech, he said that 50 per cent of the surtax would go back to the provinces. Not only have I at the committee level but also in this House of Commons questioned the minister and the Prime Minister about this, but I have been assured by the minister not only in the House but at the committee level that 100 per cent of the tax would go back to the producing province. I should like to refer to report No. 44 of the miscellaneous estimates committee where this question was asked by me, and later by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). The hon. member asked:
Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the minister could clarify a statement that he made earlier with respect to the $1.90 per barrel tax. Did I understand him correctly to say that either directly or indirectly the entire tax will go back either to the province or be used within the province where it originated?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir.
So we were promised by the minister that 100 per cent of that tax would go back to Alberta or Saskatchewan where the crude petroleum is produced, passing through the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Interprovincial pipeline into eastern Canada. Yet today the Prime Minister vetoed the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with reference to the return of that tax to the provinces.
Not only will this bill override provincial rights. Once you give the government this power they will certainly override provincial rights, particularly in a province that does not support the Liberal Party. This puts me in mind of Mackenzie King's slogan during the depression. He said, "There won't be one five-cent piece for any unemployed person in any province where there is a Conservative government". Those words came to haunt him in the 1930 election.
Therefore, it is now obvious that Canada's so-called energy crisis is one of absence of government leadership and responsibility in energy matters. This is becoming more apparent every day as the government continues on a course that seems to be not only lacking in solutions but in a clear understanding of what action has taken place. Canada this winter is faced with a major petroleum supply shortage in eastern Canada and the Maritimes. All of this is due to a lack of planning of our transportation facilities. I shall never tire of repeating that this pipeline should have been built and be in operation by now. There would not have been any shortage of fuel or gasoline in this country today if it had. We have the crude petroleum and natural gas, plus other energy commodities, to be totally self-sufficient, but the pipeline capacity is inadequate, as the government is now finding out, to carry the necessary extra crude petroleum.
If he means to build a pipeline, and he did not clarify that this afternoon, from Sarnia, that will only give Quebec another 50,000 barrels of crude petroleum a day. If he means to increase the capacity of the Interprovincial pipeline from Alberta through Saskatchewan to Sarnia in order to be able to supply the million barrels needed each day in eastern Canada, then of course he would have a project for which if he could get it off the tracing board, the Canadian consumers in that part of the country would have some appreciation. This government has sat idly by, failing to take any decision early enough to prevent a crisis here in Canada. In fact, I think they like the crisis.
I prepared some of these remarks before I heard the Prime Minister today. I ask what our policy should be on a short-term and long-term basis so Canada will not find itself in this position in the future. I am tired of saying there is no energy crisis in Canada, as we have a supply of natural gas and crude petroleum. What crisis there is is a government crisis as a result of procrastination and vacillation.


An hon. Member:: It's a Macdonald crisis or a Trudeau
crisis.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If this government had made a decision, we would be constructing the Montreal pipeline now, or at least the first extension from Sarnia to Montreal, and then enlarge the Interprovincial pipeline so as to carry the necessary capacity to guarantee sufficient crude petroleum from Alberta to the east. Why was there this delay? Why has this decision not been made since 1963
8502

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
when the Liberal government was elected? Why has there been a delay since 1968 in the days of this man who was going to do great things? The only thing I recall him saying in 1968 on television, and I refer to this little playboy, was that he would make no promises to Canadians. Of the many great promises he has made since, that is the only one he has kept. He has done nothing.
Secondly, we should create a tax climate that will encourage capital, particularly Canadian risk capital, into investment in exploration development of the Athabasca tar sands and to find other fields as we have done in the past. I heard the Prime Minister say this afternoon that it is not likely there are any other fields in Alberta. If we had not drilled, searched for and provided a tax climate so there could be that kind of development, we would not have found the Leduc field in 1947 when the first well was blown in by the Imperial Oil Company.
We should put together immediately a new national oil policy after consultation with the provinces and make certain that any surtax, a mechanism used to keep the price of gas and oil down in Canada when under pressure from high world competition and prices, will be returned to the provinces where the resource exists and is developed. I think that is a fair premise. I am sure that if you had a surtax on steel for some reason, that money should go back to the province of Ontario, or the money in respect of iron ore should go back to the province of Quebec where it is mined.
Surely that is a reasonable policy and we should be able to consult with the provinces and work out the problems. This Prime Minister, this government and the minister-I am happy to see him here in the House-have run slipshod over all the premiers of the provinces and provincial representatives.


