1973-12-13

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the final communique of the NATO ministerial meeting which I attended in Brussels on December 10 and 11.

[Transla tion]


TABLING OF FINAL REPORT ON STUDY OF ORGANIC MERCURY
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour of tabling in both official languages the final report of the Task Force on organic mercury in the environment as well as measures taken by my department concerning the recommendations.


BANK ACT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-240, to amend the Bank Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this and the next four bills is to make the relevant change in the Bank
Act, the Loan Companies Act, the Trust Companies Act, the National Housing Act and the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to make it possible, indeed, mandatory for the government to put mortgage money out at a maximum interest rate of 6 per cent. It seems to me that this would go a long way toward making housing available to the vast majority of the people who can no longer afford it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-241, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act (residential mortgages).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Edward Broadbent: I will not repeat the explanation for this bill. The same sensible and logical reasons prevail for this one as for the others.


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

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-242, to amend the Loan Companies Act (residential mortgages).


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

[ Translation]

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-243, to amend the Trust Companies Act (residential mortgages).

December 13, 1973
Oral Questions


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

[ English]

John Edward Broadbent: for leave to introduce Bill C-244, to amend the National Housing Act (residential mortgages).


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the Prime Minister, having been asked yesterday what the government was going to do to help lower income Canadians in the Atlantic provinces to deal with higher petroleum prices this winter, suggested that the only solution was to stop buying oil if the price became too high, I would like to ask the minister today whether the government has any more realistic proposal to put forward to provide some sort of remedy for the problems these people face this winter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the Prime Minister referred previously in the House to a number of measures that have been taken under the Canada Assistance Plan and in relation to other programs which should put additional funds into the hands of those who need them most in that part of the country. In addition, the Prime Minister in his remarks a week ago today indicated that the question of disparity in prices and relief to those who need relief would be one of the questions that would be put before the federal-provincial conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my impression was that the Prime Minister indicated it might be necessary to do more than is being done to help those on low incomes. In view of the fact that unemployment and inflation are already at severe levels in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, can the minister indicate whether the government proposes to take specific measures with regard to this problem of very sharply escalating crude oil costs and petroleum product prices in the Atlantic provinces? What specific measures is the minister prepared to indicate that the government is prepared to put before the conference of first ministers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to indicate that today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the House was told by the Prime Minister on November 20 that the government was studying the effect the energy situation would have on the economy, and the regional impact of these increases in particular, can the Acting Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister for that matter or, indeed, any minister indicate whether this study of the regional economic impact of higher petroleum prices had been completed before the two-Canada pricing policy was announced by the Prime Minister last week and, if so, when is the government going to indicate to the House what this study has reported and contains?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have indicated that there have been assessments under way in their departments with regard to the possible impact of increased international prices and, indeed, of increased international shortages on the economy. These assessments have been under way, and I gather are still under full consideration.


OIL-DIVISION OF PROCEEDS FROM EXPORT TAX
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to clarify an answer he gave yesterday as reported on page 8676 of Hansard since it seems to differ to some extent from previous answers he has given. Do I understand him correctly that the division of the proceeds of the export tax will be as follows: 50 per cent of the moneys collected will be paid to the provinces in lieu of the royalties they have foregone and the other 50 per cent will be used by the federal government to invest in the development of oil resources in the oil producing provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was actually energy resources in the provinces that produce oil, and this would not necessarily be confined to oil alone. It would depend on the option of the province in particular.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is one point I would like to have clarified. Yesterday the minister said, "the federal government would then invest the balance of the tax in the producing provinces." Will all of the 50 per cent the federal government is going to collect be spent in the oil producing provinces or does this apply to all provinces using energy-electric power and so on?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir. It is with regard to the oil producing provinces alone. In other words, a province which at the moment does not have production could not expect to receive any part of this sum by way of federal investment in energy resources.
December 13, 1973


DOMESTIC CRUDE OIL-DISCUSSIONS WITH ALBERTA ON MAINTENANCE OF PRICE AND SECURING OF AGREEMENT BY OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The Prime Minister said on December 6 that the government "will, therefore, undertake new discussions with the government of Alberta and with the oil companies to secure their agreement to maintain the price of domestically produced oil." Will the minister say whether these discussions have taken place with the province of Alberta and whether the government has secured agreement from the oil companies to maintain the present price levels on crude oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the oil companies, there has not been universal agreement. Some companies have indicated they would like to come and discuss the full implications of the request. With regard to Alberta, I think it is fair to say there is not agreement at the moment by that province.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Have any discussions taken place on this question with the province of Alberta since December 6?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in the House and I personally have not been able to pursue this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking supplementaries, the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon. member for Dauphin and others. Perhaps we might complete the first round of questions and return to supplementaries immediately thereafter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have not had a chance to obtain a copy of the communique he tabled as it was not yet available. I should like to ask the minister whether the report that there was some agreement on an informal, unstructured basis or something or other regarding consultation between Canada and the European Economic Community makes any change whatsoever in the status quo in relations between Canada and the European Economic Community? Was there any advance from what we have had until now?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have received suggestions from the European Economic Community that they would be prepared to issue a declaration dealing with economic relations between Canada and the community. We have said that in principle we are interested, and we are having discussions along these lines. We have also been able to
Oral Questions
make some informal arrangements for consultation, so I believe we are making advances on both fronts.


David Lewis: I understand that one of the objectives of the government was to have a representative of the European Economic Community in Ottawa so that there could be direct relations between our government and the community. I understand also that so far this has not been agreed to by the community. Under these circumstances, is the community taking the position that their ambassador or representative in Washington is also assigned to Canada, or is there further discussion about a representative in Ottawa?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman will remember that we have established a mission to the community. For the time being our ambassador to the community is the main link between the community and Canada. I also suggested to the commissioner responsible for international affairs, Sir Christopher Soames, that the Community should reciprocate by establishing an office in Canada. This is under consideration.


David Lewis: In view of the obvious importance of the trade relationship between Canada and the European Economic Community, and as the minister emphasized in a recent statement to the Canadian Institute of International Affairs that the European Economic Community is by far our second largest trading partner, would the minister indicate what obstacles there are in the way of a direct representative from Brussels to Canada and a more formal arrangement for relations between ourselves and the community? What are the obstacles that stand in the way?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is no obstacle, of course, to formal arrangements since we have an ambassador accredited to the community. I repeat what I said before. This is the main link that we have with the community at the moment. We have been urging upon the community a reciprocal arrangement under which they would have an office in Ottawa. I understand that, like so many other things, it is financial considerations among others that stand in the way.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since cutbacks in the LIP budget for most ridings are as unexplainable in view of unemployment as the delay in announcing their official acceptance, does the minister intend to increase estimates in the ridings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that matter has been considered by myself and my colleagues. In light of all the other

December 13, 1973
Oral Questions
demands upon the government in the fiscal framework, it has been decided not to make a further allocation available to the Local Initiatives Program for this winter.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether there are political reasons behind the non priority classification of some projects, like six out of 17 day care centres in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that his question, asked in those terms, is not in keeping with our Standing Orders and is therefore out of order. However, the hon. member may wish to rephrase his question.


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


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


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF CERTAIN PROJECTS
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the minister prepared to advise the House of the date on which certain projects will be announced for the Quebec ridings where they have not yet been announced, while others for a number of ridings with Liberal MPs have already been announced on TV?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are just as many projects for Liberals that are not announced as there are for members of other parties that have not been announced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might return to the subject of the first question. I will see the hon. member for Don Valley after we have had a few supple-mentaries to the question asked originally by the Leader of the Opposition.


OIL-METHOD OF DISPOSING OF PORTION OF EXPORT TAX PROCEEDS TO BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could he clarify a bit further the form that the 50 per cent of the export tax to be used for investment in the producing provinces will take? Can he indicate whether the money will be appropriated to the national petroleum corporation that the government intends to set up or will it be given directly to the provincial government if it should come up with some kind of development project, or is it the intention to allocate the money to private industry if it indicates a desire to explore for or develop energy products of some sort?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, very likely it would be appropriated to the national petroleum corporation, although there might be other federal entities, for example, Eldorado Nuclear, which might have the benefit of this.


OIL EXPORT TAX-PORTION OF PROCEEDS TO BE PAID TO PRODUCING PROVINCES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is it the intention of the government to see that the provinces that produce the oil resource will continue to receive any money obtained under any form of mechanism by the federal treasury wholly or in part under the proposed formula? What I am saying is this. As the world market for crude oil appears to be increasing in price, under any mechanism which applies to our exports of crude petroleum to the United States and other countries, if any, will the export tax or charge, being the amount representing the differential between the frozen price and the world price, payable to the federal government be paid to the province wholly or in part that produces the resources in question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is specifically referring to the export charge, the manner of the division of that charge will, of course be subject to discussion at the federal-provincial conference. With regard to the export tax, as the hon. member will see from the motion, that will be available in the terms which I have described a number of times in the House.


REQUEST THAT OIL PROBLEMS NOT BE DEALT WITH UNTIL FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact there are many problems in reference to energy, particularly crude petroleum, one example being that Saskatchewan has set up a mechanism whereby it will take 100 per cent of the tax, which will of course cost the consumers of Ontario and other users of that crude petroleum a considerable amount more than if the oil had come from the province of Alberta, will the minister agree, because of these economic problems and the energy crisis as it exists due to transportation, that all these problems should be left to be worked out at the first ministers' conference so there will be uniformity across the board and equity and fairness to all provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the export tax, it seems to me that the policy is clear. I think parliament should go ahead and enact the authority to collect the tax and redistribute it as I indicated. With regard to the emergency allocation of supplies, this is something that should be dealt with at an early date in case of prejudice to consumers in the eastern part of the Canadian market that may occur.


Mr. Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Don Valley, but perhaps I should have allowed the hon. member for
December 13, 1973

Athabasca a further supplementary. After that I will recognize the hon. member for Don Valley.


OIL EXPORT TAX-AVAILABILITY TO PROVINCES OF PROCEEDS TO BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister indicated the tax will most likely be given to the national petroleum corporation, does this mean the corporation will be restricted to this field of activity in Alberta and to some extent Saskatchewan, or how will he ensure that this money will indeed go to those provinces if given to that corporation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, these funds will be available, probably through that corporation or other federal entities, for that purpose in those provinces. Of course, there will be substantial additional funds available to the corporation for its operations elsewhere.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is really to get clarification of some of the answers the minister has given in the past few days. Is it the position of the government at the present time that nothing can be done to ameliorate the rapid rate of inflation we are experiencing in the country through adjustments in monetary exchange and fiscal policies, which have been the traditional tools for dealing with this problem?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: If that is the case, can the minister please explain to the House why the government is not doing something to ameliorate inflation through adjustments in the monetary, fiscal and exchange rate policies?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain to the hon. member on several occasions. It is.


James McPhail Gillies: If that is the case, given the fact we have so much uncertainty in Canada's economy at the present time, as represented by the changes in stock market prices and new forecasts going on all over the country, will the minister undertake to make a statement in the House before the recess indicating what in fact the monetary, fiscal and exchange policies of this country are at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if there is an appropriate opportunity I will be pleased to do that in the House. The hon. member can look at past debates. He has had an accounting on a regular basis when opportuni-
Oral Questions
ties in the House allowed. He just has to read those speeches again.


