1973-12-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices-Mr. Cullen.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[ Translation]

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the terms of Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling, in the two official languages, the final report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-medical Use of Drugs.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the action presently under way by the management of Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited to dismantle their forge at Trenton, Nova Scotia, the largest such operation in Canada, in view of the great strategic and industrial importance of this unique facility to Canada, and in view of the possible efforts that this course of action will have on the work force of Hawker Siddeley's Trenton operations, as well as the interests of the industries which have grown to depend on the capacity of this forge for special projects, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce forthwith instruct the management of Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd. to immediately cease the dismantling of this unique forge and the machine shop used in connection therewith, until suitable alternatives have been discussed and arranged.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Central Nova. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


FINANCE
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table a copy of the report of the Superintendent of Insurance for Canada for the year ended December 31, 1972, on small loans companies and money lenders licensed under the Small Loans Act.


GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING PROGRAMS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to move under Standing Order 43. Because of two recent actions within the Department of the Secretary of State, the shifting of Opportunities for Youth to Manpower and the failure to complete an evaluation of all summer youth programs, both indicating a major government policy shift, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House urge the Secretary of State to make an early statement outlining the reasons for the abandonment of any youth policy despite glowing promises by the Prime Minister two years ago and the spending of millions of tax dollars on this aborted policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
Oil Export Charge Act ENERGY

December 14, 1973
(1110)


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION-BEQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. In view of the Prime Minister's announcement on Thursday of last week that the oil pipeline will be extended to Montreal, and in view of the great potential for industrial development in Northern Ontario if such a pipeline were built through that region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House recommends to the government the building of the extension of the Montreal pipeline through Northern Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Introduction of bills. First reading of Senate public bills. Government notices of motions. Oral question period. Is the Minister of Finance rising on a point of order?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, did Your Honour call introduction of bills?


Mr. Speaker:: I did, quite some time ago. Is it the wish of hon. members that we return to that item?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, just to indicate how anxious we are to co-operate with the government even when it makes mistakes, we would be very pleased to revert to the order for the introduction of bills.


OIL EXPORT CHARGE ACT
John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-245, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax.


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


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I will give him an opportunity to return to his seat. I should like to ask the minister if he is now prepared to hold consultations with the premier of Saskatchewan with a view to resolving any differences between the two levels of government on domestic oil pricing arrangements before the first ministers' conference next month and in particular, has the minister undertaken to seek out the views of the province of Saskatchewan toward staging in oil price increases next year?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of talking to the premier and I suggested to him that in advance of the federal-provincial conference it might be desirable to postpone the application date of his new legislation at least until February 1. He took that under advisement.


INCREASE IN CRUDE OIL PRICE PROPOSED BY SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PERSONALLY INTERVENE WITH PREMIER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the comment of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the question is under advisement concerning the proposed increase in the price of crude oil in Saskatchewan, and bearing in mind that such an increase might result in an extra cost of $100 million to the consumers of Canada, will the Prime Minister personally intervene with the premier of Saskatchewan on this matter?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure in what sense the suggestion is constructive. I know it is understood that we are going to discuss this matter at the January conference of first ministers. The principle on which the government is going to proceed was put before the House in my statement last week, and we will discuss on this basis with all the premiers. I imagine there will be some consultation in advance, but I see no purpose at this stage in talking personally to Premier Blakeney.


STUDY OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED INCREASE BY SASKATCHEWAN IN CRUDE OIL PRICE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a further supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has his department completed or do they have under way any study of what in fact will be the impact on the consuming public and
December 14, 1973

industry in Canada should Saskatchewan increase the price of its crude oil as suggested by about $2 per barrel?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the impact of further price increases at the instance of any of the producing provinces is a matter that has been under study.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-STEPS TO AVOID DELAY IN COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of a story in this morning's Montreal Gazette that the president of Interprovincial Pipe Lines, Mr. Waldon, appears to be of the opinion that work on the extension of the pipeline to Montreal may not be started or will not be started until the spring of 1975, with the result that there will be another year's delay in the pipeline coming on stream. Is the government taking energetic steps to avoid the delay which the president of Interprovincial Pipe Lines apparently expects and perhaps even welcomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that Mr. Wal-don's comments were related to the length of the regulatory proceedings that would precede construction and the possibility of telescoping the time frame of those proceedings without doing prejudice to the public interest required by the National Energy Board Act. This is something that we have had under discussion with the board.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister what precise steps, if any, have been taken to make sure that the hearings by the National Energy Board will not take the time that Mr. Waldon suggests they might, and whether in fact the two sets of hearings might not be held simultaneously by panels of the board in order to avoid the rather dangerous delay suggested by the president of the pipeline company?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we will want to respect the responsibility of the board toward its procedures, but we are bringing to the board's attention the general public concern that there should not be undue delay in this regard.


REPLY TO DEMANDS BY SYNCRUDE CONSORTIUM
David Lewis: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is, of course, aware of the fact that Syncrude made certain demands on the federal government. They first asked for a reply by November 16 and then decided to extend that a month to December 16, which is next Sunday. What demands has the Syncrude consortium made and has the federal government replied to any of those demands?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has dealt with the response in relation to the taxation problem. I think a brief summary of that would be that the parties to the transaction have amended the nature of the transaction so that it would fit
Oral Questions
within the federal income tax law as it exists rather than requiring an amendment or some kind of special exemption. With regard to the question of pricing in particular, the companies had inquired as to the prospects of there being an assured price for the Syncrude product at a level which would enable the development to go ahead. We have indicated to them, in line with the comments made by the Prime Minister in his statement of last week, that a pricing policy would be envisaged which would enable higher cost resources to be brought on stream. One further element would be the risk of the project having to be run at less than optimum capacity because of shut-in requirements. We have agreed that the tar sands project, because of the necessity to have an optimum operation, would not be subject to the same risk of being shut in as would, for example, a conventional well.


MANPOWER
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the delays of the Department of Manpower and Immigration in accepting local initiatives programs, because of which two federal employees were kidnapped in Rimouski this morning, does the Prime Minister intend to intervene directly with the department to get those projects approved on the double?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the department is aware of this matter. The minister is returning from Toronto to give personal attention to it and in the meantime all proper steps are being taken.


OIL-MEASURES TO ASSIST EASTERN CANADIANS TO COPE WITH HIGH PRICES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the right hon. gentleman's advice to eastern Canada two days ago, "If you cannot afford foreign oil, don't buy it," I wonder if he could indicate briefly what plans the government has for this winter, perhaps in conjunction with provincial administrations, to provide some alternative source of fuel, or does he have any policy in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has misconstrued my remarks.


Mr. Hees:: You said it. We heard it. It is that simple.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question seems to have been, what would we do to make sure that the price of offshore oil

December 14, 1973
Oral Questions
would be lowered, or something along those lines. With regard to the consuming end, we have indicated various responses. I summed them up in my speech. I would refer the hon. member to it. I would also remind him that we suggested that in January we would be discussing with the provinces the measures or approaches we might take jointly to meet any further problems that might subsist.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I thank the Prime Minister for his very interesting answer. I do not want in any way to be unfair to him, but he did say a couple of days ago, as recorded at page 8669 of Hansard, that the federal government can in no way determine the price at which-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might not try to have questions rather than debate. Perhaps the hon. member could ask the question directly rather than referring to a prior statement. It might be easier for the Chair if that were done.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: All right, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could indicate to us what specific measures he has for the short term. I indicated to him before that I wondered whether he was considering a short term subsidy or some other means to protect the people of the five eastern provinces of Canada from the very critical situation which is compounded by problems of transportation and supply from offshore sources. Surely he must have some specific measure so the people of eastern Canada will know how they are going to heat their homes this winter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In an earlier statement I indicated that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had communicated with the provinces, for instance, to ensure that our Canada Assistance Plan payments would be adequate to help those who are on welfare. I also indicated the escalation of various payments, family allowances and so on, which are now going toward offsetting the higher cost of living.


George Harris Hees: Give them a little welfare and hope they make it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is arguing that the federal government alone should bear the responsibility for these higher prices, I would just say that is not our view. Those provinces have for many years benefited from lower world prices compared with the people west of the Ottawa Valley line.


George Harris Hees: So let them freeze now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not a question of letting them freeze. It is a question of who should pay the subsidy. I do not think the federal government should assume, as hon. members opposite are, that the taxpayers of all Canada should alone subsidize the people of certain provinces. I think the provincial governments themselves have some responsibility in this regard, particularly in view of the fact for years they have levied higher taxes on that cheaper oil in their provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Because of the fact that for a number of years there has been a balance in favour of Quebec and the eastern provinces in terms of the price of crude which never exceeded 50 cents a barrel, is it the Prime Minister's position that this justifies a national policy which involves the five eastern provinces paying perhaps an additional $3 a barrel? Is it the position of the Prime Minister that, because there has been a balance, sometimes as much as 50 cents a barrel, in favour of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec in terms of the price of crude, those provinces should be left to bear the cost of crude oil running as much as $3 or more a barrel more than the rest of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. It is the government's position that the provincial governments have some responsibility in assisting the citizens of their provinces, that the federal taxpayer, that is to say, taxpayers from every part of Canada, should not be asked to subsidize a loan to the eastern consumers in this particular circumstance. The government intends bringing forth propositions to the federal-provincial conference-


An hon. Member:: What are they?


George Harris Hees: There are six very cold weeks ahead.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If members opposite would support us in a unilateral declaration policy, I would be glad to state it now, but they have often been urging us to consult with the provinces.


George Harris Hees: You have not got a policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: George, I think you should go back to the time when you just contented yourself with looking like Gorgeous George.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I am getting to him. The Prime Minister says, let them burn wood. That is his policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to repeat his reply. There are a few supplementaries by the hon. member for Central Nova and the hon. member for St. John's East. We will then try to move on.


George Harris Hees: I didn't know I could get under your skin so well.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member does not get under my skin with the knife he put under the skin of his former leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You are frightfully funny this morning. Let's get back now to your wood burning policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must repeat that I do not assume that the federal government must in every case subsidize citizens of some provinces when the provincial governments themselves have just received $190 million in equalization
December 14, 1973

funds over and above the amount received in previous years. They have received this as a result of a change in the equalization policy. I believe they have some responsibility toward their own citizens, and I am a little surprised that federal Members of Parliament sitting opposite have no more concern for the federal taxpayers than they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have what I hope is a reasonably non-argumentative supplementary for the right hon. gentleman. I am not suggesting to the Prime Minister that the federal government bear the entire responsibility, but I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to consider on a short-term basis a measure, for example, reducing to some extent the federal sales tax on gasoline, or something else to help us, because it was the neglect of this government to build a pipeline that put us into this position in the first place.


George Harris Hees: We suggested it four years ago, and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly accept the representation made by the hon. member, but I put it to him and, indeed, to the provincial governments that they, too, might consider reducing their gasoline taxes.


George Harris Hees: And if they did, would you?


An hon. Member:: Give your backbenchers a chance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister might be allowed to reply to the question. There are a number of supplementaries. For the moment the Prime Minister has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the kind of subject we shall be discussing at the federal-provincial conference. I hope the provinces will come to that conference prepared to pay some money. The easy solution of equalization would mean we would take all the money from Alberta and redistribute it to the eastern provinces. I see the hon. member is shaking his head. I hope he and his friends will indicate whether they have some alternative approach which might be useful for the federal-provincial conference in January.


Mr. dames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In view of the fact the five eastern provinces have taxed their people to the limit of their capacity to pay and in view of the additional expenditures these provinces have to undertake because of excessively high unemployment, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared at the federal-provincial conference in January to increase equalization payments to these five provinces so they can reduce their taxes on gasoline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House should realize that as the revenues to Alberta go up because of eventual increases in the price of petroleum the consequences in regard to equalization payments will be of very great
Oral Questions
magnitude, and that through the very operation of the equalization system these massive new revenues to Alberta will be redistributed through that system to the have-not provinces. This should be kept in mind by members over there who are always urging the federal government to place an even heavier burden upon federal taxpayers so as to help their own provinces. I must urge them to act as representatives of all Canadians and not only of one particular province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might have a last supplementary on this subject, after which I will see the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


APPLICATION OF EXPORT TAX TO DOMESTIC OIL
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to 4irect two questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will he give the House an assurance that both export charges and export taxes on crude oil moving from the west coast through the Panama Canal either to Portland and into the pipeline there or to Halifax or Port Hawkesbury will in fact not be included in the final price of the oil when it winds up on the consumer's doorstep, and at the same time will he indicate the difference in the price of oil as it comes out of the Trans Mountain pipeline on the west coast and the price when it comes out of the pipeline at Montreal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first question, the export tax would, of course, be applicable in respect of exports to foreign locations only. To the extent that oil was received through the Portland pipeline the tax would not be applicable or would be subject to a drawback. It would seem to me that the hon. gentleman's second point was not a question. Could he reformulate it? I did not quite follow him.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister whether he could advise the House as to the cost of oil per barrel or ton coming out of the pipeline on the west coast as opposed to the cost of oil coming out of the pipeline at Montreal? I would suggest that you do have to pay an export tax in order to move oil through the Panama Canal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You do not have to pay a Canadian export tax for this purpose.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, you do; you are collecting it now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the question of cost, Mr. Speaker, the cost difference depends really on the tanker charges through the Panama Canal, which vary from tanker to tanker. I cannot give the hon. gentleman a figure this morning, but it would certainly be possible to compare the tanker charges from Sarnia and Toronto to Montreal with the tanker charges through the Panama Canal.
8748

December 14, 1973
Oral Questions YOUTH


ALLEGED ABANDONMENT OF PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and is related to my motion under Standing Order 43.1 should like to ask whether the minister intends to make an early statement outlining the reasons behind the abandonment by his department of youth programs?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no abandonment by my department of youth programs, and I think the hon. member knows that. I think what he really wants to know is when an announcement will be made about the student summer employment program. There will be an announcement made in that regard, I suspect, sometime in January.


Mark Willson Rose: In view of the fact that after two years there has been no youth report and the Opportunities for Youth Program is about to be transferred to the Department of Manpower and Immigration and therefore there is no youth policy or program, will the minister please indicate whether the problems in this regard have to do with in-fighting in his department, incompetence on the part of the minister or both?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Do you still beat your wife?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is obviously not in order.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Would he be prepared to make a statement to the House this coming week reporting on the progress or lack thereof being made by the Committee of 20 in dealing with international monetary reform? This is a longstanding problem and the minister has been particularly silent on it. In addition, will he see what efforts are being made in relation to the World Bank, and whether there is some formula for combatting inflation other than extraordinarily high interest rates because in Canada we have had a further increase in the bank prime rate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the latter point first, I made that point at the last meeting in Nairobi, that is, the effect of high interest rate structures of certain major industrial nations on other countries. As the hon. gentleman will recall, I made a report to the House when I came back from that meeting. The next meeting of the Group of 20 will be in Rome on January 17 and 18, and I would think

the appropriate time to report to the House would be at the earliest opportunity after that date.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As all Commonwealth countries except Canada have already rejected Israeli claims to Arab territories taken over through violence, can the minister tell us whether he intends to apply, in the near future, a Canadian policy that agrees with that of the other countries of the Commonwealth?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in the House of Commons, the policy of Canada with respect to the Middle East conflict was expressed by me in the House on October 16, and I have no intention of changing it.


REQUEST THAT SALES TAX ON FIREWOOD BE ABOLISHED
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
As is reported on page 8670 of Hansard, he said last Wednesday, in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova, that if the people in Quebec and the other eastern provinces find the cost of oil too high, they do not have to buy it. Mr. Speaker, will the right hon. Prime Minister then recommend to the Minister of Finance that he abolish the sales tax on firewood?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has certainly misunderstood the reply and the question. The question was: What will the government do to lower offshore prices? I replied that we could do nothing to prevent the Arab countries and Venezuela from selling us their oil at the price that they judge adequate. As for the hon. member's request, I shall put it down on the agenda of our discussions with the eastern provinces, and I repeat that the equalization system will be of great help to the provinces. They will also profit from the income tax on the new family allowances and I believe that this will bring them about $125 million.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he be more considerate towards federal taxpayers and not try to lay on them the burden of the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
December 14, 1973


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in order to clarify the situation I rise on a point of order. I point out very briefly, and without being contentious, that the right hon. Prime Minister said, as found on page 8670 of Hansard for Wednesday, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Central Nova:
The only remedy we or the provinces have if we do not want to pay that price is not to take the oil.
That is little comfort to the people of eastern Canada, and I would ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question he will be recognized for that purpose.


George Harris Hees: He said, let them burn wood.