An hon. Member:: No way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member should go and talk to the premiers. We should begin immediately, and this should have taken place years ago, to negotiate with the United States in reference to a natural gas pipeline down the Mackenzie delta, through Alberta to the industrial centres of Canada and the United States. Why would this be necessary? I agree with the Prime Minister in this regard. I prepared some of this before I listened to what he had to say.
The economics of bringing natural gas from the Arctic is such that we have to combine our efforts with the United States, which could then bring down its natural gas from their areas. The natural gas from both areas would be transported down the same pipeline. Our natural gas could be used in Canada and theirs could be used in their own country. That combined effort would make this energy economic and at a price range the people of Canada could afford. It would be at a price at which industries could use the energy and compete with world markets. As a result of the procrastination and vacillation of this government in not doing this years ago, we find this development has not taken place. This has been a government of words and inaction.
I know that some people are frightened because there is some mystery about the foreign investments bill which will set up a screening process, but no such process should

be used dictatorially by this government without consultation with the provinces that may be affected. I have talked to members from the Maritimes and I know that they need capital. Certain areas in western Canada need capital, but the needs may be entirely different than perhaps the needs in Ontario or in other parts of central Canada. Therefore, before the government uses this screening process there must be consultation with the provinces. Today we are self-sufficient in Canada, but if we have this kind of government which does everything to antagonize the development of the petroleum industry we will soon be in the position that other countries find themselves in, and have to rely on imports rather than on our own production.
We should now make certain that the Syncrude project, which is worth $800 million, guaranteeing 10,000 jobs and billions of barrels of crude petroleum for Canada in the future, goes ahead without frustration caused by scare tactics on the part of this government. The uncertainty and confusion in respect of government policy is frustrating and delaying this important project that promises a continued supply of energy for our industrial complexes and cheap fuel for our homes. This is an important project, but instead of the government providing incentives, it provides discouragements. The Premier of Alberta worked with a group for the development of the tar sands in order to guarantee a supply of crude petroleum not only in western Canada but here in eastern Canada.
The next thing I suggest is that we should return the National Energy Board to its proper function of being an independent board making decisions as to pipelines, security of supply, exports, imports, etc., and get government interference out of that board. In particular, the government must appoint men other than political heelers. I have read clauses of Bill C-236 that indicate this super-board the minister wants to set up will be able to override any decision of the Energy Board-and if that is not interference, nothing is.
The next question that came to my mind in considering this bill was why the future supply of petroleum and natural gas is so important to our well-being. May I set out now that according to recent technical papers, and this is material researched by an independent petroleum association, Canada is considered to have, at current rates of production, undiscovered reserves equivalent to 100 years' supply for oil needs and 250 years' supply for gas needs. In addition, and the Prime Minister touched on this today, the Alberta oil sands are estimated to contain 250 billion barrels of oil of which approximately 26.5 billion barrels are recoverable by current processes.


An hon. Member:: He is reading again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am reading from my notes, and I might point out that I have done a lot of research on this matter because of its importance.


An hon. Member:: Where do you get those figures?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The figures come from a report of the Canadian Petroleum Association, an independent petroleum group which hired technicians, geologists, to come up with these figures. While these potential reserves postulated by various geologists are large, they will only