POSITION OF MINISTER RESPECTING GROWTH
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of forecasts of most western nations that economic activity will be reduced, is the minister still confident the Canadian economy will continue to grow at his previous forecast rate in view of the petroleum shortage?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the potential energy shortage may have some negative effect not only on the growth of the Canadian economy but also on other major industrial economies, but at the moment there is no way of knowing the extent of the effect because there is no way of predicting in economic terms what the extent of the shortfall will be. The threat to the economy should not be minimized but, on the other hand, it should not be exaggerated, because the situation is still volatile. I have already said, and I repeat, that conservation directed toward the use of petroleum by individuals and by industry could be practised in such a way as to minimize the effect on the economy. I repeat that the underlying strength of the economy is still good, based on the potential of very heavy capital investment.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, can the minister identify any sectors that might be adversely affected?


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering that the deficit reported yesterday in Canada-United States auto trade amounted to $129 million, representing a turn around over the same period from last year of over $300 million in favour of the United States, can the minister inform the House what reasons his department has found for this deficit and what he intends to do to correct it?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday my parliamentary secretary answered a somewhat similar question, pointing out that the main reason was the unprecedented growth of demand in Canada, something like 31 per cent over the same period a year ago compared with a growth figure of 16 per cent in the United States. A secondary reason is that there has been a particularly heavy growth in the sale of commercial vehicles in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that this increase in Canadian demand for North American cars should be reflected in the purchase of cars produced in Canada rather than in the United States, the minister's answer

December 13, 1973
Oral Questions
would appear nonsensical. May I ask the hon. gentleman, keeping this in mind, what he is doing to change the pattern of investment in the auto industry, 95 per cent of which has taken place in the United States in the last two years?


Alastair William Gillespie: On previous occasions I have indicated we are following a regular and continuing process of consultation with the presidents of the automobile manufacturing firms in Canada. One of the points I have raised with the presidents is precisely the point just raised by the hon. member-the need for new investment in Canada. For this reason I was particularly happy this morning when the Chrysler Corporation announced a major new plant facility for the production of commercial vehicles in Windsor.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the continued effort by Arab oil producing states to force their demands on Israel by refusing oil to nations considered sympathetic to the State of Israel, even though such nations may desire friendship with the Arab states. Can the minister advise us whether this situation has in any way caused Canada to change its position with regard to either Israel or the Arab oil producing states?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question is no. There has been no change in the policy of the government, since I spoke in the House on October 16, as a result of pressure by the Arab states or otherwise.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister assure the House that, while recognizing there are differences that must be settled between Israel and the Arab states, Canada continues unequivocally to support the right of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The right of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries is fundamental to the policy of Canada in the Middle East.


INDUSTRY
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce supplementary to a previous question. In view of the fact that the comparable deficit figures for foreign imports other than United States cars under the auto pact show a deficit of $373 million for the first nine months of this year, has the minister considered approaching the car

companies with a view to holding down prices as he did last year so that North American cars will be in a better position to compete with offshore imports?


Alastair William Gillespie: May I say first of all as far as the deficit is concerned that one can expect there will be fluctuations from year to year; sometimes they will be in our favour and sometimes not. A second point, and one which I think is very important, is that the commitment I obtained from the automobile companies just about a year ago pertained not only to the 1973 models but to the 1974 models. I would expect the automobile companies to honour that undertaking, that is, that any price increases which take place in Canada will narrow the price gap.


Mr. O'Connor:: Can the minister tell us whether a date has been set for resumption of negotiations with the United States on the auto pact, which have been delayed from time to time over the past year?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are prepared to meet with the United States authorities at any time.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: The answer is no, then.


ROLE OF DEPARTMENT IN DECISION BY CHRYSLER TO CONSTRUCT NEW TRUCK PLANT
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises from the welcome announcement by Chrysler this morning-


Mr. Bell:: Stick to wiretapping.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -of a new manufacturing plant for light trucks in Windsor. In light of the fact the press announcement referred to the requirement of the production-sales ratio under the auto pact, can the minister advise the House what role he or his department played in bringing about this desirable decision?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I would think that to do this the minister would have to revert to motions.


Thomas Miller Bell: It was force majeure.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Having regard to the fact the Unemployment Insurance Commission headquarters budget has increased from $6 million in 1972 to $17 million in 1973-the figures are for the first six months of these years-can the minister tell the House whether he expects this alarming acceleration to continue for the balance of this year?
December 13, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: I have indicated that the Unemployment Insurance Commission, both headquarters and field operations, will meet the budget which was discussed and placed before the main estimates committee early this spring.


William Charles Frank: I am not sure I understand what the minister means. Would he inform us whether headquarters costs have increased in comparison with last year and, if so, by approximately what percentage?


Robert Knight Andras: I cannot give the hon. member the percentage. All that detail was available to the committee and to all members who attended the committee this spring when the estimates were considered.


REPORTED OPPOSITION TO INCREASE IN PREMIUMS- POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS TO ACT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a poll which was reported in the Toronto Sun of November 30. Some 4,779 people were canvassed and the result indicated that 98.3 per cent of them felt that the recent 40 per cent increase in premiums was unjustified and 95 per cent of those polled believe there should be an inquiry into the whole workings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Does the minister believe these figures are serious enough for him to bring in amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, as requested by his colleague, the Minister of the Environment?


Robert Knight Andras: There have been two or three very interesting polls in the last few days, as a matter of fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Knight Andras: -and these may be giving rise to some of the anxiety shown by hon. members on certain other matters. But the answer is no different from the information I have given in the House in the last several days, which is that the whole question of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, its budgets and the benefits paid will in the ordinary course of events be before hon. members when our main estimates are placed before the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Having regard to the anxiety felt by many Canadians, and expressed by the people of the city of Toronto, surely the minister is not saying now that we must wait until February or March of 1974?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Could the hon. minister tell the House whether the negotiations between the National Capital Commission, the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality and the City of Vanier concerning the Vanier arterial have been concluded and whether this road will be more like a drive than like a highway?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Order paper.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply briefly to the question. I am sure the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier appreciates that, so far as the second part of the question is concerned, it is the kind of question that should be placed on the order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the first part of the hon. member's question, after which I will see the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, last spring I refused to allow NCC property to be used for the Vanier arterial, which was then designed as a speedway. Negotiations have been going on ever since and I am now prepared to recommend to my colleagues use of the NCC property for development to NCC standards of a four lane parkway for the Vanier arterial which meets the satisfaction of the city of Vanier and residents of the Edinburgh district. I appreciate the help and support that my hon. friend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the recent NATO conference to the effect that all NATO members must be accorded equal status in the decision-making process, would the minister outline to the House just how long Canada expects to be able to maintain that position for

December 13, 1973
Oral Questions
this country in view of the fact that following our cutback of 50 per cent of our commitment five years ago the Minister of National Defence just recently announced that there was no intention of replacing the worn out and obsolete tanks which were supposed to be the main component of our contribution in Europe?


Marc Lalonde: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The amounts earmarked by Quebec to that end will come out of Quebec's own funds. The money paid by the federal to Quebec will be exactly the same as that paid to all the other provinces, that is an average of $20 a month for every child.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will answer briefly. The position I took in the NATO council on the equality issue was supported by many of our friends, and I suspect that we will continue to be a very welcome member of NATO indefinitely.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I owe it to hon. members to mention that there are only a very few minutes left before the end of the question period and there are still a number of distinguished members who are not frontbenchers waiting for a chance to ask questions.


George Harris Hees: In view of the very severe cutback that Canada has made in its military commitment to NATO, is it government policy that in the eventuality that armed conflict breaks out in Europe at some time in the future it will be Canada's policy to fight to the last American?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* *
*


PLANS FOR BUILDING NEW WELLAND SHIP CANAL
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question was originally going to be addressed to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister since it involves some matters dealing with external affairs. In view of the fact that millions of dollars have been spent on expropriating some of the most valuable farmland in the Niagara region supposedly for a new Welland canal, and in view of the fact the United States Corps of Engineers has made a report to the U.S. government to the effect that unless an enlarged seaway is developed by Canada before 1980 they will do it on their own, what plans does the government have, if any, to build a new Welland ship canal and to enlarge the dockage and the flow of ships? If the government has no plans, why not?


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the noise, I understand that you have recognized me. I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the government of Quebec has decided to implement its own family allowance plan, that apparently the rates will vary from $3 to $9 according to the number of children in the family and that youngsters from 12 to 17 will receive a supplementary allowance of $5 a month, can the minister tell us whether the family allowances paid in Quebec will be considered as taxable earnings by the federal government, like the allowances paid by Quebec itself?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already answered that question. Since Quebec has cancelled children exemptions for income tax purposes, it was decided that allowances paid by the provincial government to children living in that province would naturally not be subject to federal income tax.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the confusion in another field, will the federal government contribute financially to the payment of family allowances as instituted in Quebec, and if so, to what extent?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking for a report or statement which I suggest to the hon. member very respectfully, ought to be made on motions.


J. Trevor Morgan: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


ORDER STOPPING EXPORT OF MEDIUM CRUDE OIL FROM SASKATCHEWAN TO UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister received any objections from producers of medium crude in southwestern and southeastern Saskatchewan against the order stopping their exports of medium crude to the United States?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be correct in saying yes. The decision, of course, was that of the National Energy Board. I have contacted the board for their advice in this regard.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another question for information. In view of the fact Saskatchewan has no refinery capacity to handle this medium crude, would the minister consult with the National Energy Board and see whether they would give reconsideration to this order?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir, I will be glad to do
so.
December 13, 1973


FEED GRAIN-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER WILL ATTEND MEETING ON PROVISION OF SUPPLIES TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask a question of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the statement by Mr. Dernier, vice-chairman of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, that there is only ten days' supply of feed grain on hand in eastern Canadian positions, is the minister going to comply with the request that the Canadian Wheat Board, the grains group in Ottawa and the railways meet with the Federation of Agriculture in Moncton to discuss this situation, and is the minister himself going to attend that meeting?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the decision to have such a meeting was partly that of the grains group as well as the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, and I anticipate that the others who have been invited to attend will be at the meeting. I anticipate that the meeting will proceed at the official level.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have about come to the end of the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar might be allowed a supplementary, and then I will see the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the Leader of the Opposition before calling orders of the day.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact these same people have made the statement that the shortage of boxcars is desperate, and in view of the repeated assurances by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Transport that they have a commitment from the railways to move adequate amounts of grain, can the minister say when either he or the Minister of Transport will make a definitive statement to the House in regard to how this is going to be done, instead of just passing the buck?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure unintentionally, has once again misstated the exact nature of the commitment which was to supply a basic number of cars for the movement of grain. The railways have been responding to the urgent requests from the people who require grain and have been meeting special needs as they arise. It is, of course, a difficult situation as long as the backlog which has occurred in this country is not made up and as long as there is tremendous pressure on the railways to move many other products. But within those difficult circumstances every effort is being made to ensure that the most urgently required supplies arrive.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rather take exception to the minister saying I am making a misstatement of the facts either intentionally or unintentionally when anyone who reads the record of the questions and answers in this House knows there is a shortage of transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


REASON FOR REDUCTION OF OBLIGATORY SERVICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the recently announced cross-country advertising campaign by the Canadian Armed Forces to fill vacancies, and in particular because of the shortage of aircrew in the Canadian Armed Forces, why was the period of obligatory service required of ROTP pilots reduced so that they now have to serve only five years from date of commissioning?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would need to make inquiry into the detail in order to be able to reply to the hon. member.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Why was the period of obligatory service not similarly reduced for direct entry officers who joined after graduating from university at their own expense whereas the ROTP officers received their university education at public expense?