William Heward Grafftey: That being government policy as
announced by the Prime Minister, what specific recommendations or plans does the government have for eastern Canadians this winter, especially those on low incomes? This is why I suggested quite seriously that the Prime Minister might suggest to the Minister of Finance that he abolish the sales tax on firewood and wood heaters.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have just spoken to the Minister of Finance and he tells me there is no sales tax on firewood.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: So now they can follow the Prime Minister's instructions and burn wood.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, but the hon. member for Central Nova rises on a point of order.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you, Sir, for rising on a point of order, but I am sure the Prime Minister would not want to be unfair to me by attributing a different connotation to the question I asked. I did not suggest to the Prime Minister-upon reflection I am sure he will agree-that there was anything he or his government could do to prevent foreign governments from raising the price of oil. I am sure he will agree with that if he looks at Hansard. The purport of my question I thought was quite clear. What did he intend to do when the price of oil reached a certain level making it very difficult for people of eastern Canada to afford it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REQUIREMENT THAT RAILWAYS PROVIDE PROVINCES WITH INFORMATION ON COSTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of news reports that the minister has given the Canadian railways ten days to open their books to the governments of the four western provinces in order to provide financial and other statistical data regarding rail transportation costs, and in view of further reports that failure by the railways to comply will result in legislation compelling them to do so, will the minister advise when he first made the request for such information following the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, have the railways since then refused to provide such information, and when was the ten days' grace given to them?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the provinces have asked us that the costs be disclosed in July. This request was immediately forwarded to the Canadian Transport Commission. The commission has felt that there could be some legal objections to the disclosure of costs. I then communicated directly with the railway companies two days ago asking them to cooperate by advising me of all the costs concerning the establishment of the tariff and I have given them till December 21, some ten days to answer yes or no. If the railway companies refuse to disclose the costs, obviously for legal reasons and if those reasons are valid, there will be no other alternative than to ask the House to compel the railway companies to disclose them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact the four western provinces are to be provided with this information, whatever it takes to get it from the railways, and in view of the rail transportation problems in the rest of the country, would the minister advise whether the government is now prepared to require the railways to provide the same information to all provinces, particularly the Atlantic provinces where rail transportation difficulties are also apparent?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this policy applies throughout Canada and that we are prepared to provide, on a confidential basis, all components of rail transportation costs.


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


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a question previously put to the Minister of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair thought the hon. member had a supplementary to the question now before the House. I understand the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary to the question just asked.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trans-
8750

December 14, 1973
Oral Questions
port. In view of the fact that last night before the standing committee the Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board said it would be necessary for the government to buy a total of 20,000 hopper cars over a period of years in order to move western grain efficiently, will this cost investigation cover rolling stock as well as track and roadbed costs? In other words, will the railways be asked to provide information on rolling stock costs also?
[ Transla tion]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the type of cars that the hon. member is referring to were paid in the past by the federal government and not by the railway companies.
Now, concerning what will happen in the future, I can really not answer because this is a hypothetical question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Athabasca.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Since the cost of rolling stock, including motive power, and roadbed costs are all integral parts of operating a rail transportation system, will this investigation extend to the cost of purchasing and maintaining the necessary rolling stock to run a railroad?
[ Transla tion]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the initiative of requesting cost distribution belongs to the provinces. In fact, the Prime Minister has offered to the provinces to provide confidentially the required information concerning costs. Now, I could not say what type of information the provinces are going to request. And if they request the type of information that the hon. member indicates, they will get it, of course.


OIL-AUTHORITY FOR GOVERNMENT TO SHARE IN REVENUE FROM EXPORT CHARGE AFTER FEBRUARY 1 NEXT
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has indicated that the export tax will be returned to the producing provinces and also that after February 1 next the export charge will be a matter for discussion between the federal and the provincial governments, which can only be interpreted to mean that the federal government intends to take a share of that revenue after February 1. Could the minister indicate under what authority the situation will change as of February 1 that will entitle him to a share of that revenue to which he is not entitled at the present time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would turn it the other way around, Mr. Speaker. On the assumption that the export charge is collected, it would all go into the Consolidated Revenue

Fund unless parliament decided to appropriate it for the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are less than five minutes to go before the end of the question period. We should try to move on before the end of the question period.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER ON POSSIBILITY OF COMPLETING OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION BY END OF 1975
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister as soon as he gets back to his seat. It is based on his statement of November 22, I believe, in which he said in part that "I am now confident that we can complete the pipeline to eastern Canada by the end of 1975." Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether in fact, as a result of the statement by Mr. Waldon, he still stands by that statement, or will he now state he was misinformed and in error?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been in his seat and listening he probably would have heard the answer given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to a question along those lines earlier in the session today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I did not ask a question of the minister and he did not answer me. I am asking the Prime Minister this question: Will he now state that he is confident the government can complete the pipeline to eastern Canada by the end of 1975, built on the confidence he had on November 22? Does he still stand by that statement? That is all I am asking him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Prime Minister said yes or no.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: He said yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He is nodding his head so he said yes. He is petulant again.


Mitchell William Sharp: Grow up.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a simple question and he tried to fob me off to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now we know that the pipeline will be built by the end of 1975. My supplementary is this, my dear Mr. Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should direct his question to the Speaker. May I remind hon. members that there are now only three minutes left before the end of the question period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister a simple supplementary. I have information to the effect that steel will not be available until February or March of 1975, which is somewhat in line with the statement made by Mr. Waldon. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether that is a fact, or does he know whether in fact sufficient steel will be available prior to
December 14, 1973

that time in order that the pipeline can be completed by the end of 1975?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that steel would not be a problem that would be incapable of resolution. I think this line of questioning just points out that the Tories always stand for gloom and doom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I dislike taking the time to reply to the Prime Minister who seems to have found his old form in the past couple of weeks. We are asking questions because of the conflicting statements coming from the government in the last couple of weeks, which have left many of the people of Canada in confusion. All we are trying to ascertain on this side of the House are the answers to very important questions that have nothing to do with gloom and doom and are asked only to get sufficient information in order that the people of Canada can know what the hell is going on around here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister yet responded to the request of the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to provide some form of direct assistance or equalization with respect to the very rapid increase in the price of petroleum products in eastern Canada, particularly heating fuel where there has been an increase of 20 to 25 per cent since September? Would he indicate what response there has been by the government to the request from those two premiers in particular?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have invited them to attend a federal-provincial conference where these matters will be discussed and, hopefully, solved by getting the taxpayers of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta particularly to pay supplementary taxes in order to help the province of the hon. member.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the fact that earlier today the Prime Minister indicated that proposals would be put forward with respect to the very serious situation in eastern Canada-4 hope he is not attempting in some facetious way to minimize the impact of that situation-I wonder whether he, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and other appropriate ministers would be willing, since this conference will not take place for six weeks and presumably it will be some time after that before a definite decision can be arrived at, and in view of the increasing difficulty in eastern Canada now, to have a meeting before Christmas with the five eastern premiers or their responsible ministers to try to work out
Oral Questions
an interim plan in the same way as the government has agreed to an interim plan for the remaining part of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat in another form the answer I gave previously, that if the premiers of these provinces are doing their homework, and I assume they are, they will realize that they will receive through the equalization grants massive sums of money-


George Harris Hees: That old, cracked record.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -arising from the higher prices which will eventually go to the Alberta petroleum producers. These massive sums of money will be available through the redistribution formula to the so-called have-not provinces, the five eastern provinces. I just put it once again before the members of the Tory opposition that they should consider that a further undertaking by the federal government to raise taxes across Canada once more in order to help these provinces should certainly be held in abeyance until after the impact of the equalization grants is understood by hon. members opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are reaching the end of the question period. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for South Shore on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise on a point of order.


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


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think that consistently throughout the question period this morning the Prime Minister has deliberately misrepresented the function of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is not good enough-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is not good enough to have this kind of misrepresentation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that during the question period we have had argument and points of order but very few questions during the 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: We are at the end of the question period, and with every question and every answer we have had debate. I am not referring only to questions but to answers also. Let us say that every exchange has been a debate more than a series of questions and answers. This may be very interesting and fascinating from the point of view of

December 14, 1973
Oral Questions
the Chair and hon. members, but we reach the end of the question period without the Chair having been able to see as many members as I am sure all hon. members would want the Chair to recognize. That is why I thought I would invite hon. members to reflect on this aspect of the question period. I am still trying to see the hon. member for South Shore.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member on his point of order.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I agree with you, Sir, about the lack of progress that has been made in the question period, but I would hope Your Honour and other hon. members would analyse the impact of the Prime Minister insisting continually during the question period on dealing in a facetious way with essential questions on important matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's comment is not helpful at all. I think we should try to finish the question period on another note. I am sure the hon. member for South Shore will have an entirely non-controversial question to ask, and following the answer I will call orders of the day.


STEPS TO OVERCOME SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I do have a question dealing with an urgent and pressing problem of the people of Atlantic Canada and I should like to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Having regard to persistent reports that many feed grain users in eastern Canada now have only one week's supply of feed grains or less, can the Prime Minister tell the House what specific plans the government now hopes to implement to help in this serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and I hope the government House leader will not walk out.


An hon. Member:: Come back here, Allan, and sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My point of order arises out of comments I have heard from members in all parties during the last 24 hours. In view of the fact that at four o'clock today we shall be dealing with public bills, I wonder if there could be agreement to a House

order that at that time we proceed to order No. 86 which is my Bill C-10 calling for the abolition of the Senate.


An hon. Member:: Do we have one for the abolition of Stanley?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 13, 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 marked 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.
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, last night when I called it ten o'clock I was commenting on how important historically and currently energy in the form of natural gas is to my constituency of Medicine Hat and in particular to the city of Medicine Hat. I had given some specific examples of what natural gas had done for my city, and I had concluded at ten o'clock by saying that all of Canada will benefit from the end product of this activity plus the export of surplus natural gas to central Canada. I added that it is not an exaggeration to suggest that both the city and the rural communities served by Medicine Hat and Redcliff have waited some 70 odd years for this pay off.
I want to give hon. members a personal glimpse of what energy means to me as a landowner. Thanks to the foresight of my grandfather and my father I have been most fortunate in that I presently own the mineral rights to a section of my cattle range. The deed or title to this land not only signifies my right to the surface, but with respect to the minerals under that surface it reads something like this, and I am paraphrasing here from memory. It gives me the rights to all mines and minerals except gold and silver which may be found to exist within upon, or under, and includes precious stones but excludes all coal, which is reserved for the Canadian Pacific Railway.
That is the way in which a deed reads in Alberta with respect to the mineral rights on lands which some of us who are fortunate still own. For 42 years, since our natural resources were returned to the province, mineral right taxes have been paid on this land just like the surface land tax, both payable to the government of Alberta.
There is a very important and fundamental issue at stake here that strikes at the very roots of private enterprise. This is a pillar of my own personal way of life. I refer to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that that land title gives me
December 14, 1973

the right to develop and produce agricultural products from the surface, and in addition I am entitled to the benefits of production from below the surface, subject only to the restrictions in the deed.
I say to this House that these fundamental rights of the individual, and indeed the rights of the province of Alberta, are in serious doubt due to the very far reaching and severely restrictive powers suggested in this energy allocation bill. Alberta's energy supplies allocation board will be acting as a Crown corporation and it will be their constitutional right to regulate energy production and price. This bill in many respects is somewhat comparable to the first C-176 bill of over two years ago, the federal farm products marketing bill, and is similar at least to the first drafts, with its very restrictive supply-management concepts. Bill C-236 provides for an allocation agency as powerful and far reaching as the wartime prices and trade board.
The supreme power of the minister under this bill surely must be subject to review and revision. The bill as proposed would allow for control of production and pricing of Medicine Hat's utilities that have been operating since 1900, including, of course, its electrical utility. Surely such a prospect will cause grave concern to Medicine Hat's industries and in particular to the new petrochemical industries.
In my opening remarks I went into some detail to point out the significance and importance of natural gas development to my riding. All of this development came about as a direct result of a free and private enterprise system. It should be noted that nearly all of the gas development has been done by that group generally known as the independent petroleum group, owned and controlled mainly by Canadians. This same development was possible because of the risk capital made available by the independents. It was made available, of course, in anticipation of reasonable profits. I say "reasonable" profits and not so-called "windfall" profits. This term, thanks to the NDP-Liberal coalition, is becoming almost as offensive in its connotations as the term "corporate ripoff".
I ask these questions, Mr. Speaker. Was it windfall profits from the United States that first supplied the risk capital to start Alberta's oil boom in pre-Leduc days? Was it windfall profits that helped develop the ranching industry at Walsh, with Sarnia Financing, for the Sarnia Ranching Company? Was it windfall profits that prompted the governor and company of adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay to invest in the future of Northwest Canada 300 years ago? The same can be asked of the backers of the Northwest Company. Was it windfall profits from the United Kingdom and France that led to the early development of the New England states and French Canada? No one can properly describe the $90 million operational debt of great Canadian oil sands, over and above its capital costs, as windfall profits! In all these cases, of course, there was a genuine profit motive, but surely there was something more that can only be explained by the desire of enterprising men to accept a challenge to develop a new country such as Canada.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
There are too many suggestions and insinuations these days that there is something immoral about making a profit. I for one will never be ashamed of any profits I make. And they have not been windfall profits. The cattle industry in western Canada for 20 years, from 1951 to 1971, was without adequate profits and very often incurred losses.
As one of Alberta's 19 members of parliament, I am sure I speak for my constituents when I say that we in the Medicine Hat constituency are very mindful and concerned about central and eastern Canada's energy distribution problem. We will willingly share our excess natural gas on a preferential basis with you, but do not ask us to do it as a handout, and do not ask us to allow the proceeds of the export tax to be used for this purpose. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must be continually reminded of their statements in this House and to the media that the total proceeds of this tax will indeed go back to the province of origin.
In its present form, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support Bill C-236. This is not to say that there is not an energy problem, perhaps even a crisis, in Canada today. It is my personal opinion that there are enough federal government agencies right now to properly deal with the current situation. There were clear signs of this current energy situation long before we got into the heating months. The very important first ministers' conference called for next January should surely have been organized the day after the Middle East war began. Further to this bill, when it does go into committee, the highest priority must be given to a detailed and accurate accounting of our oil shortfall, if indeed there is one.
As I conclude these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I am completely opposed to using taxpayers' money to buy or otherwise take over an existing oil company that was established within a competitive, private enterprise system. Nor can I see the current need for the creation of another Crown corporation as an alternative to a takeover of an oil company.
In most of our large scale Canadian developments we have had to rely on foreign investment to get the job done due to three basic considerations. First, as a young nation we simply did not have enough total dollars available. Second, after more dollars were available, for reasons that are somewhat obscure Canadians were not prepared to invest in their own country. Third, we did not have enough of our own know-how.
Today I suggest that the first and third considerations no longer exist. We do have the dollars and we do have the know-how. In particular, in Alberta we definitely have the know-how for oil and gas development. As to Canadians being ready to invest in Canada, perhaps this is the right time and opportunity to find out. Certainly Alberta found out some years ago that Albertans were more than willing to invest in their future when the Alberta gas trunk line was formed. I have every confidence as an Alberta citizen that there will be a rush to oversubscribe the new proposed Alberta energy company. If we must have a new Crown corporation for energy, why not a Canadian energy company without a single tax dollar in it? Why not give Canadians a chance to subscribe to it on a voluntary

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act basis? The results could be surprising. Who knows, there might even be some windfall profits.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot close these remarks without a comment on the recent personal attack on Alberta's first minister by Canada's Prime Minister. Prior to the Prime Minister's Vancouver speech, there were clear signs of a new co-operation beginning between Alberta and central and eastern Canada. Certainly there was a feeling that Ontario and Alberta were resolving their differences over natural gas supplies by quiet, behind-the-scenes discussions. The Prime Minister's ill tempered outburst against our Alberta premier sets a new low for federal-provincial diplomacy and indeed lends credence to the suggestion now prevalent that the government has written off Alberta politically.
I said earlier there can be no trade-off regarding the export tax remittance to the provinces. I say further that surely there can be no trade-off involving Alberta oil and the bilingual issue. The member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) was right on when he said last night in this debate that this is a government that uses, and abuses, national unity for its own political survival.


Mr.   David. Lewis@York South: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to express one or two thoughts on the bill before us, to deal with some of its principles, and to comment on what is happening during this debate on this bill.
The bill proposes that, in light of the possibility of a genuine and serious energy crisis in this country, a crisis more serious than now, some authority shall be vested in the government-the authority is vested mainly in the government and not in the board-to allocate supplies of energy to regions and to activities which need it most and which are at the centre of Canadian life and welfare.
I emphasize that anyone who reads the bill carefully will see that it is not the board, really, which will have these powers. Any actions of the board are always to be subject to approval by the federal government. Frequently those actions are to be initiated by the governor in council. The government is responsible to parliament for any action it takes. Furthermore, if one reads the bill carefully, one will note that no allocation program can begin unless the conditions in Canada are such as to justify the government's declaring a national emergency.
The government seeks to take powers under this bill to do a number of things which are normally under provincial jurisdiction. In order, constitutionally, to be able to exercise those powers or, putting it more cautiously, in order to be able to make a case for exercising those powers, the government would declare a national emergency and rely on the peace, order and good government provision of the British North America Act. Therefore, the program of allocations cannot even start, and the regulations under the act can have no effect, unless the conditions with respect to energy in this country are so serious, so critical, that the government has reasons, which it can substantiate in court, for declaring a national emergency. That being so, I cannot understand some of the arguments

which have taken place, in view of the framework of this bill. I will return to that in a moment.
Certainly there is great need for clarification of a number of the proposals in the bill. Certainly there is great need for a number of amendments, because some of the powers are unnecessarily large or unnecessarily wide. There is need to amend the bill. There is therefore a need for the parliamentary committee to consider this bill as quickly as possible, since that is where the amendments can be brought forward.
Amendments cannot be brought forward in these generalized speeches in which we are now indulging on second reading. They cannot be brought forward so long as second reading is dragged out for some purpose that I cannot for the life of me understand. The actual, substantial changes to the bill can only be made in committee, once the bill is before the standing committee of parliament. There members can see if they can persuade each other to make changes for improving the bill, both as to the breadth of its powers and as to the way in which its provisions may function later. That is why I cannot for the life of me understand why the Conservative members have apparently taken the decision to drag out this debate on the bill.