become a reality by exploration, and only through risk exploration can Canada become assured of >
long-term supply. In undertaking this risk exploration it must first be recognized that compared to Middle East supplies or, in fact, any other reserves worldwide except the United States, Canadian oil and gas are high-cost in terms of finding, developing and transportation costs.
Wells in Venezuela produce as many as 10,000 barrels of crude per day. Our wells in Alberta, the best of them, produce about 100 to 200 barrels a day. It costs just as much to drill one of the wells in Alberta as it costs to drill wells in the Middle East or in Venezuela which produce 10,000 barrels a day. So the cost of our production is very high. Secondly, it must be recognized that these risk investments are generally of a fairly long-term nature in that there is a long lead time before an idea is transferred into reserves and possible return.
In central Canada it takes five to seven years to do the necessary geological, geophysical and drilling work required to develop a specific plan to start selling oil and gas. In the frontier area the lead time is even longer. Gas was found in Sable Island in 1967. There were close to 70 wells. Six years later this gas is still a considerable time from being produced. I heard in the House the other day, when the government was being questioned, that they were thinking of building a pipeline to get this gas into the Maritimes where it is needed. This should have been off the planning board a long time ago. The emergency is now; the winter is here; the people will be cold and will suffer now.


An hon. Member:: You said there is no crisis.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is a government crisis, but no shortage of supply. Gas was found at Drake Point in the Arctic in July, 1969, and it is unlikely that any gas will be marketed before the 1980s. The point I wish to make is that these long lead time periods require committing funds for a considerable period into the future, with little or no return. Each long-term commitment necessitates long-term planning and the careful evaluation of alternatives, particularly when the need for capital is so great.
All we have had from this government is short-term planning, which is not good enough. When they talk about the crisis, the crisis is because there is no transportation policy or encouragement in respect of a transportation policy. Therefore, we have a crisis now in Quebec and in the Maritimes. From the individual company's point of view, the exploration risk must be weighed against opportunities elsewhere. I could name many companies which have their head office in Calgary and which are not drilling in Alberta or becoming involved in the tar sands. They have gone to the North Sea because they get a better deal from the British.
The oil industry is a multinational industry because risk capital flows all over the world. That is why it takes a lot of capital to develop and find either oil or natural gas. The industry needs to work in a climate of relatively stable conditions. That is why I endorse the Energy Board. It cannot operate in a legislative vacuum such as it does under this government. It cannot operate under conditions
Energy Supplies Emergency Act where great uncertainties exist, or in circumstances where legislative or regulatory guarantees are unilaterally changed without regard to the guarantee. That is exactly what Bill C-236 will do. It will create a czar in the government which will be all powerful in respect of energy, and the board will have to carry out the orders of the great general. The industry cannot operate where legislative changes are made retroactively or where legislative changes are made quickly without allowing for a phase-in period to allow industry adjustments.
May I repeat that if the transportation facilities were adequate, Canada would be self-sufficient in energy supplies and the consumers this winter would not be frightened about the possibility of not being warm in their homes and in the hospitals. I heard that in one hospital, I believe it was in the province of Newfoundland, several deaths of babies occurred because of the cold-and this in a place like Canada!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That was on television. You may say it is nonsense. Until recently, Arab nations provided to eastern Canada 30 per cent of its crude oil needs. This amounted to approximately 300,000 barrels of crude oil a day. The government maintained that the Arabs were going to cut back 25 per cent of that supply, amounting to 75,000 barrels of crude oil a day. Now the government maintains the shortage will be not 75,000 barrels a day but 200,000 barrels a day. They maintain that this is due to the multinational oil companies having the power to argue and successfully allege that the contracts for supply of this crude petroleum can be upset due to impossibility of performance of supply contracts.
It is they that are on the side of the multinational corporations. They say they cannot do anything about it. They say they are helpless. This has been given the fancy term force majeure, a clause in the contract relieving these oil companies from fulfilling their contracts. If they are permitted to use this as an excuse, then oil shortages will be shared with Canada's traditional suppliers. For example, Venezuela would be forced to divert its oil to other countries. We could have taken on the great multinational oil corporations if we had pipelines built now, instead of having to ship oil by tanker down the Pacific coast and through the Panama Canal to prevent Quebec and the Maritimes from going cold this winter.
The minister says he found out only a short time ago that the oil companies were going to default on their obligations to Canada, while the president of Shell Canada claims that the minister's department has known for a long time that this action might be taken. Are our rights being honoured? Are the consumers of Canada being sabotaged by international corporations? We cannot obtain the answers from the government, except that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that the multinational corporations can shortchange Canada and do it legally.
I should like to ask the government, who governs Canada? For example, when the minister was asked on Thursday a week ago what shortages he was looking to in Ontario and British Columbia, he said he meant shortages of bunker fuel used in ships and in large factories.