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


OIL-POSITION OF SASKATCHEWAN ON MAINTENANCE OF PRICE FREEZE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the indication that the government of Saskatchewan will impose a tax of $2.20, I believe, on each barrel of oil leaving the province, whether or not it is going to other parts of Canada, has the minister received any assurance from the government of Saskatchewan that the freeze will be maintained beyond December 31 on oil leaving Saskatchewan? Has the minister been in touch with the government of Saskatchewan about that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not received a copy of the legislation but we would intend to have it at an early date and form an opinion upon the proposed legislation, following which undoubtedly we will be in touch with the Saskatchewan government.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
[Transla tion]


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will first recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) who is rising on a point of order and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).

December 13, 1973
[ English]
Oral Questions BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the usual question. Can the government House leader tell us what the business is to be up to and including Christmas?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, my plan had been to clear a number of the remaining bills before suggesting an adjournment or prorogation. These include the oil allocation bill, the bill in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) which is to be given first reading tomorrow, and the election expenses bill. It would be desirable if we could complete all these by the end of next week. I certainly would be agreeable to a suggestion concerning additional hours and days of sitting between now and the end of next week.


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


EXPORT OF OIL BY GOLDEN EAGLE CANADA LIMITED TO UNITED STATES
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my point of order could probably have been raised through a question in a few moments, but I have just received a report.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to a report published in the newspaper La Presse that Golden Eagle Canada Limited of Saint-Romuald continues to export oil to the United States at the rate of 2.5 million barrels. Is the minister aware of that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Temiscamingue will admit, I am sure, that this is not a point of order, but with the consent of the House the minister might perhaps answer briefly the hon. member's question. And then I shall have to call orders of the day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is with a permit issued by the National Energy Board that such exports may be made. I believe a certain type of oil products produced by the Golden Eagle Canada Limited refinery are surplus to Canada's needs. At the present time the Quebec market cannot absorb all these products, which is why this permit has been granted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That seems to dispose of the point of order.


Mr. Atkey:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the government House leader would indicate when the government intends to bring on Bill C-176, the protection of privacy bill, which today was referred back to the House by a vote of the Senate Committee on Justice and Constitutional Affairs with an amendment to delete the notice provision.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the bill has come back. If it does it will be added to the list I have already mentioned.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar point of order dealing with the business of the House. I want to ask the government House leader this question. In view of the fact the Minister of Justice appeared before the judicial committee of the other place and apparently persuaded the other place to flout the will of the House, or at least return the bill for reconsideration, is that bill still considered a priority measure and will the Minister of Justice be given another opportunity in this House?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether that is a point of order. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege. It seems to me that hon. members-I have taken the liberty to mention this before-from time to time use points of order to ask questions that might have been asked during the question period. I appreciate that some hon. members were not recognized and did not have an opportunity to ask questions, but these are not points of order. No member has referred me to a citation or to a Standing Order in relation to the alleged point of order. The Minister of Justice on a question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter of privilege since the hon. member has suggested I have in some way flouted the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: As usual, hon. members opposite, in complete ignorance of the facts applaud. The fact of the matter is that I made very clear in the other place that I hoped they would not in any way change the bill because of my strong desire to see the bill pass into law as fast as possible and my concern that it might be delayed as a result of an amendment. Whatever my view of the particular amendment was, I made that clear and did in no way flout the will of the House. I would ask the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, to apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. This whole matter arose, out of a point of order which I ruled was hardly a point of order. The minister rises on a question of privilege. I doubt that we should pursue the matter. The hon. member for New Westminster rises on the question of privilege.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In dealing with the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of Justice to advise the House clearly whether or not he has changed
December 13, 1973

his own opinion with regard to the notification section in the wiretapping bill, and whether he made any recommendation to the committee of the other place in that regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notice of a Ways and Means motion: December 12, 1973-Consideration of a motion to concur in a Ways and Means motion with respect to the Excise Tax Act, (laid upon the table, December 11, 1973)-The Minister of Finance.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We understood that this Ways and Means resolution was to come forward tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, today.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That goes through on motions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to this motion on the ground that there are two questions involved in it. I would request, therefore, in accordance with the procedure of the House, that you order that the motion be divided into two questions, namely, the question on paragraph 1 and the question on paragraph 2. I assure you that my purpose is not to delay the consideration of this matter by the House and, if my point of order is found to be well taken, I wish to co-operate in seeing that the matter is put before the House in the form of two resolutions as rapidly as possible.
The authorities with regard to the two questions being involved in the resolutions are contained in the judgment of Mr. Speaker Macnaughton relating to the flag debate found in the Votes and Proceedings of June 15, 1964, volume 111, at pages 427 to 431. I am not suggesting for a moment that the question before Mr. Speaker Macnaughton was the same as the question I am raising today. I simply refer to that as a judgment in which the principle and the precedents are considered.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the principles contained in paragraph 1 of the motion, and the principle in paragraph 2, are so different as to constitute different questions upon which a member may vote "yes" on one and "no" on the other. If the motion is adopted in its present form, Standing Order 60 (11) provides that the vote should be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion. I assume that the purpose of having the two different principles incorporated in this motion is to justify one bill being brought in. Indeed, the title of the motion is "Notice of Ways and Means to amend the Excise Tax Act" which is referred to in paragraph 2, and paragraph 1 is on an entirely different matter.
Excise Tax Act
I raise my point of order at this time because I feel it would be rather late and inconvenient, and would cause unnecessary delay to do it at the time the bill is before the House. It is true that the bill would provide an opportunity for debate, but the opportunity to amend a tax bill is limited at best. In the present case, the opportunity to amend in a limited way has been pretty well forestalled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who has combined the bill with an appropriation provision and has extended the royal recommendation to cover not only the appropriation of public revenue but the Ways and Means provisions as well. The Chair will appreciate that, under numerous Speakers' rulings, such an umbrella recommendation precludes almost any amendment by a member of this House who is not a minister of the Crown.
So, I say that paragraphs 1 and 2 contain different principles which should be put before the House separately. The principle in paragraph 2 is the one indicated in the heading of the motion-the taxing provision to amend taxing legislation, the Excise Tax Act. The principle in paragraph 1 of the resolution is quite different. Under this paragraph the House is asked, or will be asked in the bill, to delegate to the Governor in Council power to impose a charge, within a ceiling of $4 per barrel, on crude oil exported from Canada in any month commencing with February 1974, the charge to be paid by the person holding a licence under Part VI of the National Energy Board Act to export the crude oil, the charge to be administered, enforced and collected by the National Energy Board. In other words, this paragraph No. 1 relates to the National Energy Board and not to standard taxing legislation such as the Excise Tax Act dealt with in paragraph 2.
For example, the following principles are implicit in the consideration of the part of the bill which will result from this part of the motion. They are propositions upon which members of the House may hold an opinion directly opposed to the opinion they might hold with respect to paragraph 2. First of all, a member may be opposed to the proposition that this House should delegate to the Governor in Council the power to impose a charge. I hasten to emphasize I am not debating the merits of the charge, I am just indicating the range of considerations.
Second, a member might be opposed to the proposition that the Governor in Council should be delegated the power to vary a charge or to choose not to impose a charge in any month. Third, he might be opposed to the proposition that the Governor in Council may impose a charge but, coupled with the right of the Governor in Council under section 17 of the Financial Administration Act to remit any tax, impost, duty or toll, vary that charge by remitting it totally, partially, conditionally or unconditionally in the case of some person or persons but not in the case of other persons.
Fourth, a member may be opposed to the proposition that the National Energy Board, which is a court of record under subsection 10(1) of the National Energy Board Act and, therefore, one of the constitutional courts of judicature established under section 101 of the BNA Act, should administer, enforce and collect a tax.
Fifth, a member may oppose a principle that appears to be contrary to our constitution with respect to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and our statute, the Financial

December 13, 1973
Excise Tax Act
Administration Act, which provides for the control of public revenues. Section 102 of the BNA Act provides that all duties and revenues shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund. The member might well ask: Where does this charge, arising from paragraph 1, when collected by the National Energy Board, go? Is it public money within the definition of the Financial Administration Act? Is it money paid to Canada for a special purpose under the definition of the act?
I just mention these points to indicate the extent of the difference in principle involved in paragraph 2, which is a simple amendment of the taxing statute, the Excise Act, and the principle involved in consideration of paragraph 1, which is an amendment to the National Energy Board Act and which raises, among others, the questions that I have indicated here this afternoon. In short, the resolution and any resulting bill contain two principles, one the amendment to a standard tax act and the other, as I say, involving a change and an amendment to the National Energy Board Act, two principles upon which hon. members may wish to vote differently.
Omnibus bills are always difficult, but I suggest they are quite unacceptable in the area of taxation. Surely, Sir, we have to be particularly strict and careful with regard to measures relating to taxation. I repeat that my purpose is not delay. My purpose is to see that the two principles are put before the House separately, so that the House can properly take a choice with regard to each principle.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a very brief comment on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) which, in its essence, suggests that the House ought to be given an opportunity to deal separately with items in a notice of a ways and means resolution.
It seems to me that frequently in this House we have had a notice of ways and means that covered a variety of changes, a variety of tax issues. I believe if the hon. member will refer back to the most massive changes in tax law ever made in Canada, he will find that the notices of ways and means upon which it was based covered a variety of issues upon which a member could differ. As a matter of fact, all that this motion does, if accepted, is to form the basis upon which the minister can bring in a bill, or bills, as the relevant Standing Order suggests. Then, when the bill comes forward it is possible for the House of Commons, either sitting with the Speaker in the Chair or, as this bill would imply, in the committee of the whole House, to deal with each item separately.
It would seem to me that the House then would have an opportunity, if it wishes, to differ in its opinion with respect to any item. But I would go even further and say that while the Leader of the Opposition has argued that paragraph 1 represents one principle, and paragraph 2 a second, it would be possible in paragraph 2 for a member to differ about various items within that paragraph. Certainly, one might take a different view as to what one might be able to support, for example (a) in the month of October the rate is 40 cents per barrel, so it is conceivable that one could look at (d) and say $2.20 is really too much. He could divide his opinion in that manner.

I could conceive all kinds of speculative reasons why members would want to divide their opinions on a matter within two paragraphs-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It isn't a matter of principle you are arguing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member for Edmonton West is talking about a principle, I would point out it is precisely the same principle that is involved in both.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I beg your pardon.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And I beg the hon. member's pardon, but that is my view.
All that is implied in paragraph 1 is that because it is impossible to predict circumstances that may prevail after the end of January, an upper limit is set on the charge or tax, and that the Governor in Council is asking authority for subsequent months to establish a charge. That is asked for, not because there is a different principle involved, but because it is impossible to predict what the circumstances may be in subsequent months. It is the application of precisely the same principle, and because we are not perfect forecasters we do not know what may be the situation at February 1.
It is precisely the same over-all principle involved in both paragraphs. There is a different application of the same principle in paragraphs 1 and 2, if that is the foundation that the hon. member alleges. If the argument of the Leader of the Opposition is accepted we would be confronted with a situation in which every single sentence, every single item, every single thought in any bill ought to be put in the form of a single notice of ways and means. I must say that this is a very surprising proposal to split a ways and means motion. I do not know what that obliges anybody to do. Does it oblige the minister to bring in two bills or one bill? It seems to me that it does not solve anything. If the point is to be raised, it certainly ought to be raised when the House knows whether there will be one bill, two bills or three bills, and it does not know that yet.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a brief word on this point of order, and perhaps in the process I may raise another one.
I confess that I am not concerned about the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), namely, his objection to the two subjects that are set out in the notice of ways and means motion being included in one bill, or at this moment being before us in one motion. It does seem to me that there is a relationship between the kind of charge that is to be levied in October, November, December and January, and the kind of charge that is to be levied from February 1 on.
However I rose, Mr. Speaker, because although I do not see any objection to that I am concerned, and I think we should be told what is going to happen, over the fact that there is on today's order paper a notice of a bill to be introduced which seems to cover everything that is in this ways and means motion, but has something more in it. The something more is a provision for an arrangement under which there is allocated certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax.
December 13, 1973