Mr. Paproski:: That is not true.


David Lewis: Well, they might not call it a filibuster, but that is precisely what they are doing.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are speaking because they have something to say.


David Lewis: Some Conservative members are saying that they are merely using their right to speak.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is right, and so they are.


David Lewis: That is an old excuse for filibustering a bill.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true in this case.


David Lewis: That is an old excuse for filibustering a bill. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that those members on the Conservative benches who for days have been demanding action with respect to Quebec and the eastern provinces and who have sought to declare themselves the champions of the people of those provinces are now preventing passage of the very bill which might be of help to those people in those provinces.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not correct, and you know it.


David Lewis: This is the only piece of legislation before this parliament which gives somebody the power to allocate supplies to places that are most seriously in short supply. This legislation wants to make certain that people in areas of this country experiencing a particularly difficult energy situation may at least get some of the energy supplies they need in order to carry on their work and their lives. It would make certain that hospitals, schools, old age pensioners' homes and the like would get supplies that are available elsewhere in this country. This is the only piece of legislation which makes that possible.
As I said, it can and should be improved, and no doubt will be improved in committee. But it is perfectly obvious
December 14, 1973

that for some political reason that God alone knows- certainly I don't understand it-the shortsighted Conservative members in this House are going to prevent this bill from getting to committee where it might be improved, after which its provisions could become available to parts of the country which need assistance.
I can understand that the Conservative party might try to hold up something which deals with the export tax, which apparently it opposes, or the division of the income from the export tax, which it opposes. But why in the name of heaven should Conservative members hold up the only piece of legislation which may be of value to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces if those areas run into serious shortages of supply?
The only reason I can think of, Mr. Speaker, is that Conservative party members are so wedded to the idea that the oil corporations must not be interfered with under any circumstances that they are prepared to put Quebec and the Atlantic provinces in jeopardy by holding up this bill. If I am wrong about Conservative intentions, then I appeal to them to stop the filibuster on second reading. Let us get this bill to the committee. Let us work there to improve it, so that the powers are not broader than those needed and so that they may perform the functions that are intended. But for heaven's sake let us not put Quebec, eastern Canada and other parts of this country in even greater jeopardy by acting as irresponsibly as the Conservative members are acting.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, if all that the leader of the New Democratic Party has to contribute to the debate on this very serious piece of legislation is what he said the last 10 or 15 minutes, he could well have stayed in his seat and kept his mouth shut.


David Lewis: Eight minutes.


Robert Carman Coates: All he said is that they are so upset about the sweetheart deal they have negotiated with the government to save their own skins from the electoral catastrophe they are going to face sooner or later, and for the sake of the people of Canada it should be sooner rather than later-


David Lewis: Rubbish.


Robert Carman Coates: Everything he said for the past eight minutes was rubbish, unadulterated rubbish. Maybe if he listened to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), he could produce some sort of energy.
The leader of the NDP talked about a filibuster. Before doing that, he should look at who is making the contributions to the debate. Yesterday five speeches were made on this bill. Two were made by members of the Progressive Conservative party, one by a member of his party, one by a Liberal member and one independent. Where the devil do you get a filibuster from that kind of a breakdown?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Robert Carman Coates: At the same time this great democrat and protector of the people says that this bill gives the government all the power of a Caesar. That is what he said after sitting through a question period today where we watched the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) act in the most irresponsible manner possible. It is fortunate for the Prime Minister that the debates in this chamber are not televised, because the real crisis in Canada today would be his leadership if people across this country saw the way he acted here today.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the Gallup poll.


Robert Carman Coates: I will tell you about the Gallup poll. Any time you want to use the Gallup poll as a measure of your popularity, just pull the plug and let the people of Canada show-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems we are getting on to the Gallup poll and away from the bill before us. Now that we have heard the hon. member's introductory remarks, I invite hon. members to return to the bill.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I can well appreciate your concern about the debate and what has transpired, but I will not stand here and allow any member to impute motives as to why a debate is going on in this House in the way the leader of the NDP did without any interruption of his comments. There was no interruption of his attack on me and all other members who might enter this debate to say what they feel is happening and should be happening in this country. As a result, maybe I did digress for a few moments.
I will take Your Honour's admonition to heart and proceed to some of the aspects of this debate that concern me as a member of this House. I am quite willing to apologize to Your Honour for anything I say, but I am not willing to apologize to any member opposite for anything I say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: As a member for Atlantic Canada I am naturally very concerned, not only about what is going to happen this winter, but what will happen in the days ahead. Our people are facing an energy crisis which has resulted from the decision that has been made by this government in so far as the supply of fuel is concerned for the people in that part of Canada.
I am very concerned about the attitude of the Prime Minister. Not very long ago he made a visit to Halifax to participate in a testimonial dinner given for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). It was a gala affair. At that time the Prime Minister cited some very pleasing examples of progress in that part of Canada in so far as regional economic disparity is concerned. He did not encounter any criticism from any member on this side of the House about the statistics he was placing before the people of Nova Scotia, because we recognize there has been some progress made through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and other federal departments in producing equality of opportunity across this nation. While we did not argue the point, we believe progress could be made faster if some of the policies we
8756

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
presented to the government and the people of Canada were implemented.
At the same time, in one fell swoop the Prime Minister allowed a policy to go into effect that will do much to eradicate the hard work that has been done by many dedicated people in the federal government, namely, allow an escalation of prices that our people are just not capable of handling.
On numerous occasions my leader has enunciated ways and means of eliminating this problem. The Prime Minister said we will remain at the mercy of the "Sheiks of Araby" as far as the prices of gasoline and home heating fuel are concerned. We in this party do not believe that is good government. The Prime Minister also said that because we enjoyed a lesser cost of petroleum products coming from offshore and, according to his estimate, have had a net dividend of some $500 million, we should not now complain because we have to pay $3 a barrel more for oil than other people in Canada. He forgets two things. First, in order for the poor governments of the Atlantic provinces to produce a highway system equivalent to the system across this country, it has had to tax our people a great more throughout that period of time.
When the Diefenbaker government was in office, assistance was provided to ensure that the trans-Canada highway was as good in Newfoundland as it was in British Columbia. But at no time did the users of petroleum in the maritime provinces enjoy supplies at a price lower than anybody else in Canada. In fact, they always paid more. And they paid more because taxes were higher. It was as simple as that.


An hon. Member:: Provincial taxes.


Robert Carman Coates: Provincial taxes, that is right. Taxes to look after a highway system which is now as good as the highway system in Ontario, British Columbia or anywhere else. But worse than that, in this illogical argument about $500 million, is the fact that the whole of Canada has paid to central Canada a subsidy for many years by allowing the establishment of a tariff system which protects industry in the centre of the nation to the detriment of the east and the west. Every province except Ontario and Quebec has paid that bill year after year. We have accepted it because we felt it was the only way in which to keep this nation together.
At the same time, do not pull out bogey men and say one part of Canda has derived great benefit because of a decision which resulted in oil being supplied from overseas at a cheaper rate than oil produced in Alberta. If we had not made the decision we made in 1961 to divide Canada into two zones there would be no oil industry in Alberta today. If, since 1961, there has been no change in policy, it is not our fault. The Liberal party has been in office for a decade, since 1963. Why would they not have made a decision to upgrade the valuable, successful and realistic policy adopted in 1961 so that a crisis would not arise in the country today?


An hon. Member:: So there is one?


Robert Carman Coates: It is not one related to fuel supplies, as far as I can see. It is related to government planning and its inability to think ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: The root of our difficulty is that the government appears able to react only when there is a crisis. They go from one crisis to another.


An hon. Member:: We solve them.


Robert Carman Coates: You have not solved anything. As far as I am concerned, the government is trying to manufacture a crisis where no crisis exists, except for price.


An hon. Member:: Make up your mind.


Robert Carman Coates: Then, later on, members opposite will tell us they have solved the crisis. As far as fuel supplies are concerned, it is a phoney crisis. But as far as price is concerned it is a real crisis in Atlantic Canada, and the government had better solve it for the people of eastern Canada. When I refer to eastern Canada, I include the province of Quebec.
The leader of the New Democratic Party says we should pass this bill because the government needs the powers contained in it in order to allocate supplies. Listening to him one would think this was all the bill contained- provision for the allocation of supplies. But the government wants in this bill all the power which could possibly be given to a dictator in any nation in the world.
The leader of the NDP refers to the peace, order and good government clause in the constitution and says it is all right to use it. As far as I am concerned, when the government asks for power which could be used to take over all provincial responsibilities, we had better take a long time looking at the proposal so as to determine whether or not the government should have that kind of power. If there is a crisis in the country, either now or in the future, all the government has to do is to resort to the peace, order and good government clause in the constitution and take action on that basis. If it can act without the power it is seeking by way of legislation, it has the best of both worlds. It need not worry. But this government wants power above everything.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) is to be applauded for the foresight he has shown ever since he was appointed to be our energy critic. He has displayed an appreciation and understanding of the energy situation not just in Canada but throughout the world. He has been consistent in his approach. He is aware of the dangers that could develop. Time and time again he has enunciated what should be done. Unfortunately, the wisdom he has been willing to impart to the House, to the government and to the country has not been acted upon. As a result we now find ourselves adopting far too late the policy which he was recommending a long time ago.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was one of the leaders at the Niagara Falls conference which our party held on October 12, 1969. Among the resolutions presented on that occasion was the following:
December 14, 1973

The tremendous increase in potential oil and gas reserves in recent years means that very large supplies of capital will be required to develop and prove up these reserves. This means that economic incentive to maintain the constant flow of development money into this industry is absolutely necessary in Canada's interests.
So the conference moved that measures be taken to- Strengthen the national oil policy by constructing a pipeline to Montreal to serve a minimum of one quarter of Quebec needs as a security protection against the interruption of oil supplies from politically unstable areas.
The conference also recommended:
Federal aid in financing power development; the development of a coordinated power grid; implementation of the Fundy Tides power proposal; construction of a gas pipeline along the north shore and south shores (from Sorel East) of Quebec; consideration of the importation of Venezuelan natural liquid gas,
If we could get that Venezuelan liquid gas today at prices that were available in 1969, we would be the happiest people in the world and the people of Atlantic Canada would not be facing the kind of cost of fuel that unfortunately they face today. We have a very serious problem in eastern Canada. One of the things that upsets me, and has upset me over the years, about the Atlantic provinces is that all too often Canada seems to stop at the Quebec-New Brunswick border; people forget there are four provinces that lie beyond, where live Canadians who also have the right to the facilities and the protections that other Canadians enjoy.
When building a pipeline to Montreal, I suggest there is no reason that I can see why that pipeline should not continue at least to Nova Scotia. Someone will probably suggest that if we did that it would create a lot more expense, and make the fuel taken from that pipeline at Halifax much more expensive, but I would put forward two answers to that. If we in the Maritimes are Canadians just as everyone else in Canada, and I think we are, then this government should subsidize the difference in cost in order that we have security of supply in times of crisis, regardless of price.
Secondly, I think we could build a pipeline that could be used in reverse, so that the potential supplies of oil and gas off the coast of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland could be pumped into that pipeline and directed to other parts of Canada in need of the supplies we might be able to provide in the days ahead.


Mr. Corbin:: Where are you going to build the pipeline, through Maine or New Brunswick?


Robert Carman Coates: We would build it through New Brunswick, of course.


Eymard G. Corbin: All right, thanks.


Robert Carman Coates: You buy that?


Eymard G. Corbin: I sure do.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, we have two Maritimers talking together, both feeling the same way about the same thing regardless of party affiliation. I think this indicates that we in the Maritimes all feel the same way. We feel we
Energy Supplies Emergency Act have made a tremendous sacrifice over and over again just to be part of Canada, that Canadians should not think economics must always play a part when our security is in doubt. Certainly it is at the present time, because we do not know what the Arabian sheiks are going to do in respect of our oil supplies. We do not even know what the Venezuelans are going to do, except that they are going to charge as much as they can possibly get for the oil they send us.
We in Atlantic Canada must have a policy that will guarantee us supplies of fuel at the same cost as Canadians everywhere else pay, since we of all people in Canada are the least able to afford to pay the tremendous increased costs we have been hit with recently, especially in respect to our home heating fuels.
We must also have-and we do not have this now- storage capacity in order to make sure that we have fuel oil available in times of winter crises brought on by weather conditions. We just cannot depend on the supplies we have now without additional storage capacity. I do not care how it is done, but the government should see that there is sufficient storage capacity available in the Atlantic provinces, and particularly in Newfoundland where the weather can cause havoc at any time, so that these people will know from day to day they are going to have sufficient supplies of fuel to maintain themselves and their families in the comfort that should be available to every Canadian, no matter where he lives.
This is a very dangerous piece of legislation, the type out of which dictators are made. I would not like any parliament, even one without a party holding a majority, to be given the kind of powers this government is requesting in this legislation. The government has the right to ask for legislation for the allocation of energy in the event of an emergency, but when it seeks the power it is seeking in this bill it is looking for something far beyond what it should have, and I will not support the bill unless that part is withdrawn.
This government could at any time invoke the peace, order and good government clause of the British North America Act in order to allocate energy in the event of a crisis. I suggest the government has everything it requires in this clause, and it is not going to get from me the kind of power it is asking for in this particular bill.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-236, which is an act, to quote its preamble-
-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.
I will not take time to go into world politics, the gyrations of which have been the main cause of oil marketing shortages in most of the western countries today. These are shortages in the face of plenty because, although we know our world reserves are not as great as originally estimated, there are still reserves in this old mother earth, whether they be in the Arabian desert, under the North Sea or on the Arctic slope of North America. Even though some Middle East countries are witholding oil supplies from their western customers, I believe some day soon the
26695-42)

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
tables will turn and they will come hat in hand soliciting business.
From the primitive beginnings leading up to and forming our Canadian confederation, energy has been our chief concern and our chief servant. There is scarcely a waterfall with power potential in southern Canada that has not been harnessed in the past. I point out to the House that even our smaller rivers have been harnessed in the past to saw lumber and grind grain, though many of these flumes, penstocks and wheels have been abandoned. In a good many instances these waterfalls could be rejuvenated and restored in order to contribute a small, I admit, but appreciated supply of electric power in the future.
I have many examples of these power potentials in the riding of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington which I represent. These are small power potentials on rivers such as the Madawaska, which is heavily harnessed already but which still has power potentials that could be harnessed, the Bonnechere, the Mississippi, the Skootamatta-Moira, the Salmon and the Napanee.
Our attention during the past 50 years has been deflected from the smaller waterfalls to those with larger potential, but now I certainly recommend that to offset other shortages of energy, mainly oil, our attention should be turned to the use of these abandoned hydraulic sources.
I can say to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, with some measure of satisfaction and pride that this type of hydraulic energy and conservation put me into politics. Having been on municipal council since 1953, I ran for the office of mayor of Napanee on a platform of more and better water for the municipality, which was obtaining its municipal water supply from the Napanee river. At that time the river had degenerated into a polluted trickle in the summer months. My policy was strongly supported by the people, and in conjunction with the provincial and federal authorities the Napanee Valley Conservation Authority built the second Depot Lake dam 30 miles upstream in Hinchinbrooke township. We conserved our winter snows and our spring run-off in this reservoir, and we restored to a great degree the mean flows of the river.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but I think it is incumbent on the Chair to remind hon. members that a minimum effort should be made by those who take part in this debate to relate their remarks to Bill C-236. I am sure all hon. members are interested in the remarks which the hon. member is making now. They are interesting and relevant to his constituency and perhaps relevant in general to the matter of the conservation of water, but I wonder whether they are relevant to the principle of the bill before us.
I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member because I recognize that many members who have taken part in this lengthy debate until now have digressed, and I would not want at this point to establish a rule of relevancy which has not been applied to other hon. members. But in a general way I invite hon. members to keep in mind that there is a basic rule in debates which is relevancy. Therefore, I invite all hon. members to make an effort to relate

their remarks to the principle of the bill which is now before the House on second reading.
I appreciate the fact that perhaps the interesting remarks of the hon. member are introductory in nature. If they are, we will continue to listen to him with great interest.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that you have pointed this out to me, but I wish to state with all due respect that this debate is on a bill entitled the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, and I am referring to the energy supplies that serve the purpose of replacing some of our depleted oil energy resources.
As I was saying, we restored to a great degree the mean flows of the river. We also helped industry along this river which badly needed more water. Since then, another dam has been built on the third Depot Lake. This policy of conservation of hydraulics and energy and everything that goes with it has paid off handsomely in our area and will continue to do so for posterity. But that alone has not been found sufficient for our requirements.
I have always been cognizant of the need for more energy. In 1963, which was my second year as a member of this House of Commons, in recognition of the fact that we required more industry in our area, that we cannot all be farmers, that we cannot all go to university and be professional people, that a stable majority of us must work with our hands and in technology and industry, I approached Mr. J. L. Gray, president of Atomic Energy of Canada, who was here in Ottawa at that time, and Mr. W. Ross Strike, then chairman of Ontario Hydro Commission, with the purpose of recommending that a nuclear power thermo-electric generating station be built in my area. That was on August 21, 1963.


Some hon. Members:: What about keeping to the bill?