December 6, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House would give consent to the hon. member to continue for a few more minutes so that I could ask him a question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should like to compliment the hon. member on his speech. It is a good speech. It is really in respect of the appointments that I wish to ask him a question. It is not a question of political hacks but, rather, of obtaining qualified people in the oil business who would be prepared to sacrifice better incomes in order to make such a contribution. I should like to ask the hon. member if he can suggest names of people both for this board and for the National Energy Board, because there is an industry place on this board and we would like to have on it people who would be prepared to give up much higher incomes in order to come down to Ottawa and do this work.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think that would be easy to do. As the minister knows, the first chairman of the National Energy Board was a man who was involved for much of his life in the petroleum industry. He was chairman of the conservation board in Alberta and then finally became chairman of the National Energy Board. At the present time I do not know the new chairman, but I would say that if that board keeps its personnel so that it is allowed to act independently as it has in the past, it is safe. But under this act, as I read the section-I do not know whether the minister had stepped out at that time-the new board which is being set up, this super-board, can override any independent decision of the Energy Board.
If the people who are being set up on this board are not political appointments, I will be most surprised. It will be the biggest change that has happened since the Trudeau administration went in, because when one looks at the number of members who were defeated in the last election and sees the political plums they hold, one knows what kind of personnel this board will have.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Could I put another question to the hon. member? What I am concerned about with regard to the board is having his kind of fellow on the board and, indeed, on the National Energy Board. I do not think the hon. member should reply to this tonight. He might like to reply to me in private. I would like to see people from the oil industry on this board and on the National Energy Board. They could take a cut of $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year, come down here and devote their time to public service. I would be very much obliged to the hon. member if he could give me the names of people among his friends in Calgary whom we could seriously consider.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Deputy ministers now get $60,000 a year. That is the increased salary which they got from this
[Mr. Woolliams.)
government. I do not think there are many executives in the Calgary oil petroleum industry getting $60,000 a year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All right, my friends, name them. These ignoramuses should name them.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The problem is that you and I are wasting our time.


Paul Edmund McRae: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Paul Edmund McRae: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I recognize the hon. member as the next speaker to rise. Does the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) agree to the question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not mind if they question me all night, because I would like to help the government with some answers which they need to have.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The minister is also anxious to ask a question. I will recognize the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) first, followed by the minister.


Paul Edmund McRae: I was confused by a few things that the hon. member said. He spoke about the tar sands in some detail and then he spoke about the high exploration cost. Was he referring to the high exploration cost so far as the tar sands are concerned-we know where they are-or was he talking about ordinary crude?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can certainly answer these questions. Of course we know where the tar sands are. I was referring to the development of a new process. You want to be careful, you will burst a blood vessel, my boy. Take it easy. I do not want to be personal. The hon. member asked me a question and I am prepared to answer it if he would only learn to listen.
It is estimated that to produce a barrel of crude from the tar sands today would cost $10 a barrel of crude petroleum, and no profit can be made on that. With reference to drilling, at one time you could drill a well in Alberta for $500,000. In the last ten years it has cost $1.5 million. You know what the costs are of steel, labour, and so on. Everything has gone up under this government. That is why the cost is so high.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise on a question of privilege. I just want to say that it is a great pleasure to hear from the hon. member for Calgary North' (Mr. Woolliams) on these questions. He remains an asset to the House in terms of his revelations regarding the oil industry and I only regret that we have not had more time to hear him. In fact, I think we should give him the remaining 3'/z to four minutes this evening so that he can com-
December 6, 1973

Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
plete his remarks, because I am sure that with his knowledge of the industry he has not done justice to the subject.
[u'Mr. Speaker, first of all, to my mind, the hon. member who just spoke and the one who preceded him, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) both proved how much discord there is in the Progressive Conservative Party. One can hardly imagine speeches that differ as much as the two we have just heard from two members of the same party.\nIt seems to me the hon. member should know that Canada is neither pro-Israel, nor pro-Arab; that it wants to remain neutral and help solve the conflict. I feel that doing what the hon. member has just done, by playing one clan against the other, one country against the other, can only achieve results that are diametrically opposed to those he himself or the Canadian people would achieve, that is peace in that part of the world. I would be angry with myself for uttering such provocative remarks as he has come out with.\nThis being so, I would like to say that the oil shortage in the United States is increasingly serious and that Canadians who are planning to go in that country should know that posters have already been set up on American highways warning drivers of the gas shortage.\nUnfortunately we cannot do much for the Canadian people who are refused gas at American gas stations. We have asked our embassy in Washington to see whether there was a policy favouring American clients at the expense of Canadian clients. Our Canadian embassy has advised us that for the moment there was no discriminatory policy at the federal level cr in the various states. This was confirmed by the American Automobile Association. [English]\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:15 p.m.\ufeffHOUSE OF COMMONS\nFriday, December 7, 1973']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member does not seem too anxious to continue, so I will recognize the hon. member for Fort William.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not want to be selfish, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I think this is definitely out of order now. I recognized the hon. member for Fort William for the purpose of making his comments to the House. Perhaps he would like to start his speech now.


Paul Edmund McRae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thought that after we had heard two spokesmen for each party, a member of the Social Credit Party of Canada could have been recognized. My colleague from Compton (Mr. Latulippe) is ready to speak. In my opinion, he could say himself that it is 10 o'clock and continue tomorrow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I have indeed watched the hon. member for a few minutes. He had previously asked to be recognized or suggested his name to the Chair, but at no time did the hon. member rising on a point of order or the hon. member beside him show that they wished to speak. I therefore recognized the hon. member that I noticed.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. We may perhaps be too far from the Chair, but I should respectfully point out that I rose twice to be recognized. My colleague from Compton (Mr. Latulippe) rose just before the hon. member whom you recognized. Furthermore, I do not accept what you have just said, because it is neither relevant nor gracious for the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Nonetheless, I shall recognize once more the hon. member for Fort William.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on some of the remarks made by hon. members in the opposition, and also discuss what I consider to be the three major ingredients of a comprehensive Canadian energy policy. But I see that it is now ten o'clock and I believe we should call in ten o'clock. We can continue the debate at our next sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member suggests that it is ten o'clock.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to give consideration to inviting Sheik Yamani, oil minister of Saudi Arabia, to come to Ottawa. I noted that the Saudi minister and his Algerian counterpart were in the United States after completing visits to western Europe.
In the whole confused story of our energy problem there is at least one aspect that is clear. We are not in meaningful communication with great portions of the Arab world, especially the major oil producers. One day we have announcements of actions by Saudi Arabia. The next day we are told that not Saudi Arabia but Abu Dhabi was involved. There is no clearcut picture of Canada's status in reference to oil coming from the Portland pipeline. We have been told that all was well, and well understood. I heard Sheik Yamani on television a few days ago indicate that that aspect would need looking into.
A leading oil man declares that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) was advised that Saudi Arabia had Canada on the embargo list. The minister denied this but was unable to indicate how much oil had been shipped from Saudi Arabia to Canada in the last 30 days. Indeed, the whole record of the minister's handling of the present problem is so inept as to be frightening. On Tuesday, the Come-By-Chance announcement was an "ace in the hole". On Wednesday, it was something considerably less. On an issue of such seriousness, with profound ramifications, economic, constitutional and international, the people of this country should not be placed in such jeopardy as to have their destinies reside in a man whose incapacity has been so painfully proven over many years in so many public assignments.
I hoped the Secretary of State for External Affairs would follow my suggestion and arrange that Sheik Yamani be invited to Ottawa so that some information and clarity might be obtained. I would like to know if the Sheik was invited. As long ago as last spring I urged, in the external affairs committee, the necessity of opening full-fledged diplomatic missions in the oil states of the Arab world. With the vast areas of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states we have either no diplomatic contact or contact of the most tenuous kind. Missions in Cairo, Beirut, and Tel Aviv scarcely open the line of communication with oil states. Iraq has a most highly qualified ambassador in Ottawa, but we seem not able to open a mission in Baghdad.
Although the problems and burdens likely to fall upon the ordinary Canadian citizen, especially in the Atlantic region, are of the utmost importance, we must not lose sight of the fact that the current Canadian problem about