As I say, I do not feel I can support the case of the Leader of the Opposition for separating this notice of ways and means motion into two parts, but it does seem to me that if we pass this notice of ways and means motion, the bill that is introduced ought to be confined to what is in that ways and means motion.
May I draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 60(11) which says:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
That seems pretty clear. In other words, if we vote for this motion, this notice of ways and means motion, as we shall, then it is in order to bring in a bill, or bills, based on the provisions of that motion. It would seem to me that one bill could do, although the Leader of the Opposition might argue for two. But apparently waiting in the wings is a bill, according to today's order paper, which reads:
The Minister of Finance-Bill intituled: "An act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act-
It does not stop there; it goes on to say:
-and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax".
Then, the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General spells this out a little more by indicating the fact that 50 per cent of the revenues so obtained are to be transmitted to the provinces concerned.
I hope Your Honour will not feel that I am raising a different point of order, for we are in the same universe as it were. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) feels that there should be more than one bill based on this resolution. I do not support that argument. But I am not concerned about the fact that if we pass this motion apparently we are going to get a bill with something in it that is not in the ways and means motion. I would suggest that either the ways and means motion should have been amended in reference to the allocation of the revenues, or this matter should have been in a separate bill, one that will provide the formula for allocating the revenues obtained from the charges and taxes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reserve my right to argue the second point of order whenever it is relevant to have it raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that point if I may, Mr. Speaker, surely we have the right to know what the government's intentions are in view of the fact that we have the ways and means motion in front of us and we have this notice of a bill which talks of one bill, not two, which seems to say that the bill is going to do the things in the ways and means motion but is going to do something else as well.
I have no quarrel with one bill covering everything that is in the ways and means motion, but I think that the formula for allocating the anticipated revenues should be in a separate bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that hon. members would want me to rule immediately on the interesting points which have been raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposi-
Excise Tax Act
tion (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). A number of different points have been raised by hon. members and one of them, to which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has alluded, has referred to the royal recommendation. I have looked at the royal recommendation, and while part of it may not be relevant to the ways and means motion and I recognize that this may give rise to some difficulty, perhaps it would be the part of wisdom to have the royal recommendation drafted in such a way-if His Excellency would agree-so that it would be clear what the bill intends to do.
In so far as the ways and means motion is concerned, my understanding is that the hon. member's difficulties are perhaps not so much in connection with the motion but are in connection with a bill which will come before us as a result of the motion. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has suggested that there should be two bills. The advice I have is that we have had bills which were designed both to tax and to apportion the revenue, and that there are a number of precedents to this effect. I wonder where the Chair would get the authority to say at this point that we should split the bill.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker MacNaughton in relation to the resolution on the flag debate. Of course, we had before us at that time a resolution and not a bill. I am not quite sure either that there is no precedent for splitting the bill, but I would hesitate to rule at this point and I wonder if we would achieve anything by splitting the motion, to have one bill coming up later based on two motions. That is the point I would like to look into briefly if hon. members would allow me to do so.
The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is entirely different. He felt that the bill as proposed might go beyond the terms of the proposed ways and means resolution. I had not looked into that aspect of the problem, and I would be disposed to look at it a little more closely if hon. members would allow the Chair to consult all these documents, the ways and means resolution, the notice of the bill which is before us and the royal recommendation to see what we can come up with that might satisfy hon. members. As I said a moment ago, based on the precedents which I know, it would be very difficult for the Chair to make a decision now which would bind us to a conclusion that the bill which will come before us should be split so that we would have two different questions in two different bills for the consideration of the House.
I thank hon. members for the advice they have given the Chair and the suggestions they have made that the matter be looked into. This is what I will do as soon as I can and perhaps later this afternoon I can indicate to hon. members what my conclusion is after having studied citations of the rules and precedents. Perhaps, we might go on to the next order of business for the moment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand your desire to have time to reflect upon this decision. The House may wish to divide on this motion. I am not sure. But if there is no interest in dividing, then I am not as concerned about when your judgment will be delivered. If there were an indication that the House was to divide, I think I would

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
have to cancel some committee meetings and that is why I wanted to inquire.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if we were going to be divided we are so chivalrous that we would not force the government House Leader to cancel any commitments. In any case, as far as I know there is no intention to divide as far as the resolution is concerned or to raise any objection in that way. I made my point and we are in the hands of the Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight).


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, I believe my friend the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) has the floor. If you would keep me in mind when he has finished, I would certainly give way to allow him to finish his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: 
ENERGY SUPPLIES EMERGENCY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 12, 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.
Peter Colwell Bawden: the producing countries. Third, there must be avoidance of energy waste, through more efficient use of energy. Fourth, the conference called for urgent development of new and alternate energy sources. Those were the conclusions, or at least the highlights, to emerge from the conference. Those conclusions apply as much to Canada as they do to every other country of the world.
The principal exporting countries of the world formed an organization in the 1960's known as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, generally referred to as OPEC. The countries making up that organization consist of Iran, Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Venezuela, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Nigeria. Saudi Arabia, Mr. Speaker, is today the country which for the next few years, more than any other, will be the fulcrum for energy supply in the entire world. Saudi Arabia will produce oil, and just enough oil, to keep the world supply at a level just at or below world demand. One can appreciate the ability of Saudi Arabia to command this position when it is appreciated that its present proven reserves amount to something in the order of 160 billion barrels, and that its daily production of oil is in the order of between 7 million and 8 million barrels a day, and that country has the largest potential oil producing capacity in the world.
Saudi Arabia's oil minister Yamani stated in London recently that even when Israel's withdrawal from Arab lands is completed, production will be restored only back to last September's level. Mr. Speaker, that represents less than current oil requirements and would not allow for the needed growth in oil supplies. In addition, the minister stated that only on their own timetable would the Saudi Arabians restore, gradually, production to the levels of September, 1973. The sheik also said the Arab states will "be more than happy to sit with consuming nations to discuss reasonable decisions on oil prices and production to preserve the world's economic system". He went on to say, however, that "buyers are knocking on our doors" offering higher prices and that it would be illogical to expect the Arab to say, "No, we don't want $10 a barrel for our oil; please make it only $7 per barrel."
I have brought out these details, Mr. Speaker, so that members of this House can appreciate the international factors in the world today which for the next few years will determine the supply and therefore the price. The handwriting is on the wall and the name of the game in the foreseeable future is continued shortages and escalating prices. Even if one assumes that the world will return to a more balanced situation, this will only take place when, according to Saudi Arabia's oil minister, "the Israelis have withdrawn from the territories they have occupied since 1967". I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that considering conditions in that part of the world and the probability that these negotiations will not move quickly, the Arab cutback will continue not just for a few weeks or a few months, but, more than likely, for much, much longer. It seems to me that we cannot look realistically to that part of the world in future for security of supply.
Analysis of future world energy supplies shows three different sets of problems; these relate to timing. The first problem is that which we face now and in the immediate future. The second is the problem which will confront us
Energy Supplies Emergency Act up to the end of the century; and, lastly, we must consider the problems in the very long term. The immediate shortterm energy problem stems essentially from the present tightness in oil supplies, both products and crude. Under today's conditions, when oil constitutes over 50 per cent of energy demand in most countries, the problem is much worse than it was following a similar problem in the late 1950's and again in the late 1960's. Then, there was a good deal of surplus producing capacity in other countries of the world. This surplus does not exist today and will not in the foreseeable future.
Many of the large producing countries in the world have recognized that their reserves are finite. They have, as well, during the last couple of years doubled or tripled the take on a barrel of oil. The result is that while at present they are selling much less oil, the returns on less oil sold are much greater than they were.
An extremely significant factor in the world energy situation is that the energy problem of the United States, of Britain, of Japan or of any other country is not limited in its effects to that one country alone. An energy shortage in a key area today is likely to have world-wide repercussions and effect virtually every other country. Most unfortunately, the people of developing countries will be the hardest hit of all as they, least of all, can afford the high cost of energy which is so critical to their industrial growth. It was this very point that the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) made earlier this week. Canada's economy is inextricably bound to the economies of the United States and the other major trading nations of the world.
A consideration of the energy problems which will affect Canada is no way complete until this critical international component is brought into the mix. All economic planning must now look critically at the short-term and long-term impact. We are headed for continuing energy shortages in the world for the next 10 to 15 years and this will affect the standard of living in many countries. These shortages could translate into economic recession, high unemployment rates and, finally, competition for energy could lead to serious confrontation between nations. This would add nothing to supplies and would have the effect of skyrocketing prices.
For Canada, it is necessary to re-evaluate trade patterns, both of the past and for the future. Canada's abundance of energy presents great opportunities for the long-range future, but also some very disruptive times in the shortterm. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) has told us very little about the activities of his department in this important area. Are we to presume that the action is as minimal as his words? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) meanwhile has said very little and when he does speak, he contradicts everything that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) are saying.
Canadians can hardly comprehend the sweetheart position in which they find themselves in today's world. It is essential, however, that Canada, which today is truly at a vital crossroads, takes the decisions and adopts the policies which maximize the advantages which we truly have

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act and to the advantage of all Canadians. I regret to say that if the actions taken by this government in recent months are any indication, we are not going to maximice the advantages to Canadians. We are going to minimize them. Indeed, if the present short-sighted policies continue, one of the great opportunities in Canada's history may have been lost.
I wish to say something about Canada's oil and gas reserves. Utilizing the probability approach to future oil and gas reserves, the geological survey of Canada's assessment of the mean probable oil potential for Canada from conventional production is about 100 billion barrels. About 16 billion barrels of this have been found. A substantial portion of these additional reserves lie in the frontiers of the Canadian Arctic and the offshore areas. In this hostile environment, and with related logistic problems, it must be anticipated that the cost of finding each barrel of oil and each cubic foot of gas will be a great deal more expensive.
In view of the fact that Canada has today some 10 years' supply of oil reserves at projected producing rates, it is imperative that a massive and aggressive search activity take place. In the Prime Minister's speech on Thursday last, he said the government's first priority was to assure necessary fuel supplies to all Canadians this winter no matter what developments took place abroad. This is an essential goal, Mr. Speaker. However, the actions of this government and at times the government's inaction has gone a long way toward threatening the security of supply to Canadians in the future which surely must be an important consideration in long term energy planning.
The Prime Minister on Thursday, December 6 set out what he called his government's new national oil policy. One of his first statements was that we are confident that no Canadian need fear serious shortages of oil and fuel this winter, provided each one of us plays his part and contributes his share. I presume that for the average Canadian this could only mean cooperation by reducing consumption and saving where possible. If the Prime Minister is confident that this is the case, why has the government asked for extreme wartime type powers as provided for in Bill C-236? Of course Canadians will play their part. They always have. Why then is this government, on one hand, saying Canadians need fear no shortages and, on the other, spreading panic and crisis by demanding extreme and excessive power? Is it because the government itself does not know what are the facts? It is no wonder that Canadians are confused by the information they are getting from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
All that Canadians really want to know are the facts. Because this government is not doing its homework, and because the minister continues to be befuddled, all Canadians have lost confidence in the minister and the government. How could it be otherwise? One day we are on the Saudi-Arabia embargo and the next day we are not. One day the Shaheen refinery crude imports are said to be included in the minister's calculations and a few hours later the minister says they are not. One day we are told that deliveries from the west coast to the east coast are 50,000 barrels a day. A week later, they are 50 per cent higher. The minister told us one day he did not know what volume could be delivered through Ontario to the Quebec