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I wish to put on the record my written words to them on that day, over 10 years ago, August 21, 1963. I wish to do this now to record permanently the energetic origins of the $500 million Lennox generating station now being built by Ontario Hydro in South Fredericksburg township six miles west of Bath on the Lake Ontario strand.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I was going to remind the hon. member who has the floor a second time that in spite of his suggestion that talking on energy brings a member within the terms of this bill is simply not correct. What we are dealing with is not a bill concerned with energy but an act to provide a means to conserve supplies of petroleum products within Canada, and that is the essence of the bill. Again I appreciate the interesting remarks of the hon. member and perhaps the matter might be considered further when we return at two o'clock, but I remind the hon. member who has the floor and all hon. members who feel that there should be a debate on this bill, that they should find something to say about the bill which is before us.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
December 14, 1973



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, just before lunch I was talking about the need to conserve energy in order to contribute to the economic stability of Canada, and I was about to read a letter that I sent over ten years ago to the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada and to Ontario Hydro, aimed at that goal of bringing about better economic stability in Canada. This has resulted in the construction of the new oil-fired Lennox generating station in my constituency. At the time we thought that the generating station might take the form of a nuclear power station, but due to problems and difficulties in the 1960's with nuclear-powered stations the decision finally taken was to erect a thermal station using oil for fuel. The letter reads as follows:
Ottawa, Aug. 21, 1963
Dear Mr. Gray:
Pursuant to the appointment which you kindly granted me today, during which we discussed the merits, physical and geographical, of the constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox as the location for a Nuclear Power Thermo Electric Generating Station, I wish to outline the following points in favour of this area.
It is true that a site for a plant of this kind must have the following requisites:
(1)	A solid rock foundation of understratum not subject to seismic movement or disturbances of the earth.
(2)	A deep and limitless supply of cold clean water.
(3)	The site should be in a preferably undeveloped area, sufficiently isolated to be of a minimum hazard to persons and property, and in an area not likely to soon become crowded by urbanization.
(4)	The plant should be located where the Provincial and National power grid can be fed by the shortest possible transmission equipment from the plant to the point where it feeds the grid. This makes for maximum efficiency of transmission and minimizes the natural loss of voltage which increases in ratio to distance in the transmission of electricity.
(5)	Economically, it is well for a site of this kind to have a suitably developed and well serviced housing area in convenient and safe proximity. This dispenses with the necessity of Government or Hydro having to make huge investments in town-sites and services to accommodate their personnel.
Both Prince Edward and Lennox Counties possess all these vital requisites for a plant of this kind. May I point out to you that facing directly on Lake Ontario the Townships of Ameliasburg, Hillier, Hallowel, Athol, South Marysburg, North Marysburg, in Prince Edward County, and South Fredericksburg and Ernestown in the County of Lennox could all readily qualify to accommodate this type of utility. The location of the area as a whole is strategically sound, in that a transmission line from Prince Edward County would feed the power grid in the vicinity of Trenton which is less than 100 miles east of the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. If located on the Lennox shores of Lake Ontario, the plant would likely feed the power grid at, or near Napanee, which is only nine miles straight across country from the north shore of Lake Ontario.
Furthermore, it is my firm opinion that a generating plant in this area could most efficiently supply the ever-increasing needs of that fast-developing area of which it is a part, the diversified and productive triangle lying east of Toronto, south of the Ottawa, and north of the St. Lawrence River. I also point out to you that in this latter area, along the lakefront of South Fredericksburg and Ernestown Townships, we have ideal deep water facilities for the economic handling of fuel from large ships in case the generating station may take the form of a coal or oil fired installation rather than of nuclear power.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I thank you for your attention in this matter, confident that in the deliberations Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Ontario Hydro will give all due consideration to my request that you explore the sound potentialities of Prince Edward-Lennox in your search for a proper site for this utility.
I am,
Yours respectfully, Douglas Alkenbrack, M.P. (Prince Edward-Lennox)
I thought the House would be interested in that letter since it resulted in a project that is certainly going to contribute to the economic stability of Canada, one of the subjects and purposes of this bill.
The date of that letter was August 21, 1963. In December, 1968 Ontario Hydro announced its intention to build the Lennox . generating station in South Fredericksburgh township, utilizing facilities conducive to economy of production of electrical energy from petroleum fuels.
This energy supply project is now well advanced in construction, with its 600-foot stack already a towering landmark in the Lennox countryside. As I said, this station will be oil-fired, using a bunker 6-C fuel, a residual oil which will come from Venezuela. This plant will be the most modern of its type. It has the largest oil storage in North America, three tanks 360 feet in diameter and 48 feet high, each of them larger than a football field. Each one of these tanks holds 833,000 barrels of oil. This plant at full load could burn 3,120 barrels per hour. Its four boilers each can produce 3,600,000 pounds of steam per hour, turning four turbine generators to provide a total capacity of 2,300,000 kilowatts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.
The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I hate to be nagging but it seems to me that the Chair twice called the hon. member to order this morning and invited him to address his remarks to the bill that we are presently examining, Bill C-236. I have noted that the hon. member has not paid heed to the invitation of the Chair. I wonder if Your Honour would care to comment on my point of order.


Mr. Baker:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must say I have listened very carefully to what the hon. member has said since he started this afternoon. It seems to me that if one looks carefully at Bill C-236 one will find that it does have within it potential for the allocation of electric power. Surely if that is within the bill the government must have something within its contemplation with respect to it. I put it to you with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite relevant for a member who has an electricity producing installation within his riding, who has adjacent to or close by his home a Crown corporation that may play a large part at some future time in his affair, to state his view.
We undertake that if any member on the other side wishes to speak about these things and the importance of them, having regard to what powers the minister is asking for, then we are prepared to listen. I think it is discourteous, indeed rude, for the House-

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


An hon. Member:: You are reflecting on the Chair.


Mr. Lefebvre:: You are out of order completely.


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


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would not reflect on you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am sure the hon. Member's point is valid in his own opinion, but this does not authorize him to make his own speech on the point of order.
[Transla tion]
The point raised by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is one which crops up time and again whenever hon. members deviate, during a debate, from the subject matter of a bill. It is very difficult for the Chair to stop an hon. member from wandering from the subject either in his opening remarks or when trying to describe a problem. I understand that it is not possible to prevent an hon. member from speaking about his riding, when the matter is directly or indirectly related to the legislation under review or when it is locally oriented, I think this works both ways and these admonitions and points of order are excellent opportunities for the Chair to invite hon. members to stick as faithfully as possible to the subject matter of the bill being discussed. The hon. member who is speaking is aware of that, for he himself pointed out to the Chair that all his remarks were the basis of his argument during the debate on this bill. It is difficult for me now to ask the hon. member to restrict his comments. This remark is also applicable to all hon. members on both sides of the House who wish from time to time to deal with certain bills on national parks or oil matters.


Eymard G. Corbin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
With your leave, Mr. Speaker, I will in no way dispute your opinion. I obviously accept it, but you have indicated clearly that it is allowed to get away from the subject at times. My present concern, however, is not that my hon. friend on the other side got away from the subject, but that he has yet to deal with it.


Mr. McKinley:: You sold your province down the drain. We do not have to do the same.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) was listening to me and I am glad to note that even in a round about and frequently perfidious way he is interested in the production of energy that would be conducive to the economic stability of Canada.
When the hon. member interrupted me I was speaking about this oil-fired plant in Lennox. This plant at full load could burn 3,120 barrels of oil per hour. Its four boilers each could produce 3,600,000 pounds of steam per hour, turning four turbine generators to provide a total capacity of 2,300,000 kilowatts. In layman's terms, Mr. Speaker, the power generated by the Lennox generating station at the above capacity can provide twice the combined needs of the cities of Kingston, Belleville, Hamilton and Ottawa. If

that is not important information to this House, then we should not be debating the subject of energy.
I am pleased to tell the House that the construction of the Lennox generating station is on schedule and within the estimate of $430 million. The first generating unit of the four is scheduled for transmission on April 1, 1975. That is not very far away, Mr. Speaker. The whole plant will be in complete production by the autumn of 1977. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and humbly proud to have been the prime mover of that project.
Now we get into the next topic, and this might suit the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria a little better. The new Liberal-NDP coalition has pulled off some weird and wondrous capers in this House since they drifted together 10 months ago for their mutual protection, but this time both parties have outdone themselves. The mere fact that they expect my party to accept a bill that was fathered by desperation and mothered by expediency shows all too clearly what contempt they share for the parliament of Canada and for the Canadian people. This bill is not a solution to the energy shortage facing our country. It is first of all, a concession to the NDP in exchange for the support for a faltering, ineffective and ineffectual government.
Secondly, as my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) said earlier, this is purely and simply a panic solution offered by a government that has not to this day defined the problem it attempts to solve. As in so many cases when we are asked to debate a government bill, the problem we are trying to solve here is not defined. One would think that Canadian problems are unique and defy definition. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. We can solve our problems if we approach them in a constructive and co-operative manner.
Canadian problems, like any other problems, can be identified if the government actively seeks to identify and define them. To do that, though, the government has to be interested at all times and concerned at all times. We learned long ago that this government is neither interested nor concerned. There is a slight qualification that should be added here, Mr. Speaker: this government is intensely interested and very concerned, but only in itself. This is called "clinging to power". It is interested in retaining power and it is concerned about its future prospects. Why else would the government party enter into a sinister and sordid alliance with a party whose principles are for sale, not to the highest bidder but to any bidder?
I do not want to leave the impression with members of this House that I do not have any feeling for the predicament that this government is in over the handling of the energy crisis. I have been in government myself now for more than 20 years and I believe in satisfying and fulfilling the public interest. As I watch them floundering around over there, trying to find out what it's all about, I feel very strongly. I have to reserve most of my concern for the tens of thousands of Canadians who are suffering as a result of the government's mishandling of the situation, but whatever is left over I very gladly confer upon the government.
December 14, 1973

However, I feel it is high time that government ministers got up off their benches to find out just how serious the energy situation is in Canada today. Then, and only then, can we debate measures that will solve the problem to the benefit of all Canadians.
It has been pointed out that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has a different answer every time he is asked for an assessment of the situation. His answers are not updated from day to day, as he would like us to believe; they are just different, and that is not good enough. One day the problem is not serious at all. Everyone will be snug and warm all winter, and we will only have a problem if we talk ourselves into believing there is one. Then, lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, when minister is asked the same question but a few hours later, the story is quite different. The situation is serious, perhaps even desperate. He wants everybody to turn down the thermostat, join car pools, give up that Sunday drive and do everything else he can think up to save precious fuel.
I hope that the energy minister can find time to sit in the House and listen to the speeches being made on his behalf in the next few days and on the Prime Ministers' behalf. They should listen and take heed, because we are offering sound and sage advice to them on this serious matter. It is obvious that they have been getting very poor advice up to now, so they might as well sit and listen. If the energy minister decides that it is getting too hot in the kitchen and it is time to leave the House, I would remind him that it may be awfully cold in tens of thousands of kitchens throughout Canada this winter because of his bungling.
The government's answer to the problem is to ask for autocratic and dictatorial power to control the production and use of all energy in our country. I cannot accept this as an answer. This is the government's answer to our urging action to develop a national energy policy. This is the government's answer to a problem that developed in part because they had a majority in the past and exercised the very same powers they are now asking us to give them. They abused that authority in the past and there is every reason to believe that they will abuse it in the future. This power must be kept from them, Mr. Speaker. Let the government go back to the people and seek power through a majority. Let them go to the people and try to explain away their abuse of the power they once had, and let them explain away their bungling and incompetence.
I should like to deal specifically with a few clauses in this bill that I find particularly onerous, and then ask whether any responsible and thinking member of this house could accept this bill, whatever side of the House he or she might be sitting on. I will go so far as to throw a challenge, through Your Honour of course, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister tell us in a few words how this bill could possibly correct the situation that this government has allowed to happen?
Specifically, it has allowed the Canadian people to be caught unawares by a world-wide oil shortage, when we are a major oil-producing country.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Subclause (4) of clause 9 reads:
The Board and its members are exempt from liability for any act or thing done or omitted by the Board in good faith in the exercise or purported exercise of a duty or power under this Act.
That is nothing but dictatorial power. Although these powers are supposedly vested in the board, they are actually vested in the minister. The powers for which he asks in clause 9 (4) are extraordinary. All of us in this House know that no citizen or resident of Canada can be exempt from responsibility for acts committed or omitted, whether in a private, public or official capacity. The only exception is the Governor General of Canada.
What is the government afraid of? Does the government have plans for this board that it is afraid to tell us about until we have approved its formation? What does this board plan to do, that it should be afraid of being held to account for its actions? There is something awfully suspicious about this provision that would confer greater immunity on the board members than is conferred on judges, parliamentarians or even diplomats. Clause 10 provides that:
The Board shall act under the instructions of the Governor in Council and report to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from time to time upon its activities under this Act.
This gives the government a cozy little closed type of blanket authority to act in any way it sees fit, and charge it all up to some real or imagined energy crisis, or any other crisis it chooses to blame. Why should this House grant such authority to any agency of government, Mr. Speaker? Why should this House grant such powers to an agency of the Crown, such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, when he has proved to be incapable of administering his portfolio in the past and present? I do not see how he could be expected automatically to become effective simply because we have granted him powers that no one else possesses in our country.
It is my view that, as a minority government, this present government has more cheek and arrogance than it exhibited even when it had a majority. I am really amazed that the NDP would go along with giving this government so much power, such potential to play partisan politics, when there is no possibility that the NDP will ever reap any benefits from such power. Surely they are not unaware of the contempt in which they are held by this government, which uses them so skilfully for its own purposes.
As one reads through this bill, Mr. Speaker, one can see that it is designed to give this new agency absolute control over every form of energy produced or imported into Canada. The bill gives the agency absolute control over energy accumulation, over storage, over the wholesaling and retailing of energy and over the bookkeeping employed by suppliers and sellers of energy. Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is just the sort of statism that the NDP would impose on the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. If we allow government to open the door as wide as would be the case if this bill becomes law, it will be the beginning of the end for our free enterprise system.
This bill provides, among other things, for a takeover by the government of every aspect of electric power in Canada. I do not want the government to have this power. I do not want them to be the sole arbiter in this area; the

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act provinces ought to have a voice here. That is why I think we should wait until the federal-provincial conference is held in the near future. As I say, I would not want the government to have this power, any more than I would want it to have absolute power over fossil fuels.
While we are debating this bill, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying very hard to make Premier Lougheed of Alberta the culprit in the energy crisis, in spite of the fact that the premier has done everything in his power to see that Alberta crude finds its way to eastern Canada. It is not Premier Lougheed's fault that the federal government did not ensure that the pipeline system in Canada was extended at least as far as Montreal. It is not the premier's fault if the federal government still does not know the extent of the energy crisis as far as Canada is concerned.
We know and the Prime Minister knows that it is the fault of the federal government that we are in our present predicament. The Prime Minister is trying to use the energy crisis for political purposes, and this is despicable. He is trying to divide the Conservative party in Alberta from the federal party by trying to convince people in the east that Alberta's government is unwilling to co-operate with the federal government in Ottawa.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not blame Premier Lougheed for refusing to let the federal government put him over a barrel, an oil barrel or any other kind. This government has to come up with a scapegoat every time it goofs or bungles, and that is very, very often. This government bungles so regularly that one could set a clock by them, so there is always the need for a scapegoat. I suggest to the energy minister that he might very well be the next scapegoat, simply because he was not able to pin the blame for the energy crisis on Premier Lougheed. The energy minister is handy to the boss very close at hand, and he has fumbled the ball so frequently that he is vulnerable. The minister must be aware that he would not be the first cabinet minister that the Prime Minister has used as a scapegoat to cover up his own miscalculations.
In conclusion, I suggest that the Prime Minister should desist from using the bilingualism issue every time he wants to defuse a potentially explosive situation in the country. I say to the Prime Minister that bilingualism is not more important to this country than oil, the economy and the use of our resources. His statements are beneath the dignity of parliament, and while we are all aware of the contempt he holds for parliament, it would be fitting if he would conceal his contempt for the remainder of the brief period he will be sitting on that side of the House. I suggest that he inflict his spite on his ministers instead of this House and certain regions of this country. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, the institution of parliament will outlive the present Prime Minister by a very long time.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this debate we must acknowledge the fact that the minister in charge of energy for Canada has been attempting for at least the past four months to create a feeling of crisis within Canada on the energy question. At times it appeared as though he had succeeded. Oil was found. Supplies kept coming into Canada. As the issue

became more clear in the minds of Canadians, we realized how fortunate we are that we do not yet have an oil crisis.
There is no question but that there is a crisis in the world. The Americans are in trouble. Europe is in trouble. Japan has been in trouble. We must analyse whether we have been using the right methods to meet a crisis if it should develop in Canada.
I have a copy of a daily oil news analysis which was published in New York. It is dated November 8, 1973. I will quote from it to give members an idea of what we are doing. This talks about Calgary and the western Canadian based oil industry that exists. I quote:
Its 275 companies, from the big subsidiaries of U.S. majors to small independents, have become helpless pawns in the fast-deteriorating energy chess game between Alberta and the Canadian federal Government.
In recent days Saskatchewan got involved in that chess game. We welcome her concern and participation.
Why did the government attempt to create a crisis long before it was necessary? I think this stems from their position in the House of Commons, a very minority position. They failed to gather appeal across the country so attempted to create an issue in the hope they could go to the country and win an election on some short-term policy they had devised. A week ago last Thursday some people thought that going to the country was what we might be doing. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a speech in which he attempted to lure the NDP vote. Many right-wing members within his party must have been saddened and shocked by his brazen courting of the socialist philosophy. If they had thought back awhile, they would not have been shocked. They would have realized these were the true colours coming out.
I have an editorial which appeared in the December 8 edition of the Albertan. The writer was referring to the courting and marriage that took place a week ago Thursday. It reads in part:
Socialists for years
Over a period of four years or more I have attempted, quite unsuccessfully it is true, to prepare my readers for the federal government's ultimate move toward socialism. The facts were all there for everyone to see.
Let us go over them again, just briefly. Before the "Three Musketeers" who are the guiding lights of the federal government at Ottawa, Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier, entered federal politics, they were mouthpieces of the socialist party in Quebec. They campaigned, wrote and distributed pamphlets in behalf of the NDP and it was not until the people of Quebec demonstrated in no uncertain terms that they wanted nothing to do with socialism as a political way of life, that they turned their coats and joined the Liberal party.
The right-wing Liberals succumbed and allowed these men to lead their party. We all remember the leadership convention at which time the Prime Minister took over the party. It should not be a surprise to the free enterprise people within the Liberal party that these thoughts, deep concerns and true feelings have been there for a long time.
What is involved in this bill? It is a reach for power, dictatorial power, power which only a real socialist would love, power which only a real socialist could appreciate, power to take away the freedom of the individual.