December 6, 1973
Adjournment Debate
oil, whatever its dimensions, cannot be considered today in isolation from the highly explosive Middle East political and military situation.
Little is gained by denouncing the Arab states, whose newly proven unity has been most effective, as practitioners of blackmail. The use of economic sanctions has an ancient history. Long ago it was used by combatants and opponents. In recent years I have heard Canadian ministers point with pious pride to our non-trade with Rhodesia. Then we think of the Trading with the Enemy Act of the United States and the moral satisfaction of those Canadians who dilate upon the sinfulness of buying California grapes.
There is no law, international or otherwise, which decrees that the Arabs must sell their oil indiscriminately all over the world. I must regret that they have taken any steps to inhibit in any degree their sales to my country, but I do not deny them the right to select their customers in the international marketplace.
In reference to the over-all political situation, Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people have a right to know just where we stand with the Arab world. Have we reasons for quarrelling with these people? Why is Canada in a category different from that of Britain, France, Belgium and other European countries? What view do we have on the Middle East situation differing from these countries? They recognize Israel, and ipso facto believe in its existence. Does Canada believe that the lands occupied by Israel after the UN decision of the forties and the 1967 war are to be permanently alienated from the Arab states? Is this the reason why Canada is on the neutral list and our NATO allies in Europe, with two exceptions, are on the friendly list? This is a very important and significant question.
I think that we should know what is the stand of the government on this most volatile and very grave portentous situation. The reasons for our being in a category different from Britain and France should be made clear to the people of Canada who may suffer grievously. All of these countries supported UN resolution 242, as did we. Wherein have we differed since? For what reason are we on less than friendly terms with the Arab world, with whom we have had no conflicts or quarrels so far as I know, and whose progress toward a peaceful, prosperous existence we should welcome?
I would welcome some replies from the distinguished parliamentary secretary for whom I have the highest regard, and indeed I may have the honour of getting a reply from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is famous for presenting the worst possible situations. With his record, I would say he is the best possible man to tell us about another worst possible situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to reply to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who is generally well regarded in this House, although not for any particular intellectual qualifications. I think he is generally regarded as being a rather well meaning, but very shallow and intellectually light-