market. Two days later he said 40,000 to 60,000 barrels per day could be delivered in this way. Indeed, a few days later informed transportation companies said that movement of this quantity of western crude oil by land is pure fantasy.
One week the minister is telling the country that the international oil companies are invoking force majeure clauses so they can divert supplies of Canadian crude to other countries. The next day the majority of the importing companies are making it clear that force majeure can or will only be invoked when oil is cut off by the producing country. I believe that many Canadians are now convinced that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is either terribly stupid or he is deliberately trying to mislead them. Canadians are confused. They do not know the situation. They want the facts. They want the truth. They do not want fantasy. They want to be able to understand the extent of the potential oil problem in this country this winter.
In his remarks in the House on December 6, the Prime Minister made a number of references to prices of petroleum on which I wish to comment. The Prime Minister made reference to maintaining the price of domestically produced oil at the current level at least until the end of this winter. He implied that the price of Canadian crude may very well be frozen permanently. The Prime Minister in his remarks also said, however that the days of cheap energy for Canadians must come to an end. All too often his statements do not seem to agree. He said that, in the long run, we must allow the price of domestically-produced crude oil to rise toward a level high enough to ensure development of the Alberta tar sand and other Canadian resources, but not one bit higher. Who shall determine what is "not one bit higher"? We do not have any information on price from the Prime Minister that will give guidance to Canadians nor to the potential explorers for Canadian resources. If the Prime Minister believes what he says, I wonder how he reconciles this with the position taken by his brothers in the NDP who have said that the price of Canadian crude should never rise. The Prime Minister has given no indication, of whether he agrees nor does he seem inclined to do so.
On the question of crude oil pricing, a few short weeks ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told Canadians that the government would be prepared to have them pay world prices for western crude oil priced at the Montreal point, but they would not be forced to pay the inflated price in the United States. I wonder whether anyone has explained to the minister that United States prices are now starting to trend below world prices and this difference will likely increase. Is the minister now going to tell us Canadian prices will be tied to United States prices and not world prices? The situation becomes more confusing by the day.
In his speech last Thursday, the Prime Minister gave some indication of understanding that prices, reserves and ultimate supply, are very much inter-related. This leads me to the most critical aspect of the entire energy question. This applies to Canada as well as any other country. Adequate reserves as well as ability to produce and transport those reserves is vital to Canadians in the future. One of the accepted facts in the world search for oil is that
December 13, 1973

large sums of risk capital are required. Total expenditures in Canada at the present time are running at a rate of almost $2 thousand million a year-some $5 million a day-half of which is being spent in exploration. It is vital, notwithstanding the government's plans for a national oil company, that the volume of present investment is maintained. The Prime Minister said last Thursday that the pace of exploration had not been as rapid as we would wish. In this, I agree with him. If, however, the Prime Minister really means what he said, why has the government dragged its feet so badly when it comes to providing offshore and Arctic permit and leasing regulations? How can the government expect increased activity or, indeed, any activity at all, when those who are expected to risk large sums in the search have been without rules of the game for almost four years? Action, not words, is what is required. If the Prime Minister truly wants to see increased exploratory activity, let him put some rules and incentives where his mouth is.
In the course of his statement, the Prime Minister placed considerable emphasis on the need for participation by Canadians in the development of their own resources. Canadians and members of this party have been urging the government to make this possible for many years. On January 11 I asked the Minister of Finance whether he would consider introducing fiscal changes designed to enable Canadians to invest in the oil and gas industry on the same basis as citizens of foreign countries. Until now, I presume the government has never thought the ownership of our resources was of any importance to Canada or to Canadians. But instead of letting individuals make their own choices, the Canadian taxpayer is now to be taken to the horse races with the national oil company choosing the horses and placing the bets.
When the Prime Minister spoke of the establishment of what might now be known as the Trudeau petroleum company, he told us nothing about the budget of this company. He mentioned an insignificant sum of $40 million for research. We shall need to know a lot more about the government's plans for a national petroleum company before anyone can assess what he has in mind. The Prime Minister did say, however, that one of the functions of the company would be to assist and participate in the operations of small Canadian companies. What the Prime Minister completely missed is the fact that today there are more than 150 independent oil and gas companies searching for hydrocarbons in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and most of the maritime provinces. Since the requirement for risk capital is very great, and since the reserves found relate directly to dollars spent, these independent companies depend on financial partners if they are to continue their search. By reducing confidence among all investors in Canada, the actions of the government will eliminate a viable and important factor in the Canadian oil business, one which is already in place. In fact, the independent oil and gas companies have accounted for more than 80 per cent of wildcat or exploration drilling in Canada in recent years.
I want to say something about the price of oil in eastern Canada. In the speech he made on December 6, the Prime Minister said the government did not wish to discontinue
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Canadian exports and that it did not wish to reduce imports from reliable suppliers. He said nothing, however, about the price of these imports. Members opposite may not have told their constituents that because Canada would have to pay the world price for foreign oil they will be stuck with higher prices in Quebec and the Maritimes than the rest of Canada will be called upon to pay. This situation is made worse because of the expected price increase of nearly 10 per cent by OPEC countries in January. As a result, the people of Quebec and the maritimes will be paying up to nine cents a gallon more for gasoline and heating oil than people in the rest of Canada, and will continue to do so. It may not have been made clear to the people in a large portion of Quebec and the maritimes that the government does not intend to reduce imports from reliable sources. Had the Prime Minister gone on to say that people in those provinces will be paying the world price, and would thus be for ever committed to paying more than the rest of Canada which, it now becomes clear, will be living under some kind of price shelter from now on, their reaction might have been different.
[ Translation]
I hope that hon. members on the other side of the House have understood and clearly explained these facts to their electors.

As to Bill C-236, may I say it is a massive overkill directed to a problem whose existence, or possible existence in the future, has not yet been satisfactorily established by the government. The country has only the government's dubious word that a crisis is developing or could develop. But it is appropriating for itself this vast new authority, ostensibly on a temporary basis. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult to imagine a government such as the one which presently occupies the treasury benches relinquishing such delicious power should the presumed emergency pass.
I urge the government to get their facts straight and come clean with the Canadian people. Let them make clear to the people of Canada that the price of energy is going to rise. Let them tell the whole story of their pricing policy. I ask the minister of energy to stop trying to fool some of the people all of the time-or is it all of the people some of the time? Canadians are prepared for hardships if they become necessary. But tell them the true facts so that they can decide for themselves.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would also urge the government to recognize the vital role energy has played and can play in shaping the future of our country, and stop attempting to play politics with this essential resource, a course which in the end will prove disastrous and greatly to the detriment of all Canadians.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating was tabled on Wednesday of last week with much fanfare and hoopla. Since then, we have become convinced of something we have suspected for a very long time. We are now convinced that the government knows no more about the energy situation in Canada today than it did last month, or even last year. In fact, judging from the conflicting statements which

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
keep coming from the government on this subject, they will not know any more about it in one month or one year from now.
I was intrigued by the statement from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) when he spoke on this bill last Wednesday. Early in his speech he said that as long ago as December of last year, the government had received an assessment of our crude oil situation from the National Energy Board. He went on to state, further, that the government had then taken decisive steps to protect Canadian supplies of gasoline, middle distillates, heavy fuel oil and propane. That was an interesting claim, especially in the light of the present supply position of these products. As we all know too well, there are shortage in all the products, the supply of which the minister told us the government had taken steps to protect. Canadians who are today suffering shortages, especially shortage of home heating oil, may be forgiven if they wonder whether the government deliberately allowed the present energy crisis to develop.
If we accept the government's own statements on the energy situation, we must conclude that they were caught completely unaware by the world-wide energy crisis in spite of the fact that advance warning was given several months ago, if not long before then. On the energy minister's own admission, the government was given an assessment of crude oil supplies and reserves in Canada one year ago. I can only assume that this assessment by the National Energy Board also contained recommendations as to what might be done and what ought to be done to ensure that Canadian consumers would have access to their own oil. I would consider the making of such recommendations to be part of the responsibility of the Energy Board, and if it is not, it certainly should be. It is obvious that information of this sort has not been forthcoming from anyone else in the government.
Mr. Speaker, I sent out a news release last February calling upon the government to acknowledge the fact that an energy crisis was developing and urging that steps be taken to head off a major shortage in Canada of fuel oil and gasoline. This news release was printed in the newspapers in my constituency. I pointed out that there had been longstanding difficulties with respect to the transportation of oil products throughout Canada and that this situation could result in shortages of fuel oil in eastern Canada should supplies from other sources be cut off. Finally, I called on the government to take steps to ensure that Canadian oil would be supplied to all Canadians.
It is a sad commentary on the type of government we have had in the past eight or ten years that I can still make the same recommendations today. I said at that time, and I say now, that what we need right now is a national energy policy, not stop-gap, ad hoc policies designed to get us from one emergency to another. We have been governed for several years in a manner that suggests that we should be satisfied with policies that will get us through crisis after crisis. Every time we turn around, Mr. Speaker, we are called upon to debate crisis solutions and emergency measures, and in every case we have had ample warning to implement policies to head off emergencies and crises. How much longer must we go on in this way?

The energy minister was in his usual form when he introduced the government's latest energy legislation last week. He talked as though he and his colleagues actually knew what they were doing, but we in this House know better. This bill is just more of the same, more of the stop-gap, short-range, non-action that we have seen over and over again since this government sold out to the NDP in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Not power with which to govern, Mr. Speaker, but power for the sake of power. As I listen to the energy minister from day to day, I cannot help wondering whether he has been given too big a job. It could be, and it certainly appears to be, a case of giving a person a job that is over his head. When we watch the energy minister backtracking, vacillating, contradicting himself and his colleagues, and generally fumbling his way around in the energy mess, then we can be forgiven for feeling that he is out of his element.
Perhaps the minister has been given too many portfolios combined into one. It could be that energy, mines and resources should be broken up into three portfolios, but even that would not be any guarantee that those departments would fare any better. It is obvious that the minister has been devoting full time to energy, and that mines and resources are being left to their own devices. This poses another threat, Mr. Speaker. This could be the makings of the next crisis. As we know, emergencies and crises tend to overlap these days, and we should be taking steps now to head off a major crisis in the other departments in the energy minister's portfolio. I think the plain fact is that energy minister should pack it in. We have his number on this side of the House, and, squirm as he likes, he will not be able to fool anyone here any longer. The legislation we are debating is clear evidence that the tenure of the energy minister has been a total disaster.
There is another aspect of the energy crisis that troubles me just as much as the alleged shortage of fuel oil and gasoline, and that is the matter of inflation. It appears to have been overlooked in all of the hoopla over the energy shortage, but inflation continues to climb, and indeed it continues to gallop. Again, those people who are hardest hit by inflation are also those who can least afford to absorb the higher costs involved in the fuel shortage. When buying power of the dollar declines and fuel prices climb, it does not take an economist to know that some people this winter are going to be denied adequate fuel supplies to keep warm. Some people in lower income brackets use fuel oil for cooking as well as for heating, and it can easily be seen that for those people the present fuel crisis is very real.
This government is using the energy crisis to play one party against the other in the House, for purely political purposes, and it is callous and inhuman. It is strange, indeed, that this government would ignore good advice from the official opposition at a time when the energy situation could have been kept under control, and to then play games with the NDP in order to try to squirm out of accepting responsibility for the mess they got us into. The government is in fact playing games with the Canadian people. It is playing games with the health and welfare of the Canadian people, and it is no wonder that it was afraid to risk a vote of confidence this past Monday.
December 13, 1973