Mr. Drury:: Price and wage control?
December 14, 1973


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Price and wage control would be nothing compared to the rationing and complete control that this bill could bring about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have had a bit of a rift with the United States over this problem. In their energy crisis, their leader stated quite clearly that by the end of this decade they will have developed the potential to meet their own energy needs without depending on any foreign nation. That is what Mr. Nixon said recently with regard to their energy crisis.
What was being said in the United States in 1969 with regard to the energy crisis? Late in 1969, the United States cabinet report on energy future recommended closer relations with Canada on energy, but suggested that Canada could only be counted upon as a secure source of oil if it took steps to reduce the then total dependence of Quebec and the Maritimes on overseas imports. At that time the United States saw the danger to Canada by taking cheap oil from what might be called an insecure source and doing very little about it.
Was the oil industry of Canada asleep at that time? No, not so. The Canadian independents under the IPEC association discussed the problem with the Prime Minister. He said "Go peddle your oil somewhere else. We do not want it. It is too expensive in the province of Quebec, especially the Montreal market." That is what he said in 1969.
Now, sad but true, we have before us what is called an allocations bill. It is going to set up an energy supply allocations board. The board may control not only products so designated by the Governor in Council, such as petroleum, hydrocarbons, electricity, but even products manufactured from petroleum, according to clause 12(5). The order of the Governor in Council may designate any products manufactured wholly or in part from petroleum or hydrocarbons and bring them under the allocation program.
What will the allocation board do? How much oil will it be able to divert to the five eastern provinces? I suppose that in theory it could divert as much oil as those provinces need. But the board could do this effectively only if transportation was available. I do not know how many members saw the article in the Financial Post last week. It described the idea of moving large amounts of oil by rail as pure fantasy, not because the railroads do not have the tracks, but because they do not have the tank cars. Spokesmen for the railway companies have themselves stated before the transport committee that the railways do not own any tank cars, they rent them. The tank car rental companies say there are no more of them available for hire, so it would be impossible to move by rail the 50,000 barrels a day to which the minister has referred from time to time.
Oil is moving to Vancouver right now through the Trans-Mountain pipeline. From there it is being taken by tanker down the coast and through the Panama Canal to eastern Canada. Loading facilities are such that at best it is not possible to deliver more than 70,000 or 75,000 barrels a day to that market. Sad as it may be, the facilities for
Energy Supplies Emergency Act doing better are not there. They will have to be built. So what will the allocation board really be doing?
How necessary is this board? A meeting of provincial first ministers is to take place in January, and the government, presumably with the idea of promoting a feeling of goodwill among the first ministers when they attend that meeting, wishes to confront them with a bill which has already been passed by this House. Are there no clauses in this bill which are negotiable with the premiers? This has been the trouble about the chess game we have been watching. The federal government has made up its mind as to its intentions and said ho-hum to the provinces and their desires. Is this a fair attitude to take if the first ministers' conference is to be carried on in a proper spirit so as to devise ways of meeting the energy crisis which could develop in Canada should the Arabs shut off the oil being delivered to the five eastern provinces?
Richard Gwyn, a civil servant for some time, now writing for the Toronto Star, had this to say on December 8:
Lougheed, if he wants to do it all by himself, might, at least constitutionally, just be able to do so. His new marketing board will control all of Alberta's production and can determine to whom it sells and at what prices.
So we are headed toward a direct confrontation. About a month ago someone asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to remove the present minister of energy from office and give him the job of House leader again.


An hon. Member:: A Senate seat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is a good suggestion. He would be the greatest confrontationist the Senate has ever seen. He might liven that place up a great deal. But to send the present minister out to a conference which is headed toward confrontation, taking with him legislation which has already been passed, committing him to an inflexible position, is surely no way to create a proper spirit among the ten ministers who will be present. Mr. Gwyn goes on in this article to say:
The constitution gives Ottawa jurisdiction over interprovincial trade. But Alberta may have more scope than at first seemed likely. Alberta owns its oil in the literal sense of the word: it comes from Crown lands leased but not sold to the oil companies.
I wish to emphasize that last sentence, particularly for the benefit of hon. members who sit on my left. It is not the terrible multinational oil companies who own this oil but the government of Alberta, according to Mr. Gwyn, and I am inclined to agree with him. This article is one which is well worth reading. It suggests that passing the bill before us would do nothing to create harmony among the ministers attending the conference; rather, it would interfere with the goodwill necessary if we are to meet the difficult situation which may develop in the coming winter.
The Globe and Mail of November 30 carried an article under the heading "Saskatchewan orders cutback in oil output." It states;
A spokesman for the mineral resources department said in an interview that the government had sent letters to oil companies ordering a 16 per cent cutback in production in southeast Saskatchewan (9,300 barrels a day) and a 40 per cent reduction in southwest Saskatchewan (26,200 barrels) for December.

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Well, Saskatchewan can do this if it wishes, I suppose, but it suggests to me that the province is getting its back up and is fed up with the confrontation tactics of the federal energy minister. It seems Saskatchewan, too, wants to go to this conference with its mind firmly made up, not prepared to give away very much.
Since that article appeared Saskatchewan, as is well known, has brought in legislation making it plain that by January 1 they will be putting on their own tax of $2.20 a barrel. This will lead automatically to an increase in the price of crude oil in eastern Canada, or at least an increase in the price of that proportion of the market which Saskatchewan supplies, amounting to about 25 per cent of the oil consumed in Ontario.
I do not know what the leader of the New Democratic Party thinks about that, but here again a province is declaring, well in advance of the forthcoming conference, how it intends to act. It is headed foi confrontation, particularly if we as legislators in this parliament do not caution the government and make it clear that the allocation bill we are being asked to pass represents a reach for power not granted to any federal government except in time of war. It is an encroachment upon provincial rights.
I know there are few, if any, members of a provincial government who would agree with the terms of clause 14, which states:
Where it is considered necessary to do so for the purpose of conserving the available supplies of such petroleum products as have been included in a mandatory allocation program, the Governor in Council may amend the mandatory allocation program by adding electric power thereto and establishing mandatory allocation thereof.
This is bound to upset the provinces, especially if this clause is approved by the House before the conference is due to begin. Many people in central Canada have looked upon Alberta as being anti-Prime Minister, and in his speech in Vancouver the Prime Minister attempted to paint a picture of this terrible premier from Alberta and how he has tried to hold up the consumers in the rest of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some hon. members over there says "right". Let me explain Alberta's position. Alberta has passed and is passing legislation, but it has not said it is going to implement a tax, such as Saskatchewan has, by January 1. Alberta has not cut back on production. In fact, since this crisis became obvious Alberta has increased production to a small extent, in fact to the extent that the transportation facilities could move the products to eastern Canada.
As early as October 29, or perhaps as late as November 29, Alberta laid down a five-point program in which it outlined its oil problems. In the preamble of that five-point program Alberta acknowledges ownership of 85 per cent of the petroleum resources now found in Canada and the fact that it is producing 80 per cent of Canadian production, probably supplying over 50 per cent of Canada's needs at this time.

This five-point program points out what Alberta believes should be its policy, and it is interesting to note that security of supply for Canadians is the number one point on that list. That does not suggest to me that Premier Lougheed is a wild, blue-eyed Arab out to rob the rest of Canada. Security of supply for Canadians is the first point in that policy, and this is a point which was amply demonstrated and should have been apparent as early as 1969.
I will not read the details of each of these points, merely the headings. The second point relates to a fair return for Alberta's resources. The premier does not suggest he wants pie in the sky, but he does want a fair return for Alberta's diminishing resources. What kind of a premier would he be if he did not want that, and what kind of respect would the Alberta voters have for him if he turned over the stewardship for Alberta resources to someone who did not want a fair return? I suggest that any individual in this House, were he premier out there, would ask for the same thing. That is not out of the way at all.
Number three relates to a price for petroleum products for the Canadian consumer. The premier is not suggesting he wants the world price for the Canadian consumer, but he is in fact prepared to negotiate a price.
Number four deals with provincial responsibility for a resource policy. We are living in a federal society under a federal system, and our constitution lays down the fact that the provinces have a responsibility for resources. Section 109 of the British North America Act provides for provincial ownership of mineral resources, and this was part of the making of this country of ours when it was put together under the British North America Act. This may have been a mistake, but we came together with that provision. What kind of a government do we have here that wants unilaterally to break that provision? I am not suggesting that Lougheed will not allow some changes, but I am saying that this government through this Bill C-236 wants unilaterally to break that agreement which eventually brought 10 provinces together to make this country of Canada. We have heard a lot of talk about the fact that this Prime Minister is the one who wants to keep Canada together. He has not suggested that lately, because if he did no one would believe him.
The fifth point in the Alberta oil policy relates to investment opportunities for Canadians. We have heard much said about the profits of multinational oil companies, and about the Ottawa Valley line established by the former Conservative government in 1961. This line was established to encourage Canadian investment in the oil industry and increased production from oil wells in Alberta. At the time these wells were producing at less than 50 per cent capacity. Many of the smaller Canadian-owned companies could not survive with that low production as they did not have the cash flow. There had to be increased demands in order to make sure that these wells were economical and producing more profit. These increased demands have been beneficial to all Canada, as has been proven, and the situation will be even further improved in the next 10 years if everyone adopts the attitude of negotiation rather than demand.
There is no question that during the 10 years leading up to 1961, or even during the seven years from 1954 to 1961,
December 14, 1973

many small oil companies in western Canada were bought up by or amalgamated with the larger companies because they could not exist with the low cash position they were in as a result of cutbacks in production. This created a situation in which some of the larger international oil companies with huge financial reserves were able to get a hold on the oil industry.
I might point out that even today, as a result of government interference, oil shares on the stock market have been dropping rather than going up, even though prices have been going up and profits have been increasing. When the big oil companies begin to pull out of Canada we will find there is no confidence in the industry, and we cannot expect in that environment that small companies and individual Canadians will plough their money back into that resource. The Prime Minister sort of recognized this when he said in his great speech on Thursday that we are going to create a national oil company. That was very interesting and a lot of people perked up their ears. Members of the NDP to my immediate left pounded their desks because they thought we were on the right road to somewhere.
What have we heard about this company since last Thursday? We have heard it is going to spend $40 million almost immediately on research in developing the tar sands. The Syncrude project has not even started work yet. It has spent over $80 million on research but hopes to get started early next year.


An hon. Member:: $40 million over five years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone suggests that the $40 million is to be spent over five years. That shows how much knowledge and interest the Prime Minister has really expressed about this matter. His lack of knowledge and interest was demonstrated last Wednesday as a result of some of his flippant replies to serious questions posed by members on this side of the House. I suggest he has no interest in hardly anything other than the promotion of the French language in Canada. That is about the extent of his interest.


An hon. Member:: And he is doing a lousy job of that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To suggest that the Quebec people would rather have their own language promoted than buy one gallon of Alberta oil is to insult the intelligence and the broadmindedness of the Quebec people, and I hope the Prime Minister lives to regret that remark.
Einstein once said that nationalism is an infantile disease of mankind. With the world becoming smaller because of improved efficiency in transportation and communication, and as we become more knowledgeable of various people throughout the world, that statement of Einstein's, if it was true at the time he made it, certainly is true today.
We should not be afraid of foreign investment. We should have confidence in ourselves and a belief that we can control foreign investment. One wonders, when one looks at this bill and sees the clauses in it, specifically clause 19 which provides that the board will have power to
Energy Supplies Emergency Act ration, how rationing in Toronto will help us to get more oil into the Montreal market. How will rationing in Calgary help us to get more oil into the Maritimes market? It cannot. It might be an expression of the philosophy that we should all suffer a little together, but this will not help.
We have the reply of the Prime Minister to questions put to him by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). Last Wednesday the hon. member for Central Nova asked a legitimate question, namely, what the government intends to do about oil prices if they become so high that they will be practically prohibitive in the Atlantic provinces. The Prime Minister replied that if they become too high, people do not have to buy the oil. Was that a serious, sensible, conscientious remark for the Prime Minister of this country to make? It certainly was not. Was he concerned about the people in Nova Scotia, the people in Prince Edward Island or the people in Quebec? He certainly was not. What is the purpose of this bill if the government does not have a contingency plan to offset some extremely high prices that might be demanded in the five eastern provinces? What is the use of setting up this allocation board?
Some time ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) thought that the establishment of this board would assist the government in controlling the ships and in transporting oil via the Panama Canal. It will certainly not load the ships any faster. The loading facilities are being used to the utmost right now in the port of Vancouver and the most that they can get through the port is 75,000 to 80,000 barrels a day. So what will this allocation board do? It will add to the scare crisis in Canada. It will create in certain areas, if it is politically wise to create them, certain hardships because the government wants the country to feel there is a crisis at hand and the knight on a white charger rides to the rescue of the people of Canada. This is the situation they are trying to create. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister did not suggest, in his answer to the hon. member for Central Nova, that he had as yet found the horse on which to ride. He did not see the allocation bill as the horse on which he could ride to the rescue. All he said was that if prices became too high people should not buy.
It seems to me that if this government wants to barter in good faith it should not ask the House to pass this bill, nor should it attempt to have us pass the tax bill which may come up next week. It is all right for the House to debate these bills and to listen to the views of hon. members because the thinking and contributions of hon. members should be made known before the first ministers conference is held. In this way confrontation, which is already taking place between this government and Saskatchewan regarding the cutback in production in that province and the imposition of the tax as of January 31, will be avoided. But if parliament passes these two bills the government will be asking for confrontation; and have we not had enough of that kind of confrontation diplomacy so far between the ten provinces and the federal government, a diplomacy which was originated by the minister?
There are many people who blame the Arabs and claim that all the problems which may face Canada in the future can be laid solely at the door of the Middle East countries. That is not quite so. We know that 30 per cent of the oil

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act imported by the five eastern provinces comes from the Arab countries. Most of it comes from Venezuela and what might be called OPEC.


Mr. Bechard:: Thirty per cent is an important amount.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad the hon. member says that. It amounts to 200,000 barrels a day more or less. We in the province of Alberta have done our utmost, as I said, to continue to increase our production and to meet whatever solutions the transportation industry can offer to move oil into the Montreal market or into the five eastern provinces by boat or by rail. Production might go up to 100,000 barrels a day. It would be oil from the west going to where it has never gone before, namely, the five eastern provinces. Saudi Arabia has cut Canada right off. The minister does not want to acknowledge that fact, but it came out the other day. His classmate exposed him. I should like to see his classmate expose him a little more, because then perhaps the Prime Minister may take an increased interest in the energy crisis and in finding ways to solve it. Perhaps the 70,000 or 80,000 barrels a day which we may be short if every Arab country cuts us off can be made up with increased purchases from OPEC.
I think that one should point out the difficulties in which the Arab nations find themselves. I know from a fairly reliable source that in recent years the North American continent has increased its oil consumption by 6 per cent a year and Europe has increased its oil consumption by about 12 per cent a year. In order to meet these increases the Arab nations would have to increase their production by 30 per cent a year. Let us leave aside for a moment the war in the Middle East and consider what country would not be a little concerned in those circumstances. The Arab countries are aware of their known resources. They see their production having to be increased by 30 per cent a year to meet the demand. What country, in those circumstances, would not say to itself that maybe they should be charging a little more for their oil, maybe they have something that will run out and perhaps they should be getting a higher price to provide a better livelihood for their citizens in the years ahead? Canada is fortunate in this respect; we can become self-sufficient.