weight person. Still it is certainly a pleasure to reply to him. I may also say the most outstanding thing about the hon. member is his sideburns, in respect of which no other member of the House can claim precedence. He has, undoubtedly, the most outstanding pair of sideburns in the House.
I was interested in his reference to Sheik Yamani, and that gave me greater pleasure in rising to speak tonight because I had the most recent opportunity of any member of the House to speak with the sheik, who was a classmate of mine at Harvard law school. The sheik made it very clear to me at the time, and I have since vouchsafed it to this House, that Canada is on no embargo list so far as his government is concerned, and indeed the suggestions to that effect by the hon. member for Hillsborough and other badly informed persons like the hon. member are, of course, without foundation.
I welcome the statement of the sheik that in fact he had the highest regard for our country and that he did not share the impression which the hon. member for Hillsborough sought to circulate this evening, that Canada is poorly regarded in the Arab world. Indeed, Canada is well regarded, and so far as the sheik is concerned, he said he would check this rumour, created by an international petroleum corporation as to the way in which it would have the Arab peoples view us.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is indeed in the interests of Canada and Canadians to establish good relations with the Arab peoples and this has been one of the objectives of our foreign policy for many years. This has been a difficult relationship in terms of both the Arab and Israeli communities, and this is why Canadians above all have sought to play a role that would not aggravate either side of the controversy. Quite to the contrary, Canadians want to play a constructive role so that these two peoples, arising from such close ethnic backgrounds, with so many ties of history, can come together and establish a lasting and permanent peace on the basis of mutual co-operation and confidence in the Middle East.
The hon. member referred to many of the hard fought debates in the United Nations General Assembly on the question of the ceasefire lines, on resolution 242 and on other matters. I would say, Mr. Speaker, in this regard that the important question for Canadians to face, even though Canadians may at the moment be somewhat concerned about oil supplies, about the lack of oil, or extent of deprivation from which they suffer or with which they may be threatened, is the question of the importance of establishing in the Middle East community an effective role for Canadians to play in trying to bring those two communities together.
This has been the role of the government of Canada, dating back, if I may say so, to the days of my former leader whom the hon. member for Hillsborough was prepared to castigate in the past, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. The work of that great Canadian in the Middle East was recognized. It was known that he wanted to try and bring about peace between those two great and historic peoples. This is the role for Canada. This is the role this government will try to discharge, Mr. Speaker.
December 6, 1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN VISITORS TO UNITED STATES AGAINST BEING STRANDED IF GAS RATIONING INTRODUCED
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight because of my failure last Monday to persuade the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to even acknowledge his responsibility for protecting the well-being of Canadian citizens who may soon be stranded in the United States if gasoline rationing is invoked in that country. Hansard records my questions and the minister's evasions and blandishments in the following way, at page 8343:


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from the possibility of gasoline rationing in the United States. Has the minister consulted with his American counterparts to get an agreement from the Americans to ensure that the interests of Canadians abroad will be protected so they will not be stranded there if gasoline rationing is introduced in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would not think that Canadians who wish to travel in the United States would be exempted from those kinds of measures. I should think they would want to comply.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What specific measures will the minister be taking on behalf of the Canadian government to protect the interests of Canadian nationals travelling abroad who find themselves trapped there? Is the minister not concerned about the interests of Canadian?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned. I think we can look after the interests of Canadians in this regard. However, I do not think we should create the impression that we should be free when Americans are subject to rationing.
What a remarkable statement for a minister of the Crown to make-that he did not feel Canadians trapped in the United States as a result of American rationing would want any special treatment if it were necessary to get them home to their families. I cannot help but be reminded, when I read the comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, of Winston Churchill's description of Clement Attlee as "a sheep in sheep's clothing".
This year, tens of thousands of Canadians will be visiting the United States and will be taking with them millions of tourist dollars which will be a great asset to the American economy. The only thing they ask in return from the Americans is that they be treated in a fair and decent way, and that they not be left stranded hundreds of miles from their homes and families. I think their request is not unreasonable. Yet, the minister refuses even to talk to the Americans to request that the rights of Canadians be respected. Although he intimates that the government can do something for stranted Canadians, he refuses to say what.
This is the second time since the beginning of the energy crisis that this minister has demonstrated to Canadians that you will find more backbone in a bowl of jello than you will find in his office. It was not all that long ago that we saw on nationwide television the rather pathetic spectacle of the Secretary of State for External
Adjournment Debate
Affairs begging the ambassadors of the Arab sheikhs not to blackmail this country with their oil. "We like the Israelis" he said, "but we also like the Arabs too. We want to be everybody's friend and we know that everybody will want to be our friends too."
That performance, Mr. Speaker, did not fill Canadians with pride. They were not proud to see their government jumping through Arab hoops in order to be ensured that our oil supply is not cut. In the end, Canada has still been subject to the Arab cutback in production. It is countries like Holland and the United States, which refused to be blackmailed away from support of Israel, which have reason for pride. Yet, unlike Canada, both those countries are highly dependent on oil from the Middle East for the health of their respective economies. This country, which is one of the few major nations in the world able to claim self-sufficiency in oil, refuses even to make a protest over the hostile and aggressive actions of the Arabs against us.
It appears, Mr. Speaker, that this coalition government will continue in office for some months. However, as long as this minister retains his portfolio, we will continue to pay for his timidity with the honour and the rights of Canadians.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs)::