Just as the government has repeatedly misinterpreted the signs in the energy situation, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that they also misinterpreted the mood of the NDP. I do not believe that the NDP would have voted against the government, even if this monstrosity of a bill that we are debating had not been tabled. The NDP does not have any more stomach for a confrontation with the electorate than the Liberals have, and it would surprise me greatly if they ever followed through with their hollow threats. It is easy to threaten when you know that you will never have to follow through. The NDP threat is a myth, Mr. Speaker. It is a fable, just as the other child's story of the man who cried wolf was a fable. This government is not only afraid and confused; it is also terribly naive to believe the fable of NDP terror. That will be proved without a shadow of a doubt in the next general election.
In the meantime, we are forced to sit and wait for the government to tell us just how serious the energy situation is, and to tell us what steps it plans to take to restore some semblance of order. This bill is not the answer. As all of us well know, this is a sop to the NDP, a piece of socialistic nonsense that will not do any more in the way of solving the energy crisis than the government has already done. If this is the best that the energy minister can recommend to his colleagues and to this House, then he should step aside and let someone else take a shot at the problem. I do not believe anyone else can do worse, and there is just some slight chance that someone else can do better. I have to suggest that one of the reasons for the present energy crisis is that this government cannot seem to get its priorities sorted out. Part of the reason of this failure stems from the power vested in some ministries, and the lack of power and authority of others.
The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday that bilingualism was more important than getting Alberta oil into Quebec shows clearly that he has his priorities turned upside down. The Prime Minister has a hang-up on bilingualism, and >'t keeps him from seeing many of the important issues with which he should be dealing. If all of the country should suddenly become bilingual, which it will not, what then, Mr. Speaker? Surely, the Prime Minister can find something else to obscure his vision and prevent him from seeing the problems that keep us going from crisis to crisis. Marie Antoinette said that starving people of France should eat cake. The Prime Minister says that the fuel starved people of Canada should become bilingual. What a travesty; what nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on bilingualism programs, and hundreds of millions more have been committed. And yet we have been told that the trans-Canada pipeline bringing oil from the Canadian west could not be extended to Montreal and points east because we could not afford it. I do not accept that shallow excuse, and I hope that my colleagues on this side of the House will not swallow the Prime Minister's bigoted statement.
The energy question in Canada has been a priority item for many years, and yet here we are today debating whether to allow the government to implement a measure born of panic. This is a panic solution in spite of the fact that we have had years of warning. We have almost
Energy Supplies Emergency Act unlimited resources as far as our own requirements are concerned, and we have had the know-how to do something to minimize the effects of the impending world-wide energy crisis.
The government has protested that it could not have foreseen that the Arab oil producing nations would ever cut back on shipments of crude to the refineries of Quebec and the Maritimes. This is utter nonsense. Even as long ago as 1967 this threat has been hanging over us, and yet six years later there is no indication that this government has ever considered this eventuality. No provisions were made to ensure that the eastern provinces would be able to get Canadian crude if the crude imports from Venezuela and the Arab nations should be cut back or shut off altogether.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated recently, Mr. Speaker, in one of his many contradictory statements on the energy crisis, that the shortage of fuel oil in Montreal this winter could run as high as 30 per cent, and that in the eastern provinces it could go as high as 25 per cent. This is far more serious than the government has indicated in the recent past, and yet the Prime Minister has said that there should not be any serious hardship for any of us. How can the Prime Minister make such a statement when people are already suffering as a result of shortages, and as a result of the rise in fuel prices? Tens of thousands of senior citizens, and others on fixed incomes, have already begun to feel the pinch of increased fuel prices. In some cases these people have to budget carefully even to afford such luxuries as meat and sweets, and those only on occasion. As it stands now, many of those people will not even be able to eat the proper foods if they are forced to pay more for heating and cooking oil.
We could go on for hours about the side effects of the oil crisis, Mr. Speaker, but it would not impress this government. This government is not impressed or shamed by the human suffering it has caused by its inaction and bungling. Unemployment is already a problem in this country, for example, but we could be faced with even more serious unemployment as a result of the energy crisis.
Our plastics industry has its back to the wall because of a shortage of vital resins. With the shortage there has been a sharp increase in the cost of the resins, most of which have to be imported. If the supply of resins is reduced any more the plastics industry could be placed in real jeopardy. In addition, all of the industries that depend on the plastics industry for parts will also be in trouble. This situation is largely the result of the failure of the government to encourage expansion in our refining and petrochemical industries. Most of the by-products of the refining and petrochemical industries have to be imported because we do not refine enough of our own crude.
These are some of the aspects of the energy crisis that must be dealt with at length in this House, Mr. Speaker, and the sooner the better. If we could convince the government that the day of ad hoc and temporary solutions has passed, then perhaps we could get down to serious discussion of these pressing problems, and possibly come up with some solutions. In the meantime, we will be forced to

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act sit by and watch the government play the political game with the NDP and watch the Prime Minister fiddle while Canada burns. It is hard to say which of the two parties is more afraid to face up to reality, the Liberals or the NDP. But one thing is certain, neither the Liberals nor the NDP has the faintest idea how to cope with the present energy crisis. One faces the issues with faint heart and little or no idea of how to cope with real issues. The other preaches pseudo-socialism, with the knowledge that it will never have to face up to its own preachments, and with the clear knowledge that it will never have to accept the responsibility that goes with running the government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the situation I have outlined is a sad one indeed for the Canadian people to have to live with. I had thought that the Canadian electors would have been given an opportunity to express themselves after last Monday. However, when political parties abandon principle for purely partisan gain, then the people are forced to wait. But they are only putting off the inevitable, and if the bill we have here is the best that two parties can come up with to solve a serious human problem, then they are scratching around in the bottom of the barrel. Let us get out of the barrel and get to the business of running the country. The best time to do that is right now.
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-236 is no more no less than the confirmation of the government's temptation to generate a psychosis among people that there is an energy shortage. By the sound of my voice, you realize that this psychosis has certainly generated some energy to make us live in the cool of Parliament. We freeze in the restaurant, in the House, we catch a cold or we lose our voice.
Mr. Speaker, the psychosis generated among the people is having results. Throughout Canada, we witness reactions which, it seems to me, ought to alert Parliament, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the government.
At noon, I was talking about some news published today in the newspaper La Presse of Montreal in an article by Robert Pouliot which reads as follows:
Quebec exports oil despite crisis.
Quebec is told that there is a crisis. Everyone recalls hearing Premier Bourassa say during the electoral campaign that there was no danger of an oil shortage in Quebec, that we had supplies for 52 days and that there was absolutely no danger of not getting the oil we needed. Four days after the elections, Premier Bourassa met with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), and the same night he came out of the Prime Minister's residence, he said on the radio: It is just possible that we might have an energy or oil shortage.
To come back to the news published today, Mr. Speaker, I go on with the article:
Quebec exports oil despite crisis. At the time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Yes, to make a point of clarification if I may.

1 feel that the article to which the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) refers concerns only the exportation of heavy oil and not of heating oil. This is different. It is an extremely important qualification in the present debate. The situation is such that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has mentioned it during the oral question period this afternoon.


David Réal Caouette: If the hon. member wants to be patient enough to listen to the whole text, he will realize that this is exactly what I mean. I continue reading the article for the information of the member who has just risen:
At the time when the province of Quebec is threatened with a petroleum shortage this winter in view of the intensification of the Arab embargo, some refiners in the province, including Golden Eagle in Saint-Romuald, keep on exporting large quantities of heating industrial oil to the United States.
I do not know if the hon. member calls this heavy oil but I know that it is industrial heating oil.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Heavy oil.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, I will continue with my remarks and the hon. member will understand. This oil may be further refined to get ordinary heating oil. This is for the information of the hon. member. If he is not aware of this, I will take him to Golden Eagle Canada Limited so that he can see for himself.
From October 15 to November 26, Quebec was in first place-
-not in second or third-
-in first place among provinces exporting refined products to the American market with shipments of 2.5 million barrels or the equivalent of 87.5 million gallons.
These are refined products.
After the allocation ordered by Ottawa on industrial oil exports-
-not heating oil but industrial oil-
-last October 15, Quebec until October 31 supplied nearly half of the Canadian exports to the United States.
I read: half from Quebec. I do not know if the hon. member understands.
During the next weeks, however, these refined oil exportations should come down not so much to answer the needs of Quebeckers in low sulphur bunker fuel but to supply British Columbia via the Panama Canal.
I would like hon. members to know that this does not come from the office of the member who interrupted me earlier but directly from energy officials in Ottawa.
The federal government is getting ready to convince eastern Canada refiners to help British Columbia which this winter will suffer from a serious shortage of industrial oil. In the coming weeks, the National Energy Board will have to issue fewer export permits to the United States to divert the bunker to the Pacific coast.
We can now realize the logic of what is going on. The quotation goes on:
Traditionally British Columbia used to receive two-thirds of what it needs in bunker fuel from Washington state refineries but
December 13, 1973

owing to the Arab embargo and the American market pressures, an important part of this supply has disappeared. According to spokesmen for the B.C. Petroleum Association the Pacific province will have to turn to Singapour refineries and refiners in Quebec and the Maritimes.
In other words Quebec refiners will import crude from Alberta via the Trans-Mountain pipeline connecting Edmonton to Vancouver; they will then transport the crude via Panama, process it in Quebec and send back part of the refined products via Panama to Vancouver.
Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the transport operations all this will set in motion? First, we have the Trans-Mountain pipeline connecting Edmonton to Vancouver; there part of the oil is refined and put on ships travelling via Panama; when it arrives in Saint-Romuald Golden Eagle Canada Limited or other companies refine the product and ship it right back to Vancouver via Panama.


An hon. Member:: No.


David Réal Caouette: The hon. member may say no, but that is exactly what will happen. The National Energy Board decides, and not the hon. member, who is not even aware of it.
To go back to the quotation:
In Ottawa, civil servants justify Quebec exports to the U.S.A. claiming a shortage of storage tanks in the province.
The NEB and the civil servants justify those exports saying there are no tanks. How intelligent in 1973! Now back to the quotation:
"As stocking is possible, explains a civil servant who refuses to identify himself-
He does not want to give his name because it seems this is another leak, not of oil, but of government information.
-since Ottawa issued, only this week, severe rules to check information leaks-
The civil servant has been afraid of identifying himself since then.
-refineries must operate at full speed and quickly sell their products."
That is why they must send their products as quickly as possible to the United States. We have not enough oil tanks in the province of Quebec. Here is another extract from that article:
That open door to experts for which they get good prices on the American market is however a factor to reduce the production of heating oil for private use in Quebec.
If we had the necessary oil tanks we would be able to refine industrial oil to produce first quality standard heating oil but we have no such storage facilities. Then the people are told: All you need do is freeze. Here in Parliament they have even created a psychosis among hon. members. We are told: As there is a shortage of oil we have nothing to do but freeze.
When I came in the restaurant of Parliament this morning for breakfast, all the waitresses were wearing woollen sweaters. In fact one of them took the liberty of lifting her skirt and show me her little red shorts to prove that she was indeed freezing. They are shivering and the excuse is that there are no tanks to store heating oil.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Mr. Speaker, it is horrible to be taken for a ride like that. I see the minister standing over there. He should listen to me carefully so he will realize the terrible fraud and lie that have created that psychosis due to the so-called shortage of heating oil and gazoline. And the day when we will have to pay $1 or $1.10 for a gallon of gasoline and 75 cents for a gallon of heating oil, they will say that those products are plentiful and that we can get as much as we want throughout Canada. Their only purpose is to increase prices. Nobody dares say that but when they will impose it on the people it will be said: Look now, we have been forced by the international market.
Mr. Speaker, as to oil storage facilities in Quebec, it is nearly impossible to get a complete picture from the federal minister or the Quebec minister. The latter was in Ottawa yesterday, Mr. L'Allier, I believe. He is Quebec's energy minister, isn't he?