Mr. Schumacher:: We are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, we are self-sufficient and we can provide all parts of Canada with oil. But there are two things that all parts of Canada must recognize. First of all, the five eastern provinces have got to say, "All right. We are prepared to take Canadian oil, and if necessary we are prepared to pay a little more for it in the years ahead because we understand the cost of producing oil in Canada is higher than it is in the Middle East." That is an important recognition which they must make. They have to recognize this before Canadian oil is forced upon them as a consequence of this allocation bill.
At the January conference of first ministers held in western Canada, in Toronto or in Ottawa, wherever it may be, they have to say publicly, "We will take this Syncrude oil, this Athabasca tar sands oil. We realize it costs more to

produce it, but we will take it even if other major pools of oil are found somewhere else." That is one thing they have to say very clearly and succinctly.
Why should private enterprise build a pipeline to Montreal just on a whim? Because the Arabs today are charging more for their oil, does this mean that forever and a day they will charge more for it? Private enterprise needs some assurance that the five eastern provinces recognize the venture they are entering upon with this oil arrangement.
The second thing that must be pointed out quite clearly is that repeatedly the province of Alberta has welcomed investment in the oil industry. We have not stopped investment money from coming into that province. Maybe we should have done so. Maybe we should say that while we know those tar sands have been there for 200 years, in another 200 years from now they will be even more valuable. But we have not said that. We have said to the province of Quebec that we do not think enough money is coming into the development of the tar sands. We welcome the creation of a corporation by the province of Quebec to spend money in assisting to develop the tar sands. We welcome a joint venture by both Quebec and Ontario, and the Alberta government itself is ready to take part in that venture.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent to express my final point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assure the House that I will not abuse the privilege it has granted me. As I was saying, we in Alberta welcome such investment to help meet the crisis that may develop in Canada, and we will invest in that venture ourselves so that we may better assist Canada in the years ahead. We have extended an invitation to a Crown corporation or a provincial corporation, and have even gone so far as to say that in order to encourage others the province of Alberta will go in as a part-owner of the corporation.
Having said that, I would refer to the five points that Premier Lougheed announced as our energy policy in the province of Alberta. Clearly we have invited foreign money. We have invited provincial money. We have invited Crown corporations to invest, purely in the interests of stepping up production. We have assisted in supplying oil to the five eastern provinces by shipping it through the Panama Canal. We have encouraged as much oil to be moved by rail into the Montreal market as is possible. No one in this House, or anywhere else, can say conscientiously and knowledgeably that the province of Alberta and its premier have not done their utmost to ward off any crisis which may be on the horizon. But if this House passes this bill before the first ministers' conference is held in January, few people in the House or in the cabinet will be able to say as much for the federal government.
December 14, 1973


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-236 concerning the government's plans to cope with the energy situation in our country. I think it is fair to say that the history of Liberal governments in this country has been of reaction to one crisis after another. Today we have a repetition of that history: things are no different. The government did not engage in the kind of medium or long-term planning that was necessary some time ago and again we are faced with a reaction to a crisis.
Policies on inflation, difficult as they may be to identify, have been one example of a panic and patchwork reaction designed to smooth things over but not to get at the basic cause of the problem. Now we have a policy on energy which also has been created in a panic situation but certainly is not designed to smooth things over. As a matter of fact, it seems designed to strain confederation to the limit.
We have seen the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and several other ministers making paradoxical policy statements and then putting forward policies that do not accord with their statements. In the past few days the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) have placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that they have frozen the price of oil, that controls have been placed on oil. This is a big thing to them. Yet at the same time we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) indicating on many occasions, including as recently as yesterday, that controls do not work, particularly when you have a shortage of supply. He believes the problem in that situation must be solved by increasing the supply. Yet what have we seen in the past few months? We have seen controls placed on meat to depress the price, controls on wheat used domestically to reduce its costs, and now controls on the price of oil.
I do not think anybody around here questions that so far as the world situation is concerned there is a shortage of oil. On the other hand, we have a Minister of Finance who says that in a shortage of supply situation controls do not work. Immediately following that we have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources placing price controls on that commodity. It is no wonder the Canadian public is confused on where the government stands. Are the people to believe the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or the Minister of Finance? Which of them is speaking the truth?
More basically, Mr. Speaker, we have in Canada today a government which appears to be more concerned with just surviving than with the realities of governing the country. The policies announced to deal with the energy crisis are good evidence of its desire to cling to power. Obviously some of them were taken from the NDP shopping list prepared just a few days ago. They were grasped greedily by the government in order to save itself. It is obvious that the government has been so preoccupied with the political survival game that it has been unable to govern at all. Recently I read an article quoting a Liberal source as saying that the Liberal Party, since its setback in October, 1972, has been unable to regain control of itself, has been unable to return to "its former grace." In fact, the Liberal Party seems to have entered the menopause, says this Liberal source. I think that Liberal source was rather
Energy Supplies Emergency Act generous when he suggested they were only in the menopause. If we examine the evidence more carefully, it points much more toward senility. One of the key features of senility is that individuals who suffer from it like to dwell on the distant past and do not like to look to the future because it appears rather bleak. If you examine statements made by ministers and members of the Liberal Party in recent weeks, you will find they have dwelt almost exclusively on past achievements and glories.
The speech made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on September 6 was entirely devoted to telling us how much the Liberal Party had done for Canada in the area of welfare in the last few years, typifying his preoccupation with the past, a typical symptom of senility. In the speech made by the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz) a few months ago when this subject was before the House, he spent almost his entire time dwelling on past achievements. Most of his speech was about old history and the glory that used to be of the Liberal Party. If we look at some of the speeches made in recent weeks by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) we find that he dwelt a good deal on past glories and not too much on the present or the future. When the Minister of Finance speaks he does the same thing, he always reviews old history. All these are examples of a party not in menopause but far beyond the menopause, well advanced into a state of senility.
I have also seen a report recently about the need of the Liberal Party to regenerate, suggesting it was shattered by the last election and has been unable to pull itself together to regenerate to a position of positive leadership. The word regenerate caught my eye because there are only a few creatures on this earth that can regenerate. I am told that if a spider loses a leg or a portion of it, it can regenerate or grow a new part. I am also told there is a certain kind of garden worm which, if you are digging and cut it in half with a shovel, will grow a new head section and a new tail section, so that what was originally one worm may wind up as two worms.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member is giving us a very good report of what the Liberals could have done had the minister spoken, but the subject matter before us today is Bill C-236 and so far the hon. member has not said very much about it. I hope he will speak more to the bill rather than to history.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if you consider these remarks carefully you will see they are related to the bill before us. I am just trying to set the framework for my discussion. It would appear that in the last election the Liberal Party was cut in half by the spade of public opinion. I have had much difficulty trying to decide which section is here, whether it is the tail section or the head section that is trying to govern. I think it is probably the tail section. Looking at the energy policies that have been presented to us in the past few months, and at the statement on energy made about a week ago, one must come to the conclusion that it is the tail section of the worm that is governing and trying desperately to grow a new head section, but it appears unable to do so and from time to

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act time it fits on the NDP head section as a substitute. Of course, that does not work because the NDP worm has been squirming so much that no one knows what path it wants to follow in what direction it wants to go.


Mr. Hellyer:: It is waffling.


Paul Yewchuk: We have the spectacle of a party desperately clinging to power, improvising madly to provide symptomatic treatment for the ills of society but failing to come to grips with the cause of the problem, and therefore not providing the right prescription when it is required- and that is before the crisis occurs, not after. I think when a government deteriorates to the point where it appears to be completely incapable or unwilling to face squarely the problems of the country and provide the solutions which are bold and imaginative and which Canadians expect, it should step aside for the good of the country. When a government is as indecisive as this one has been, it should retreat into a cave to reassess its position; but in the meantime it should allow someone else to do the job, someone who is better suited and better prepared to do it.
The government claims that there is an energy crisis in Canada. No one questions the existence of a world shortage of energy or a world crisis, but we have yet to see the evidence that there is a crisis as far as this country is concerned. A few days ago the minister stated that under the worst circumstances Canada could be as much as 200,000 barrels a day short of oil this winter, but he has consistently refused or has been unable to provide any substantial evidence that there is in fact a shortage now or that there will be in fact a shortage this winter. Just a couple of days ago it was brought to our attention in the House that a couple of million barrels were being shipped out of Quebec to the United States under permit of the National Energy Board. That leads one to wonder how great a shortage there is of this product.
The minister himself indicates that an additional 100,000 barrels a day could be transported to Quebec and the maritimes from the west by way of tankers through the Panama Canal, down the St. Lawrence Seaway and by train and truck and every other means available. Recently we learned that a refinery at Come-By-Chance, Newfoundland, will be in production in the next month or so, producing an additional 100,000 barrels a day which are not committed to any market and are available to Canada.
Even under the worst possible conditions, in view of these facts and in view of the minister's projections, it is difficult to believe that there is indeed a crisis in Canada at this time. Nevertheless, the minister has placed Bill C-236 before the House and it is presently being debated. The bill gives the minister absolute power in the energy field to allocate energy supplies when he thinks economic conditions warrant the use of such power. Inasmuch as the industrial, commercial and business sectors of the economy depend upon energy to produce output, mandatory allocation and rationing of energy and energy products will give the minister complete authority to regulate the domestic economy as he sees fit.
I am not sure that I would be prepared to give this minister that kind of authority, Mr. Speaker. It would be a blatant distortion of the intent of this bill if it were openly to be used as an instrument of economic policy. But one

cannot assume that the government would not use such power as this bill provides if the government judged it politically expedient to do so. We have seen examples of government action for expediency in the past, and I am sure we will see such examples in the future. The economic powers that this bill provides cannot be underestimated. The allocation program itself can be invoked when in the opinion of the governor in council the stability of the economy is in danger because of a petroleum shortage or market dislocation.
What about the stability of the economy? I think, Mr. Speaker, that is very much a matter of opinion-presumably the opinion of the governor in council, which in fact means the opinion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On this matter his opinion should be identical with that of the Minister of Finance who has stated that a real growth rate of over 5 per cent is still expected in 1974.
The fact that mandatory allocations may be necessary probably means that growth projections are overly optimistic and probably not valid. It would be necessary for these optimistic forecasts for growth to be withdrawn in order to invoke the full powers of the energy allocation bill. Such withdrawal is not likely, particularly in view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Finance who spoke in the House in glowing terms about the expectations for economic growth. Also, the Prime Minister told the people of Canada last night that the predictions are for tremendous growth in this country in the next three years, for growth greater than in any other country of the world. So we are left wondering why this kind of allocation bill is required, if it is correct to assume that such growth will occur.
It is quite conceivable that a similar difficulty exists with regard to the opinion of what may be causing economic instability. For instance, the minister may use economic instability as an argument for invoking the powers under this bill. What are the causes of economic instability? They might be large increases in unemployment, not necessarily related to the energy crisis; they could be inflation and spiralling prices which have been completely out of control for months. The causes could be industrial shutdowns through lack of markets, or a general decline in investor confidence. None of these causes necessarily reflects the energy shortage. Equally, this manifest instability could be the result of other factors, such as mismanagement of monetary policy or the result of declining export markets. Therefore, the power which this bill provides for the minister to invoke allocations of energy could well be used as a disguise for the failure of the government's economic policies in general.
We are, however, prepared to accept for the time being the minister's word that there could be an energy shortage-


An hon. Member:: I don't know why.


Paul Yewchuk: I don't know why, either, but we are prepared to accept some legislative authority for coping with the situation, if it arises. However, this bill goes far beyond any conceivable need for power which the minis-
December 14, 1973

ter may need, or can demonstrate that he needs, for coping adequately with the problem.


Mr. Harding:: Then send the bill to committee and amend it. Don't filibuster it.


Paul Yewchuk: I will have some comments for my friend to my left in a moment. Our biggest reservation is this: should the far reaching powers of this bill be given to a government which has shown itself to be incompetent and incapable of handling effectively the current problems of our country, particularly as this bill gives the Minister of Energy, Mines and resources authority to overrule or negate any provincial priorities relevant to the energy crisis?


Mr. Turner (London East):: Tory times are hard times.


Paul Yewchuk: We happen to be in the middle of Liberal times, and they are pretty hard times. Actually, some of the powers in this bill are so far reaching that the federal government could invade areas of undisputed provincial authority. In the past few weeks we have seen a deliberate attempt to run roughshod over provincial rights. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister have engaged in confrontation with the producing provinces. For example, in Vancouver the Prime Minister a few days ago at a Liberal fund-raising dinner unashamedly attacked the premier of a province without any justification and without any regard for what that attack might do to confederation. We also saw the spectacle of the party to my left jumping for joy because the Liberals, with whom they are in cahoots, a few days ago put forward a policy which they support. Suddenly they were confounded when one of their own kind, the Premier of Saskatchewan, announced certain things that he wants to do for his province.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has been most critical of Alberta for wanting a good price for its product and some quid pro quo from the government. In other words, in exchange for better prices for Canadians that province wants certain things which it needs. The hon. member for York South thought that was terrible. He referred to the Alberta premier as a blue-eyed Arab. Now, suddenly, we have another blue-eyed Arab. Perhaps I should not say that. But the duly elected Premier of Saskatchewan is making demands which are far greater than those made by the Premier of Alberta. Suddenly, NDP members from Saskatchewan have been stopped in their tracks, wondering what to do now. What will they do now, I wonder? Will they support federal policies which would mean a loss of half a million dollars a day to the province of Saskatchewan, or will they reassess their position and decide on which side their bread is really buttered?
The confrontations which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister have provoked with the provinces have surprised me, as they have followed so closely on the heels of the western economic opportunities conference. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, prior to this conference the Prime Minister and the cabinet stirred up the fondest hopes of westerners that finally the government was taking a serious look at the west, was willing to listen to the problems of the west and, in fact, appeared to be
Energy Supplies Emergency Act willing to do something about those problems. Now the situation is quite different. We know where this Liberal government really stands so far as the west is concerned. Make no mistake, westerners get the message fully. The Prime Minister has decided to abandon the west, politically, and to go for broke in Ontario. I do not think the people of Ontario or the people of Canada can be fooled by this kind of attack on confederation. I would advise him strongly, as would other members of the opposition, to withdraw from that attitude.
What about my friends to our left, the great principled New Democratic Party which has been supporting this government unreservedly since January of this year? No matter what the issue has been, no matter what the position of the NDP has been prior to any vote, that party has repeatedly and consistently supported the government in order to stay alive itself. Last Monday it supported the government's energy policy. Now there is certain news from Saskatchewan and I am anxious to see what that party will do after today. Last summer, just after the parliamentary recess, the leader of the NDP went roaring from coast to coast saying, "I cannot see how we can support the Trudeau government much longer," knowing full well that there would not be any opportunity to carry out his threat by way of a vote until the middle of October. Then, by chance, in September when parliament was recalled, only one month after he had made those threats, we suddenly found that the tiger's roar had become the cat's purr.
Last week we saw more of the same. The hon. member for York South has been running around the countryside shouting threats of withdrawal of support, but when the crunch comes his party votes with the government. I find that hypocrisy rather repugnant. This is not the sort of behaviour which we ought to countenance. I am sure the NDP realizes that most Canadians find this kind of hypocrisy and this kind of behaviour intolerable. No doubt that is why the party is afraid to let go of the coat-tails of power and why it again stood behind its leader only a few days ago and voted with the government.
What about controls? We had a policy announcement last spring concerning the price freeze which was to be followed by a period of controls. The hon. member for York South, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and others nearly broke their necks running around the country telling people why they were against controls and why controls would not work. Now they are suddenly very much in favour of controls. They threatened to withdraw their support from the government unless it imposed controls.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is a man whom we have grown to respect for his service to parliament and to the country. Even though I disagree with his ideas, he does what he thinks is right. Even he was unable to resist the temptation a couple of days ago to be a little devious when speaking on the energy situation. I asked the hon. member whether he was really in favour of controls. When we suggested them last February, he spoke against them. However, when he spoke a few days ago he was in favour of controls. His answer was, "Well, all you fellows are suggesting is a 90-day freeze." I do not

December 14, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act believe he really meant that. If he did, it means he read only the first line of our policy paper and then ran around the country making statements based on that first line. If that was not the case, he was simply trying to be a little dishonest and I do not think he would want to do that.
This country is getting into a terrible mess as far as the economy, inflation and energy are concerned. It is not only the Liberals who are to blame; the New Democratic Party are also to blame because they are responsible for upholding this lame duck government. The NDP are maintaining this kind of a situation with a government that refuses to accept its responsibility and refuses to deal with major problems in an effective way. The NDP have to share the blame for this situation and they will have to account for their behaviour to the electorate when the time comes.
Before this bill is passed it would only be sensible for the standing committee to make a very exhaustive and extensive inquiry into all aspects of Canada's energy situation to determine the true extent of the crisis, if indeed there is a crisis. The committee should be empowered to call before it the minister, his advisers, representatives of the oil companies and anyone else knowledgeable about or concerned with the field of energy. Only after that kind of study would it be possible to decide whether there is a crisis and whether the minister really needs the kind of power he is seeking in this bill.
Before concluding I want to deal briefly with the question of the Athabasca tar sands. Syncrude, a consortium of companies, is prepared to construct an extraction plant with a capacity of 125,000 barrels a day. They are now prepared to go ahead. They have made an agreement with the province which will provide to the public treasury the maximum amount of revenue. If this project goes ahead it will mean more than 10,000 jobs in northern Alberta and in other parts of the country. It will mean that the town of Fort McMurray will more than double in population. It will be one of the initial steps in that region becoming a highly industrialized centre of Alberta and in due course a highly industrialized centre of Canada.
At the present time there are many huge construction projects of this kind in the making in North America. They require specialized materials and equipment, specially built metal receptacles and special tools and equipment of various kinds which are not mass produced. I am told that if these materials are ordered now, there is a waiting time of at least several months and possibly one to two years. The federal government should be a little more co-operative and a little more cognizant of the serious deleterious effects of holding up this project. The project is awaiting certain assurances from the federal government, or at least some clarification on where the federal government stands on the whole question. Until these matters are clarified the project will not proceed.
The minister should take a closer look at the significance of this project to Albertans and, indeed, to Canada as a whole, not just because we have a high unemployment situation and require the jobs that would be produced but because we have an energy shortage looming in the not too distant future. Plants such as that proposed by Syncrude cannot be built overnight; it is a matter of years before they are in production. I think we should proceed with this project as quickly as possible. I hope the minister will

take whatever action is necessary to get the project rolling without further delay.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I note a good deal of impatience on the other side of the House and to my left. I hope they will bear with me as we examine this bill, look into each clause and see what it will mean to Canadians in all parts of the country. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) really dug into what this energy problem or so-called crisis is all about. It is a transportation problem. We in Canada are self-sufficient in oil but we are not able to get it from one end of the country to the other.
I noted that some members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications asked the president of Canadian National Railways whether it would be possible to put liners in grain cars in order to move oil from Alberta and other parts of western Canada to the eastern market. That really points up the problem. At the present time the facilities are not available to move oil from Alberta, Saskatchewan and perhaps Manitoba to the eastern markets.
The hon. member for Crowfoot suggested that the port facilities to move oil through the Panama Canal to eastern Canada, or across Canada by pipeline or rail are inadequate at the present time. We should have anticipated this problem of eastern Canada being cut off from offshore oil, necessitating the transport of oil from western to eastern Canada by some method. I suspect that the best method to transport oil from one end of the country to the other is by pipeline. As some members have suggested, we should have looked into this pipeline four or five years ago, not now when we have shortages of all products and transportation problems. There is a shortage of the steel required to build a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, not to mention the looping that will be necessary on the Trans Canada pipeline to supply that oil.
Introducing the bill last week, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) stated it was analogous to an insurance policy. Shortly thereafter, my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) asked him to disclose the specifics of that insurance policy, for example, what were the risks and how much was the premium. These questions have not been answered and I seriously doubt that they ever will be answered. I would be willing to bet that the minister's policy is of the short term, low dividend, variety. And maybe the minister, too, is of the short term, low dividend variety.
The bill before us is a glaring example of the kind of legislation we have so often been asked to consider. I have seen issues come and go, and generally the NDP find some way of making the issues go. Legislation is all too often hastily prepared and poorly researched. It is difficult to sort out all the contradictory statements we have heard in the past few weeks, not only from the minister of energy but from the Prime Minister. Only last week, for instance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he would like to see Canada become self-sufficient in energy by 1980. But
December 14, 1973

we are already exporting more oil than we are importing, so this country does not lack oil supplies for our own use.
There is, in fact, a great deal of capacity in Alberta as well as in other provinces which could quickly be reflected in terms of increased production. We learn, for instance, that refineries in Edmonton are working on the basis of eight or ten-hour shifts. Work could be carried on throughout a 24-hour period, but there is neither the storage capacity nor the transportation needed to get the products out of Edmonton to where they are needed. This is why I say the difficulty we are experiencing in Canada is to a large extent one of transportation, since there is no lack of oil in this country.
For some strange reason the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been reluctant to report to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. No meeting of this committee has been held since June 7, despite requests from members on this side of the House that the chairman should call one so the present situation might be discussed. In that committee we would have an opportunity to question the minister, officials of his department, representatives of the provinces, perhaps, and people in the industry with a view to ascertaining the nature of the problem and the extent to which it might develop during the coming months.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why not pass the bill right now, and we could have the committee sitting next week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Go to the committee stage and cut the filibuster.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The minister is saying we should pass the bill in haste. I say we should have been looking into this situation months earlier than this.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Cut the filibuster and go into committee.


An hon. Member:: Give us some answers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will give you more than you can handle.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: We in this party do not accept the minister's reasoning. As I cross the country I hear varying assessments of our energy reserves. Differing figures are given by the federal government, by provincial governments and by private industry. I believe the minister and his department should long ago have conducted serious research in this field so as to produce statistics the people of Canada can count on. I have heard estimates that the supply of conventional oil in Canada is sufficient to last for 10, 15 or even 20 years. I have heard it estimated that our supply of natural gas is sufficient to last between 15 and 20 years. According to some estimates there are between 500 billion and one trillion barrels of oil in the tar sands in various areas of Alberta.
Surely, with all the funds and expertise available to the minister, a more accurate determination of the extent of these resources could be made for presentation to the people of Canada and members of this House, so that they might have a better basis on which to decide whether a
Energy Supplies Emergency Act bill such as this is necessary. The present minister deals in uncertainties, and I do not think we should give the government the powers it is demanding in the absence of far more accurate information. An attempt on his part to deal in specifics would at least lend a measure of credibility to Bill C-236.
I should like to turn briefly to clause 35 which deals with opportunity for debate and arrangements for the termination of the act. This measure, as its title implies, is to be invoked only when a national energy emergency exists. I would, therefore, question subclause (4) which provides:
An order under subsection (3) shall be laid before parliament not later than 15 days after it has been made, or, if parliament is not then sitting, within the first 15 days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This is a convenient point at which to recognize that it is four o'clock. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
[ Translation]


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the appreciable progress made by the opposition as it carries on its filibuster, the House would perhaps agree to let go the private members' hour in order to enable the Canadian people to know the true colours of the Progressive Conservative opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member, that private members' hour be dispensed with and that we resume consideration of the bill we have been discussing. This would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: An Alberta Tory said no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if I have jumped the gun, but I believe Your Honour was about to call public bills. May I remind the House of the request I made this morning, that at this hour we might call order No. 86, resuming the debate on my Bill C-10, which calls for the abolition of the Senate. When I made that proposal this morning I did not hear any opposing voices. Perhaps the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) would agree with the proposition that this would be a good day to give Their Honours in the other place something to think about.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Very funny.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Again, this would be a matter requiring unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 14, 1973
Statistics Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The House will now turn to the consideration of private members' public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: that Bill C-7, to amend the Statistics Act (area statistics), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have said that if the House would agree to adopt this motion without debate, we could then proceed to discuss the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Some of us want to speak on it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I assumed there were some who wish to speak, therefore I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will have to wait a few more years before we come to grips with his proposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not with the help we are now getting from the other place.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do not want to get into that discussion today. While I might be anxious to debate the matter with the hon. member, I think of equal importance, since he did mention giving the members of the other place something significant to grapple with, would be the opportunity for them to grapple with the modest bill that is before the House this afternoon.
This bill has been standing on the order paper ready for debate for many months, almost from the first month this session of parliament began. The reason it has not been brought forward is that there has been some discussion with members of other parties as to whether it is drafted in the proper from, or whether in some manner or fashion it is still relevant. I expect there will be some comment from other members in that regard. I do not want to get into any legal defence of the proposed motion before us this afternoon, but I have been advised there may be at least one error in respect of the numbering of the paragraphs and it might be more appropriate to have paragraph (d) of section 3 attached as paragraph (e). However, that is a minor matter.
What I really want to deal with this afternoon is the substance of the proposal before the House, and that is the very great and obvious need for better information on a provincial and regional basis available to the federal, provincial and municipal governments and to the private sector. I must admit that when this bill was originally put down, while I had some feeling about its being important,

I was anxious to have it brought forward for discussion before this session of parliament either expires, prorogues or whatever will happen to it, in order that we might have an opportunity to consider the matter.


An hon. Member:: It is up to you guys.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is up to all of us, I guess. I realize there are many global and national issues with which we are confronted these days, but I do not think we should lose sight of what is essentially a problem that will continue to confront this government and successive governments in years to come unless we take the problem seriously. Perhaps I could put it best by simply saying that in the last few weeks I have had an opportunity, travelling in the Atlantic provinces and meeting with people both in government and in universities, to be made aware again of the real problems that exist. I intend to speak specifically about Atlantic Canada because that is the area I know best and, quite frankly, that is the area which conerns me most. The real problem that exists is in respect of the lack of accurate and relevant statistical information about the Atlantic provinces. Nothing could be more true to a member who comes from a constituency in the province of Prince Edward Island.
The latest indication of that came last week with the most recent set of statistics of employment, unemployment and changes in the cost of living. When a Prince Edward Islander looks at a report concerning employment, he is faced with very few numbers and a great many asterisks because he is told at the outset that most of the information which can be provided by the most knowledgeable statistical agency in the country, Statistics Canada, is not accurate. What we are told about November, 1973, in terms of employment is that in a general way the labour force represents some 40,000 people, and in a general way there are 36,000 people who were employed during that month. But with regard to unemployment and the unemployment rate no definitive answer can be given. The sort of simple answer for this, since I am not a statistician or an economist and cannot get into all the different quantum explanations, is that at the present time when computations are made in respect of employment and unemployment the figures are averaged to the nearest thousand.
The problem Statistics Canada has in reporting accurate figures for Prince Edward Island is that if there are 999 people unemployed in Prince Edward Island, it is suggested there are in fact less than 1,000 and therefore perhaps there is conceivably no one unemployed there. If the figure is raised to 1,001 by adding two more people to the unemployment rolls, suddenly the unemployment rate jumps in Prince Edward Island from zero to 2,000. That is the kind of confusion and misleading information you get, because Statistics Canada rightly refuses to report this kind of percentage as it would be ludicrous. Prince Edward Island is just one of the ten provinces of this country which receives this kind of information that represents just one of the serious shortcomings and anomalies in the present statistical information available from Statistics Canada.
In a few minutes I intend to mention some of the other problems in respect of our region in terms of having truly
December 14, 1973

adequate information in order to formulate economic and social policy. In spite of these difficulties we have the audacity-perhaps I should not say "we" because as members of parliament we do not really formulate government policy-but governments have the audacity day by day, week by week to enunciate programs to alleviate problems of unemployment and in respect of the cost of living based on this kind of misleading and, if I can use the term, half-baked information. This happens in a day and age when we know we have gone far beyond the times of Francis Bacon who said many years ago that knowledge is power. We might say today, perhaps paraphrasing some of the information that comes to us from such works as "Future Shock" by Toffler, that knowledge is a key component to change and accelerating knowledge acquisition means accelerating change.
We must have accurate information if government programs which involve billions of dollars of public money are to do the job they are meant to do. To repeat what I said a little earlier, as I visited people who are concerned with human development and social improvement in the Atlantic provinces, people who analyse this question in a detached way in university communities and people who try to work with relevant information in government offices, I found that they cannot do so and they ask, "Why can't we have accurate information and statistics about our provinces, about parts of our provinces and about the region as a whole?" I have introduced this very modest bill-members who have looked at it will see it is very modest-to make the point again that unless Statistics Canada, in gathering the information it gathers day by day, can really do the job it is meant to do, then in terms of formulating social and economic policy we are wasting a great deal of money which could be much better spent.
Many of us who live in the Atlantic provinces think we know what the situation is in regard to our own province and our own region, but we know in real terms that often we can be very much shocked when we see the actual statistics. Just yesterday I had the opportunity of meeting some representatives of the bilingual districts commission who have done a rather intensive study of the language changes occurring within my constituency of Egmont. They were frank to admit that one of the difficulties they had was that they really had to base their conclusions on a rather rough compilation of statistics taken once every ten years-1961, 1971, and so on-and that to try to formulate sensible recommendations in respect of the bilingual complexion for the future of the Egmont constituency would require a great deal more relevant information that is presently available.
Some members may recall that only a few years ago, in early 1971, for the first time in the Atlantic region the Atlantic Development Council produced a strategy. I do not intend to get into the merits or otherwise of that strategy produced by the ministerial advisory council for the Atlantic region. One of the very clear recommendations that they put on the record at that time was as follows, and I read from page 13, recommendation 65:
Data relevant to the economy of the Atlantic provinces are with reference to some subjects, and in some respects, seriously inadequate to provide a basis for the formulation of policies and pro-
Statistics Act
grams and their subsequent monitoring. The Council has found this a serious problem which has hampered and complicated the preparation of a development strategy. Now that a comprehensive development effort has been launched, steps must be taken to correct this situation.
The council may have been somewhat overoptimistic about a comprehensive development strategy, but to the degree that such a strategy has not been inaugurated it may well be attributable to the fact that we do not have adequate statistics for the Atlantic region. We are faced with a variety of problems in this regard. Much of the statistical information for the Local Initiatives Program, which we were told in the beginning was to be allocated on the basis of unemployment and other social indicators across the country, we find-and I will not get into some of the allegations of political bias-to be based on the 1971 census.
We know only too well that in the period since 1971 a great deal has happened both in terms of the mobility of people and in terms of the economic situation in this country. As recently as this week we learned that across the country, especially in the larger urban centres in the central part of the country, unemployment has been on the decrease, but in the Atlantic provinces unemployment has increased in some places. In some parts of the Atlantic provinces it has increased dramatically, so dramatically that it is difficult to explain.
I have attempted to analyse-again with inadequate figures-the fact that in some of the urban centres in the Atlantic provinces, such as Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton, until two months ago unemployment was down 3 per cent or 4 per cent, and there has been a rather unusual job vacancy situation in some of the larger urban centres. But Statistics Canada is reporting as late as this week that we have a 9.6 per cent unemployment rate in the Atlantic provinces, a 13.6 per cent rate in Newfoundland and 9.9 per cent in New Brunswick. When I try to investigate the situation in Nova Scotia alone, because I thought that being the largest province in population I would find reasonable statistical explanations, I find that Cape Breton has an unemployment rate of 12 per cent and Nova Scotia about 8 per cent, but no one seems to know the explanation for this in terms of regional inconsistencies.
What we are trying to do, quite obviously, is to solve modern social and economic problems with horse and buggy statistics. The time has come to go beyond the horse and buggy stage, to realize that the nature of government and the intervention of government, not only federal government but other levels of government as well, has changed so dramatically in the past decade that to rely on normal social indicators is to waste the time of the general public and to destroy the effectiveness of programs that attempt to focus on the real human problems that exist.
Another example of the situation in the Atlantic provinces is the fact that for years-I do not know how long this goes back but I have statistics, unreliable as they may be, showing that at least for the last two decades-there has been a tremendous amount of out-migration from the Atlantic region. We know that as late as the mid 1960s there was a net out-migration of as many as 25,000 or 35,000 who had left the Atlantic region for other parts of this country or perhaps the United States.

December 14, 1973
Statistics Act
Then we are told that in 1972 there has been a net in-migration for the first time in, I do not know how long. One would have to go back 30 or 40 years. The in-migration in 1972 amounted to some 5,000 people. We do not have enough information, unfortunately, to tell us in what way or in what form these people arrived and who they are, nor where they have gone and why they have come into the region. We do not have the gross figures on migration in or out, and we are left with the situation of trying to formulate economic and social policy without understanding what these semi-statistics tell us.
I want to quote for a moment from a speech that was given by a lady who has some interest in the subject on which I am speaking today. Her name is Sylvia Ostry. Some years ago, Dr. Ostry made a speech in which she made a few interesting comments which I think it might be worth relaying to the members of this House. She suggests in this speech, which I found to be an excellent talk about new directions, that we have to find some new social indicators because the nature of government planning and government action has changed so dramatically.
She suggested that we must develop-
-an emphasis on anticipatory rather than reactive decision making: an emphasis on systems rather than on discrete problem or policy areas. If one stresses the need to anticipate rather than react to problems and recognizes that inter relationships among proposed solutions must be explicitly taken into account, this*may lead to a more careful and meaningful exploration of social priorities and effective strategies for their ultimate attainment.
Later in her speech she spoke about the need for-
-an increasingly articulated need by individuals within contemporary affluent societies to exercise more real choice about how they will live.
In the final part of her speech she suggested the following:
-the movement to develop what have been called "social indicators", direct measures of social welfare or distress such as indexes of mental and physical health; social mobility; public order and safety; the quality of the environment; participation and alienation, etc.
She went on to suggest that without these kinds of new statistics we will not be able to do the job adequately in terms of meeting and responding to the changes that are taking place in our society. I suppose that the best example of the situation in which we find ourselves today is the energy crisis. Here we are in a very difficult situation because we have not even begun to think of how we would quantify, how we would gather and how we would display the kind of information on energy utilization, energy needs and energy development either for the whole of the country or for the part of the country which is in most serious jeopardy at present either due to the potential petroleum shortages or to the very rapid rise in prices that has occurred. It points up, again, the lack of foresight that we have had and perhaps the lack of encouragement that we have given to our key statistical and information gathering system, that is, Statistics Canada.
Why do I spend so much time talking about the need for better information? It comes down very simply to this: I think at no time has it been clearer than in the last few months under this government that a good social and economic policy cannot be formulated flying by the seat of one's pants, and it certainly cannot happen because some-

body gets up on a specific morning and decides he will have such and such a program or such and such a policy. We have had far too many months and far too many programs of "ad hockery." If we are to get beyond that, if we are to get positive and active government we will not get it unless we establish adequate benchmarks for social and economic development. We cannot begin to establish either short-term or long-term goals unless we have the information, the measurements and the monitoring to make them a practical reality. That is why I hope hon. members this afternoon will support the speedy passage and recommendation of this bill to committee.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) proposed his amendment and recognized that there was a small error in the drafting. I agree with him that it is insignificant and that the question we are really debating this afternoon is the substance of the bill. I listened very carefully to the hon. member, and I was pleased to hear his comment that he was looking for better information and not necessarily for more information. I am not convinced that we need more surveys, polls and inquiries. It may be that fewer would be in order.
I wonder whether the hon. member, before preparing the amendment, considered who does the work in most of these surveys. I suggest that a good portion of it has to be done by the small businessmen in Canada and, for that matter, by the larger corporations; but they hire staff and write off the cost as a business expense. The small businessman finds himself inundated with inquiries. Since Statistics Canada has been in operation for a number of years, it seems to me that the time has come to establish some form of task force to look into the kind of information that both Statistics Canada and provincial governments are gathering.
Just the other day a small businessman in my riding sent me a folder that contained seven or eight pages of questions. It had his name at the top and his address. It asked for all kinds of information, what kind of work he engaged in, how many employers he had, what he was paying them and what deductions were taken off at source. I got tired reading the questions because the list was so long. On the surface there did not seem to be an adequate explanation of the reason for it. Ture, Statistics Canada talks about such information being confidential, but the small businessman has a right to be a little apprehensive and to wonder how many people actually are looking at the type of information that he has to provide in this way.
The crowning blow for this individual was that he was told he had to complete the questionnaire and that if he did not complete it then under the act he would be subject to a fine. I can appreciate that one of the costs of doing business in Canada calls for completing income tax forms, preparing T-4 slips for employees and even collecting sales tax for the provinces and remitting it to the provincial treasury, but it seems to me we add insult to injury for the small businessman when we send him a leaflet full of questions which he cannot throw in the waste-paper basket. If it were a voluntary matter he could make up his own mind about filling out the questionnaire or throwing
December 14, 1973

it in a waste-paper basket. But the government agencies seeking the information have the sanction of legislation behind them and as a result the small businessman is not told that he may, at his choice, fill out the questionnaire or not fill it out; he is told he must fill it out.
Like the hon. member, I sometimes wonder if some people come into their offices in the morning, sit down and ask each other whether they should hold a survey on a particular subject, seeking information to help the small businessman to expand, telling him what kind of equipment would be better to use in his particular business. But I wonder if they would be a little more careful in sending out questionnaires to businessmen if they had to pay each businessman $10 for the time he had to devote to completing questionnaires. I wonder if that would limit the number of questionnaires that do go out, and if more careful thought would be given to the kinds of questions asked and to the length of the questionnaires. I have mentioned a figure of $10, but I suggest that the small businessman's time is worth very much more than that simply because of the length of time he has to devote to giving information to the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
I agree that the time has come for an investigation to be made by a task force or some other appropriate authority into the kind of information gathering that is done in Canada, to determine if it is really necessary to have all of these papers that come over the desk of the small businessman. In spite of my comments, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be negative about Statistics Canada. I know that many of the surveys it conducts are necessary. But the businessman, when he fills out these forms, is probably asking himself - of course, in the first place he is angry because he has to do it - who is going to benefit? He has spent 15 years building up this information, learning through trial and error that this particular way is the best in which to operate his business; he wonders if all this information is going to be culled from him to be used by somebody else who has not had to go through the school of hard knocks, who can take advantage of this information and perhaps become established in competition with him. By reading the answers he gives, somebody else may prosper.
Further, Mr. Speaker, the time has come for such a study to be made in order to avoid duplication. As a man who practised law for some 10 or 12 years, although I had a modest business engaging only a few employees I know the amount of paperwork that came over my desk and had to be attended to on behalf of government. I agree that part of it is proper. It is the expense of doing business in Canada, and here I speak of Ontario, the area with which I am most familiar. But on more than one occasion I saw the same questions being asked by the municipal government, the provincial government and the federal government. I was asked why I selected that particular site for my business. The municipality wanted to know for planning purposes but I do not know why the provincial government and the federal government wanted the same information.
I wish to enter a plea with Statistics Canada and other governmental information gathering agencies that they take a long, hard look at the surveys they are conducting
Statistics Act
and at the results they publish. I sometimes wonder if they really are significant without having all the background and explanations provided. Here I am thinking of things such as the monthly unemployment figures. They come out with the seasonally adjusted figure and the number of people actually unemployed at a particular time. Yet the survey done, I think, is incomplete because of the actual number of people contacted. It is said that for statistical purposes 1,000 people contacted will be as accurate as one million contacted. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the people connected with Statistics Canada ever ran in an election, where you can find that after the first thousand votes come in you might be ten behind, but when the next 20,000 votes come in and are counted you end up with a tremendous victory. I think they miss things like that.
This subject is something in which I have been interested ever since I was first elected to this House in 1968. At that time I had many calls from small businessmen in my area. We were examining the question of setting up secondary industry in Sarnia where there is already heavy industry and there is competition between industry with respect to wages. One of the things we discovered with respect to doing business in an area like Sarnia is the fact that all these additional forms, figures ans surveys add to the cost of doing business. Those concerned suggested that if even part of that cost could be eliminated it would be a tremendous help.
As a government supporter and as a member of parliament, I realized there are two sides to the question. I tried to explain to the businessmen that many of the surveys which are done are done with good motives, with the idea of aiding and assisting them. But I have determined from my research that some of the Statistics Canada business surveys are undertaken merely for the purpose of keeping administrative records. Each of these sources in general provides both national, and, to a varying extent, regional data. The hon. member indicates that they do not go into small enough regions as far as he is concerned. I think there is provision in section 3(e) to go into regional areas, but I think there has to be some form of motivation, either that the minister of industry for the province or the treasury has indicated that it would help them to determine where to locate industry, for example, in Prince Edward Island if they had more specific information on an area the size of the hon. member's riding let alone the size of Prince Edward Island.
I think that is good and that kind of information would be very helpful. I sometimes wonder if it would not be much more helpful than the countless hours that are spent on broad surveys that are very interesting to read in the newspaper, but when you throw the paper out, out goes the information on the survey. I think if we got down to a little more focusing on the kinds of information that the hon. member is looking for, maybe there would be a better role to be played by government departments. One of the defences put up by the department is that in these business surveys location is a meaningful concept. This comes back to the question, "Why did you locate in your particular area?" In my law office days I located in my particular area because it was the only upstairs office I could find

December 14, 1973
Statistics Act
that I could afford. I gave the same answer to all the questionnaires, but they indicated that in the business surveys where location is a meaningful concept, like manufacturing and mining, the data are tabulated regionally and the releases are only subject to the confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act. I assume, Mr. Speaker, that means they remove the name of the corporation which provided the information, and to that extent it is confidential when it is sent out.
In other business surveys where location is not a meaningful concept, for example, transportation and communication, they indicate regional tabulations cannot be carried out. In the case of household sample surveys, here I suppose if someone is at home they may not feel quite so strongly about these forms that have to be filled out, although I know that the busy housewife nowadays feels she has better things to do than to answer surveys. Certainly we find that with Air Canada passengers: when they are handed a slip at the airport I suspect that often it goes into the waste basket at the end of the long corridor. But in the case of household sample surveys, the extent to which regional data can be provided is limited by sample size. As sample size decreases, so does the amount of statistically reliable regional detail which is available. That is my point exactly.
Rather than concentrating on a wide area, I think it would be more appropriate if they focused on a small area and did a more significant and meaningful study. If you do a large area and a few people, the department itself tells you that as the size decreases so does the reliability of the statistics. I suggest, with respect, if you have that on a small scale, on going over a larger area you are really cutting down the statistical reliability but over a wider area. It seems to me that is hardly progress. The high cost of survey-taking makes it important for the bureau to consider carefully the sample size, that is, the cost. I think if we added one more cost factor, tha is, paying businessmen for filling out some of these forms, maybe we would have fewer surveys and they would be focused in smaller areas.
Mr. Speaker, I understand there are other members who wish to speak. I think I have made the point that I wanted to make and on that basis I will resume my seat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. May I say at the outset that if hon. members were not unanimously prepared to discuss Bill C-10 this afternoon, this is a good one for us to be dealing with, and I commend the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for presenting this bill. As I understand it, his desire is that the quality of our statistics be improved and his bill suggests that one of the ways in which to do that is to provide, in certain instances, for statistics to be obtained on an area basis.
I know that when he uses the word "area" he has in mind geographical areas, but I should like to suggest that there is also room for statistics being gathered on the basis of social areas. In particular I am thinking about the consumer price index, popularly known as the cost of living index, which is produced by Statistics Canada. If I understand it correctly, this is one index right across the whole spectrum of society. However, there are certain

groups, old age pensioners, veterans and, commencing in 1974, recipients of family allowances to whom the consumer price index is not just a statistic but is the basis on which the amount of money they will receive is determined.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of living increase experienced by the whole community might not be close at all to the actual impact of a cost of living increase on old age pensioners, veterans or mothers with children for whom they are receiving family allowances. When you are an old age pensioner, the kinds of things that you may have to buy are of a limited number and, as I say, that cost of living factor can be quite different from the factor for the entire community.
I would hope that when the people at Statistics Canada look at this debate and consider whether ways may be found to improve the quality of our statistics, they will consider the desirability of statistics that show what is the actual cost of living increase for groups like old age pensioners, veterans and mothers in receipt of family allowances. People who are in receipt of these benefits are forever surprised when they get their increases because in their experience the cost of living has gone up for them much more than is reflected in their pension increases. I think this problem could be met if we had statistics computed on the basis of social areas as well as on the basis of geographic areas.
I have one other sentence and then I shall sit down, Mr. Speaker. I liked the reference by the hon. member for Egmont, or maybe it was a quotation from Dr. Sylvia Ostry before she became Chief Statistician, that maybe it is time for us to be making anticipatory rather than reactive decisions. I think this is true particularly in the area of enabling people, especially pensioners and others, to cope with the rising cost of living.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in substance the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is appropriate and deserves the support of all hon. members.
I say in substance because I think there has been too great a tendency in this country to consider only national statistics, national aggregates, and not often enough the statistics of various areas which differ substantially from national statistics.
Having said that I have doubts about the advisability of the hon. member's amendment which would not produce the results he seeks because it would frustrate the clause he wants to replace and which seems to me to be very important and very useful.
As to regionalizing our statistics I think more should be done in that respect. Our bureau of statistics, now called Statistics Canada, is certainly one of the most competent in the world. Very few countries have available to them a statistical department so up to date, so specialized, so competent, so careful and impartial such as Statistics Canada, which is headed so competently by Mrs. Sylvia Ostry.
Furthermore, I think Statistics Canada should try and do more. I understand that such an undertaking is pre-
December 14, 1973

vented from taking place mainly because of a lack of funds. If Statistics Canada had more money it could compile a lot more statistics in many more areas. Nevertheless, new studies have to be made. I am sure that all hon. members would be interested in seeing Statistics Canada undertake studies on various questions of interest to the people of this country.
To mention only one, I have been personally interested for some time in the distribution of doctors in Canada and I am trying to obtain data on this subject. Unfortunately, I have not been able to secure any figures from anyone to show exactly which region is short of doctors and how many specialists are lacking in certain regions.
The contribution of the hon. member for Egmont who reminded us how greatly differ regional statistics from national statistics, was quite eloquent about the LIP program. For instance, we know that this year the budget for this program was substantially reduced under the pretense that national unemployment was down by 1 per cent.
I would quote a few figures supplied by the Canada Manpower Centre in my constituency of Matane. In Matane, out of 3,360 people on the labour market, 1,344 are unemployed namely 40 per cent and this in the chief town of my constituency. If you consider now the villages surrounding this town whether it be Petite-Matane, St-Andelme, Sainte-Felicite, Grosses-Roches, Les Capucins, you find that the unemployment rate varies from 65 to 70 per cent. In other places such as Sainte-Paule, Les Boules, Metis, it is as high as 75 per cent.
Imagine what the reaction would be throughout the country if the unemployment rate were to reach 10 or 15 per cent at the national level. It would be a terrible crisis. The public coffers would be wide open and we would accumulate huge deficits to stimulate the economy while such sad situations as those I just mentioned would be of very small importance at the national policy level. And yet those situations have been existing for decades. Those regions are so under-populated that the fact that those people are working or not hardly puts a dent in national statistics.
For instance, in the Gaspe area about 60,000 people are on the labour market out of which about 30,000 are idle. Even if they were working they would not affect the national statistics but I can assure the House that as regards social peace and the economic welfare of this region, statistics such as those affect people's morale, which is absolutely unacceptable.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say in concluding how much I approve the proposal from the hon. member for Egmont to regionalize statistics a little more and make them more available. That is a somewhat different question, but it is really related to the first one and the way the hon. member went about it unfortunately does not seem to me the most appropriate way of proceeding.
That being said, I wish again to give credit to the group of public servants, under the extremely able direction of Mrs. Ostry, for their efficiency and fair mindedness, and I hope Parliament will earmark greater funds for that agency so as to enable it to make more intensive inquiries. I mentioned the one about statistics related to the regional
Statistics Act
unemployment rate, the allocation of doctors and the statistics on poverty in our area. So many other fields would deserve an inquiry on the part of Statistics Canada, something which is not to being done because of a restricted budget.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a consensus in the House so that the work already done for the regionalization of statistics be carried on, for this country, as was often said, has several areas which are very different from one another and it would be our biggest error if we were to apply limited and standard measures in a country as big and as diversified as ours.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief and make one or two points only. Unfortunately, I missed part of the remarks of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) in support of his proposal. I had rushed up to my office to get my coat in order to be ready at five o'clock to jump into the car of my seatmate, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen). These days we try to pool our resources in view of the energy problem.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you take the bus?


Eymard G. Corbin: I have never been able to determine which bus serves my part of the city, which is about 5)4 miles from Parliament Hill. Another problem is that, like other MPs, I am pressed for time. I am afraid the bus is too slow for my needs, as I need to be in my office early in the morning to attend to problems and as committees usually sit early.
I hope that my brief remarks will not be interpreted as in any way denoting a parochial attitude on my part, because sometimes members from Atlantic areas accuse me of that attitude. I think it is important for members from the Atlantic area to appreciate the views of other members from the area, and not necessarily to condemn those members who live on the fringe of the Atlantic area merely because they do not agree with the views of other Atlantic area members. Much though I appreciate the statements made by members from other parts of the area, who sometimes pontificate on the advantages of the Atlantic area, let me make it clear that although I speak of my area I am also putting forward the views, opinions and aspirations of the area as a whole. On that point I know we may disagree.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when I was speaking on Bill C-236 the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) raised a point of order, contending that my remarks were not relevant to the bill we were discussing. I now ask Your Honour to bring the hon. member to order and ask him to speak on the measure now before the House.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the point being made. However, I thought it was not a bad idea to make some general observations in my opening remarks about things which pertain to the general area from which the author of this proposal and I come. It is in that context that I wish to make a few remarks. I see the

December 14, 1973
Statistics Act
clock is moving on and I am afraid there will not be time for me to make all the points I wished to make. In any case, after listening to the hon. member for Egm'ont I feel that the suggested amendment is redundant. What he seeks through his amendment has already been well taken care of in the Statistics Act which was amended, I think, in 1971.
I have been assured that there is a special research staff with special responsibility for developing estimates of socioeconomic data for some provincial areas, as well as a provincial liaison and consultative services staff which has prime responsibility for working with provincial government departments and groups of regional provincial governments such as we have in the Atlantic area. For example, this can be useful in the context of the proposed cooperative union of the Maritime provinces. These services are co-ordinated for general or specific assistance in the statistical field.
It seems that some provinces are a little timid or hesitant at times to request services that are available. Most times it is just a matter of getting on the phone or dropping a note to the Chief Statistician on behalf of any provincial government and requesting chat special studies be made. It is in that sense the amendment is redundant. I have also been assured that for many years Statistics Canada has worked very closely through conferences and meetings with provincial government departments to develop meaningful statistics at both the provincial and subprovincial levels. That is the main point I wish to make today. I hope there will be an opportunity later to go into this proposition a little more deeply. I hope to be back here in future sessions, and I do not see any problem next year.
I agree with the substance of the bill. Perhaps we can enjoin Statistics Canada to continue this excellent work and branch out into more specific areas of information gathering that are not available unless specific requests are made for them. I think a lot of this information could be made public without waiting for someone to come by, knock on the door and ask for it.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take just a few minutes because I believe it is my duty to point out a few things on the technical side. I agree in substance with what the hon. member proposes. If I had more time, I would expound on a lot of things he said and support them. In this bill the hon. member seeks to amend the act of 1948. That act was replaced with a new act in 1971 called the Statistics Act. The relevant section is 3(e). I suggest this section is even better than the one suggested by the hon. member because of one line at the end. The hon. member's amendment reads:
(d) generally to organize a scheme of co-ordinated social and
economic statistics pertaining to the whole of Canada, to each of the provinces thereof-
Up to that point it is the same as the old act. The hon. member has added:
-and to any area of Canada the minister may from time to time designate.
I would point out to the hon. member that the last part of section 3(e) reads:
-and to coordinate plans for the integration of such statistics.
I submit that these words are important. I believe the hon. member agrees. There is a lot of power in the Statistics Act to deal with this, and I do not think the hon. member would want to delete the words at the end of section 3(e). I just want to point this out to explain why we believe we should not proceed with this bill as it now stands. I want to make it abundantly clear that I believe the substance of it is important. I believe we should get better information in certain regions of the country. However, I am very concerned about definitions or impressions that form a part of the statistics that are taken across the country. They do not take into consideration the way of life of the different components of the economy. For example, they do not take into consideration the economic way of life in the Maritimes. More often than not the consumer price index and unemployment statistics do not define in economic terms the status of the economy. As the hon. member stated, they are not a good economic indicator.
In many places in my constituency and other parts of the Atlantic provinces it is impossible to work in the winter or during a certain time of the year. For example, employees in the logging industry and the pulp industry live in rural areas. The roads are not of the same standard as in other areas. Companies do not keep their camps open year-round, so it is not possible for the people to work year-round. These types of situations in certain areas are of importance.
Not only do we require better information, but in the future we should try to define the economic indicators and the socioeconomic indicators in those areas. That is where we should start. Despite the weakness of the bill from a legal standpoint, in substance it is very good and I commend the hon. member for bringing it before the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member completed his speech or is he calling it five o'clock? Shall I put the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is calling it five o'clock. The time provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 17, 1973