An hon. Member:: Mr. L'Allier indeed.


David Réal Caouette: It is indeed Mr. L'Allier. In leaving, he said-


Mr. Portelance:: It is Mr. Masse.


David Réal Caouette: So, it was Mr. Masse who came yesterday?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


David Réal Caouette: Well, Mr. Masse then. In any case, he came and returned freezing. He said: I met with the minister in Ottawa and he had me convinced that I must freeze. So he went back and stated on television last night: "We will have to freeze because Ottawa told me so yesterday."
Mr. Speaker, Quebec does not know what storage facilities are available and Ottawa has no idea either. The report goes on as follows:
The most lucid analysis comes from Washington. On November 15 last, the deputy under-secretary of State for international resourcesin Washington-Washington knows our storage facilities better than the Canadian Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Quebec Minister of Energy. We have to go to Washington to find out what are our storage facilities in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada for that matter. And the deputy under-secretary of State for international resources said to the Canadian committee on intergovernmental affairs, and I quote:
-that the stocks in Montreal were too low in comparison with the size of the metropolitan market.
Even if the stocks in eastern Canada reached about 40 consumer days, most of the crude oil and refined products are stocked in the Maritimes and Quebec .. . making it much more difficult to supply Montreal in a hurry in case of crisis.
Mr. Speaker, how is it that ten years ago our governments did not foresee that? Why did this crisis not happen last year? And why are we told now that we do not have enough storage facilities? Everything is full to the bursting point. In Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, 3 million barrels of oil are stored and they are offered for sale to Montreal. The companies of that province are told: we
8716

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act cannot buy your oil because all our tanks are full yet we are condemned to freeze!
We find ourselves in that predicament because of the carelessness of the government which does not dare take its responsibilities although it is fully aware of the situation. Unfortunately it is through the red phone-not the red phone in Moscow but the red phone in Washington- that orders are given to the Minister of Energy in Canada and to the Canadian government and we are afraid of displeasing the Americans. So we tighten our belts and we freeze because our friends from the south, the Americans, order us to freeze.
Mr. Speaker, I said in the very first days of this crisis that they were trying to create a psychosis to lead us to an economic crisis. Let us consider the results so far. We have witnessed an increase in the cost of living. Yesterday and the day before we talked about higher prices for food, clothing and particularly cars, for which an increase of $150 has been announced. As far as food is concerned, we see an increase of 9.3 per cent. Mr. Speaker, shipping companies say they pay more for gasoline and oil are more expensive, so they have to post stiffer rates for transport.
The whole Canadian economy is headed for an economic crisis. We are not the only country to do so. It is a common practice in all countries that are said to be democratic, that is western countries.
NATO Secretary General Joseph Luns stated in Brussels on December 10-and his statement appeared in Le Droit of December 11, 1973-that the shortage created by the Arab countries in the whole world was the premonitory sign of an economic recession. But it is not the Arab problem that is prejudicial to us in Canada, for only 2 per cent of our oil supplies come from Arab countries. Most of our imported oil comes from Venezuela. The newly elected president said yesterday or the day before that there is no oil shortage in his country. However he said: "We are ready to bargain with Canada or the United States, provided some advantages be granted to Venezuela. This is quite normal and we would do the same for Canada. But there is no oil shortage in Venezuela and the new president of that country is willing to come to an agreement with us.
But the Arab countries are under pressure from the USSR to deprive countries that import oil from Saudi Arabia or any other oil-producing Arab state. And Mr. Luns said bluntly about the Arab oil embargo, and I quote: -therefore the threat against western countries goes beyond the military.
While NATO people are talking about warfare, troops and national and international defence, the Secretary General says: Militarism is not the only reason to prevent Arabs from making a compromise with the western countries.
I quote what I have on hand:
Everyone knows that the present economic welfare of our countries is in serious danger of being hurt badly by the oil embargo enforced by Arab countries and that an economic recession could very well be on its way.
This is exactly what I said to the House about ten days ago. We are developing the new economic crisis, as we

developed the one from 1929 to 1939, and once again I shall repeat what I said recently: We have had to put up with a 10-year crisis when we were sitting on mountains of wheat in Canada, when the Canadian production was destroyed, when misery was tolerated in the midst of abundance. Under the pretext of a world crisis, we were letting Canadians literally die of hunger at home.
Mr. Speaker, under the cover of the economic crisis, of the international oil crisis, while we are not lacking in anything in Canada today, they leave us in the cold. Yet, we can swim in an ocean of oil anywhere in Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Mr. Speaker, what amazes me is that-


An hon. Member:: You are right!


David Réal Caouette: Of course I am right! I can see a number of hon. members from the province of Quebec who are French Canadians like me and who find it funny-


An hon. Member:: One could reply to that!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, hit me, and I'll hit you right back!
Mr. Speaker, these guys do not even have the guts to stand up to defend their people who are being punished, while tanks in Montreal are filled to the lid with oil.
Golden Eagle Canada Limited refuses to deliver home heating oil in Rimouski, Mont-Joli and Lac Saint Jean. Distributors are told, we have quotas to meet, we set quotas for you. Quotas are imposed when we do not even know what to do to empty the tanks in Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I will not swallow that political filth of asking people to make sacrifices, to tighten their belts when we already do not know what to do with the welath that exists in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one talking about an economic crisis. In the United States, the Congress is talking about it. The Secretary General of NATO is talking about it in Brussels. An economic crisis is being set up and we, in Canada, are getting ready to deal with it because that is what is happening in other countries. We are going to suffer because it is said of others that they are in distress.
Did we commiserate so much with the Third World, those who really suffer? Do we necessarily have to make Canadians suffer when we can guarantee security and wealth to our people besides extending massive aid to other countries that are in need of our help?
Mr. Speaker, Social Crediters do not accept the oil crisis, they do not accept that sudden change on the part of the government at a time when everybody, in both western and eastern Canada, is crying that we have wealth, that we have reserves for three centuries while a former premier of Newfoundland states that we are drowning in seas of oil in Newfoundland, in the Atlantic oil wells.
Mr. Speaker, all those resources can be tapped. We have again been told that the number of unemployed just increased by 30,000 or 35,000. Why not use this labour and get them interested in the development of our resources and oil to face the situation? One must help the others but
December 13, 1973

let us begin by helping ourselves! An old saying goes: Charity begins at home. By "ourselves" I mean our constituents, the Canadian people. Let us provide them with security and freedom. Let us not have any surplus but at least security and freedom. Let us use our surplus to help the most underprivileged countries but for Heaven's sake let us begin by helping our fellow citizens, our disabled people, our families in need and all those who need assistance from the federal government and from the provincial, municipal and school authorities. Then as federal members we shall have served the best interests of our country and people.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question so as to clarify a point?


David Réal Caouette: Go ahead.


Marcel-Claude Roy: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know if there is question that should be replied to, but I will allow the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) to reply.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, there was no question but rather a statement from the member.
[ Translation]
I read exactly what the hon. member has just said: "bunker fuel"-


An hon. Member:: It is still a residue.


David Réal Caouette: Yes it is. Now we speak about oil. We can produce fuel oil in Quebec or buy it already refined from Newfoundland. All our tanks in Montreal are full. For that reason, they say, we cannot buy the oil that the Sheahan Corporation in Newfoundland is ready to sell us.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That corporation is not producing yet.


David Réal Caouette: It doesn't produce oil but it offers to sell to the province of Quebec three million barrels of oil and we say that we cannot buy it because our tanks are full. This winter we shall say: We would buy it but the transportation facilities cannot be used in winter time when the minister knows perfectly well that the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Atlantic ocean is full of salt water that does not freeze in winter and where ships can continue to navigate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have just enough oil now. The hon. member is talking about surpluses of refined oil.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take some of the time left before private members' hour to begin to deal with the supply allocation bill related to energy products that we have before us and its relationship to the province of Saskatchewan, particularly the area of Assiniboia which I have the honour to represent. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make known some of my opinions with regard to energy in Canada.
We in the New Democratic Party agree in principle with the energy supplies emergency bill. If there is going to be a crisis there is a need for a board with the kind of power, through an order in council, that would enable it to make a co-ordinated effort to alleviate any undue hardship that may hit Canadians in the area east of the Ottawa Valley. There is no question about that. Some parts of the bill still need amendment, and one area is in the lessening of environmental requirements and standards within Canada. I believe that part of the bill needs to be reviewed.
Second, in the allocation of oil supplies one must take the independent wholesalers into consideration. I want to make an appeal to my colleague from Regina East (Mr. Balfour) who has taken on some of the responsibility of attempting to co-ordinate the energy policy of the Conservative Party, whatever it may be. With reference to the party's recent statement that they are going to filibuster this legislation, I wish to say to them that though they may have changes to recommend-I think that is good and we, too, may have some changes to recommend-the filibustering of this bill with have very serious implications for Canadians east of the Ottawa Valley. I point to an example that has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) of a situation that has developed in Toronto which illustrates the need for strengthening the allocation provisions of this bill in order to ensure that the smaller companies can get their supplies from the major companies.
The hon. member pointed out that a company called Cotain Plastics Products Limited in Toronto, which employs 36 people and manufactures plastics, is dependent for its supply of polyethylene, necessary in the manufacture of their product, on Dow Chemical of Sarnia and an American company known as Allied Chemicals. At this point in time, Dow Chemical and Allied Chemicals have cut off oil supplies this company needs for the manufacture of plastics. This small company has been forced to close its doors, thus creating a hardship for many ordinary workers in Toronto this coming winter. If we are to deal with this legislation let us, even though it may need amending, deal with it expeditiously, in order to meet any crisis which certain Canadians may face during the harsh winter months.
26695-39 J

December 13, 1973
Energy* Supplies Emergency Act
In the last few days, provinces which usually are not in the forefront of the national scene have come to the fore because it has been recognized at the national level how important are the commodities, oil and natural gas, which are produced in those provinces. Therefore, I shall talk about the oil situation in Saskatchewan, and its implications for Canada. I want to discuss the impact on Saskatchewan of the provincial government's oil policy, as this was discussed in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan this week.
Speaking on behalf of many citizens of Saskatchewan, may I say that I was astounded at the misinterpretation of the remarks made by the premier of Saskatchewan to the people of Saskatchewan earlier this week. I shall deal with the situation in Saskatchewan. Then, I shall deal with the kinds of policies enunciated by the government of Saskatchewan to meet the situation. Then, I shall refer to the possible effects of that policy on other provincial governments, and, indeed, on future energy policy in Canada.
The present oil reserves of Saskatchewan are some 800 million barrels. Our rate of discovery of new reserves has levelled off in the last seven years. Although our rate of discovery of new reserves has levelled off, our production rate continues at 80 million barrels per day. At that production rate, the oil fields of Saskatchewan will have a life span of at least ten years and, at most, of 15 years. Of course, if we discover more reserves through exploration, the life span of Saskatchewan fields will be extended.
Let me say that the private interests, the oil corporations, which have developed our oil resources have been well rewarded for developing those oil resources. May I add, in parenthesis, that natural gas in Saskatchewan has always been under the charge of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation, a public body. Natural gas is one area where there has not been a price increase in Saskatchewan, mainly because gas comes under public ownership and the resource has been utilized in a proper manner.
The oil companies have been well rewarded. Let me quote some figures relating to Saskatchewan. By 1964, the oil industry collectively had found and sold enough oil to recover the costs of exploration and production. Since 1964, Mr. Speaker, $800 million in profits have been taken from Saskatchewan. Until recently, prices ranged between $2 and $2.50 per barrel. Compare that price with present rising prices. In view of high world prices, multinational oil companies operating in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta, now have an opportunity to amass massive profits from Saskatchewan. They can use that capital for the development of oil elsewhere in Canada, that is true. On the other hand, the multinationals can use those capital funds for the development of oil fields anywhere in the world. They can take millions upon millions of dollars from Saskatchewan by way of profits from oil and other natural resources and invest that money anywhere they like. That cannot be tolerated by any level of government be it the provincial government of Saskatchewan, the federal government of Canada, or the government of any country.
We must make sure in the public interest that resources derived from development in Saskatchewan and massive profits taken from oil produced in Saskatchewan are used for development, expansion, exploration, research and

refining in the province of Saskatchewan. The multinational corporations should not be allowed to take their money out and invest it anywhere on the globe, as they see fit. May I call it five o'clock? I wish to expand on my remarks at eight o'clock.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform this House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act, with an amendment to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send it back.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 40 I must advise the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Fisheries-Proposed licensing policy for east coast fishermen-Social implications in Newfoundland; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Regional economic expansion-Proposal to establish regional offices-Position of northern Ontario; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Air transport-Head tax on passengers-Suggested change for passengers using feeder airlines.
[ English]


Mr. Lefebvre:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that negotiations have gone on between the parties and there would be agreement to spend the first few minutes of the private members' hour giving third reading to Bill S-7, standing in the name of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) and, following that, to consider notice of motion for the production of papers No. 91, standing in the name of the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier).


WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps, before we reach private members' hour, I might be allowed to make a brief ruling following the point of order which was brought up. Earlier today when government orders were called, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) raised a point of order as to the validity of the notice of ways and means with respect
December 13, 1973

to the Excise Tax Act tabled in this House on December 11, 1973. The Leader of the Opposition sought to persuade the Chair and the House that the notice of ways and means should be divided on the ground that it contains more than one proposition, so that hon. members should be given an opportunity to vote on each separate proposition, if that be the wish of hon. members. I refer specifically to the opportunity to vote since, according to the Standing Orders, there is no debate on a motion such as this one but only an opportunity to divide.
Hon. members were generous enough to allow the Chair some time to consider the arguments advanced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the views expressed at the same time by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). As hon. members know, I am sure, the authority of the Chair in respect of the division of questions is extremely limited. It has never been exercised in relation to the notice of a bill.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition did cite as a precedent a decision of Mr. Speaker MacNaughton who divided a motion dealing with the adoption of a national flag on the ground-and this was the finding of Mr. Speaker MacNaughton-that there were two separate questions for the House to consider. The House will appreciate that on that previous occasion the House had before it one single question to be decided in one single step. Members were not considering a bill, or were not considering one of the several steps in the legislative process. However, in the proceeding before us now, the House is asked to consider a formal motion preceding the introduction of a bill or bills founded on the motion.
An examination of precedents confirms that there is no previous occasion when a motion preceding a bill was divided. The hour or more which was allowed to the Chair to look into precedents, citations and standing orders was used, with the assistance of the Table, to try to determine whether there were any precedents which might guide us to reach the decision the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) would have liked the Chair to reach.
Hon. members know there are records of many ways and means motions which contain varied and diverse propositions in respect of taxation. There are a number of precedents I could quote. One or two were reported in the Journals of the House for June 19, 1971 where Mr. Benson, a member of the Queen's Privy Council, laid upon the table notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and other acts and later a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and Old Age Security Act.
I can assure hon. members there are a large number of similar precedents which indicate that a notice of ways and means motion refers to not one single question, but to diverse and different and complex questions. On the basis of long established practice, therefore, the Chair would find it very difficult to rule that this particular ways and means motion ought to be divided.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) suggested that in effect there are not two questions contained in this notice. He argued there is but one proposi-
Excise Tax Act
tion stated in two parts, but both dealing with the imposition of a charge or tax on the exportation of crude oil from Canada. I am sure there is much to be said on either side of this argument, that is the point of view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and the point of view expressed in opposition thereto by the President of the Privy Council.
Without going into the substance of the question, and without going into this aspect of the matter, looking at the situation from a strictly procedural standpoint and bearing in mind the precedents, the Chair would have to rule that it is not competent to divide the question before us at the present time.
The point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is also very interesting, but perhaps premature. His point will no doubt be raised and argued more fully at a later stage.
I can assure hon. members that with the assistance of the Table officers, I have given most serious consideration to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I recognize it is a very important point, one which ought to be taken most seriously. However, as I said, I do not think I would be justified to establish a precedent by accepting the argument that was advanced by the Leader of the Opposition and I have to rule accordingly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that earlier today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) did not intend to divide the House on the resolution, but merely sought to divide the resolution. In other words, he does not want to divide the House, just the resolution. On the basis of Your Honour's ruling, I wonder whether the resolution could now be called.


John Napier Turner: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada and to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to provide among other things:
1.	That a charge be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of crude oil exported from Canada during any month commencing with February, 1974, in such amount, not exceeding $4.00, as may be prescribed in a tariff of charges for that month made by order of the Governor in Council after considering the recommendation of the National Energy Board, and that the charge
(a)	be paid by the person holding a licence under Part VI of the National Energy Board Act for the exportation of oil from Canada and under whose licence the crude oil is purported to be exported, and
(b)	be administered, enforced and collected by the National Energy Board.
2.	That in respect of the export of crude oil from Canada during the period commencing on October 1, 1973, and ending on February 1, 1974, the Excise Tax Act be amended to provide among other things that a tax be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of crude oil so exported to be paid by the person holding a licence under Part VI of the National Energy Board Act for the exportation of oil from Canada and under whose licence the crude oil is purported to be exported, and that the tax on each barrel of crude oil so exported from Canada
(a)	in the month of October, 1973, be at the rate of forty cents per barrel,
(b)	in the month of November, 1973, be at the rate of forty cents per barrel,
(c)	in the month of December, 1973, be at the rate of $1.90 per barrel, and

December 13, 1973
Dental Examining Board
(d)	in the month of January, 1974, be at the rate of $2.20 per barrel.
3.	That crude oil for the purpose of the said measure be defined as
(a)	any crude oil or other hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons recovered in liquid or solid state from a natural reservoir in Canada, and
(b)	any natural gasoline or condensate resulting from the production in Canada, processing in Canada, or refining in Canada, of gas within the meaning ascribed to that expression by section 80.1 of the National Energy Board Act.
and includes any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbon that is produced by extraction from oil sands and is not on October 1, 1973 a refinery oil product within the meaning of section 24 of the National Energy Board Part VI Regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members business. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) indicated a moment ago there is agreement as to the order of business to be considered. The first item stands in the name of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland) moved: that Bill S-7, respecting The National Dental Examining Board of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Samuel Victor Railton: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I not only have to thank you, sir, but also the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier) whose time I have borrowed. I hope today's business will not take too long. I just wish to say that Bill S-7 was initiated in the Senate. I am simply the sponsor of the bill. The bill received first reading, second reading and went to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders. It was duly amended by certain motions which were brought before the committee and reported to the House.
As the bill states, it is simply to change the examinations of dentists and dental specialists in order to have uniformity throughout Canada so the standard will be kept high and there will be portability. The deletion of dental auxiliaries was done by motions or amendments which I will present with the bill. I ask Your Honour's permission to have third reading of the bill.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to speak very long on this bill, mainly because I can now accept it as amended. It is a much better bill than the one approved earlier by the other place and sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
It was my pleasure to sit on that committee for my party, and to take part in the examination of Bill S-7. I expressed concern at that time over some of the provisions of the bill that would place what I considered to be excessive authority in the hands of the Royal College of Dentists of Canada and in the hands of the National Dental Examining Board.
In the original bill, it was intended that the National Dental Examining Board, with the approval of the Royal College of Dentists, would be vested with the authority to examine dentists, dental hygienists, dental assistants and auxiliaries to dentistry. These examinations would be given to determine the acceptability of such people to gain licenses, without which they would not be able to practice their professions.
The powers implicit in that wording were unacceptable on at least two counts. First, such powers would be excessive and I would be apprehensive of the tendency of people who hold excessive power to abuse that power. In the second place, some of those professionals listed in the category of auxiliaries to dentistry come under the jurisdiction of the various provincial licensing agencies.
I could not agree to this transfer of responsibility and authority from provincial to federal jurisdiction unless I could see written approval from each of the provinces to such a transfer. Some provinces tend to take their jurisdictions very seriously, and rightly so. I do not see how we could contribute to good order and stability in the dental profession by creating ill will between provinces and the federal government over which has licensing jurisdiction throughout the profession. If there are to be changes in this process, it must be done through negotiation, not by legislation.
I mention these things, Mr. Speaker, not because there is a danger in the present bill that such authority will be granted to the National Dental Examining Board, but because it had been in the original bill, and obviously the originator of this bill had such blanket authority in mind. By mentioning this, I served notice that I would oppose any move in the future to use this legislation as a door opener. It would be very easy for someone to propose an innocent-appearing motion to amend the legislation that would result from the passage of this bill. We often deal with bills in this House that seek to make a simple amendment to existing legislation, and they are rarely defeated.
The clause in the original Bill S-7 sought to have auxiliaries to dentistry included with dental practitioners for licensing purposes, and when it was in committee I raised the question of denturists and asked if they were considered to be auxiliaries to dentistry. I learned that they were in fact considered as such. However, as the bill now stands, with these amendments and the word 'auxiliaries' being deleted, we in this party will lend support.
December 13, 1973

In closing, may I say I approve the provisions contained in this bill? They will lead to a streamlining of the responsibilities and functions of the Royal College of Dentists and the Royal Dental Examining Board. This is a good step, and it could lead to other measures which would benefit both the profession and the people at large. I am pleased to lend the support of my party to the bill and to assist in its speedy passage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my understanding that the House will now proceed to consideration of Motion No. 91 in the name of the hon. member for T oronto-Lakeshore.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a complete copy (including budgets A, B, X) of the program forecast (program review) by the department of Transport for the latest year for which parliament approved departmental expenditures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is yet another in a series of discussions in the House of the principles which underlie this motion and which underlie a number of similar motions standing in my name. I do not propose this afternoon to repeat the arguments I have put forward in previous weeks. I wish, however, to reply to some of the contentions which were made last week or the week before by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) who replied on behalf of the government party to my representations.
In the first place, the hon. member for Nipissing stated, and I quote him:
The government has kept confidential the documents which assisted it in arriving at decisions because its responsibility to parliament and the people is to answer only after decisions have been taken.
The hon. member is correct in the technical, constitutional or legal sense when he makes that statement. But in the statement I have quoted he referred to the taking of a decision, and I want to suggest that the decision the government takes in respect of legislation is not a decision to act but a decision to propose measures to parliament. Until parliament approves the legislation the government lacks authority to act. So, what I am seeking in my motion is information which would acquaint members of the House as to the basis upon which the government made its decision to propose a particular piece of legislation. I suggest that the verdict of parliament upon such legisla-
Transport Budget Forecast
tion would be the better for being better informed as to the reasons behind the government's proposals.
I am not questioning the government's right to act in an executive capacity by order in council or its undoubted right to implement legislation of which parliament has approved. I am suggesting, however, that the reasons for deciding to bring a particular proposal before parliament may validly be presented to members of parliament, not merely in speeches by ministers and government supporters, but by means of supporting documentation which was available to the government itself as it took its original decision.
In the second place, the hon. member for Nipissing, and I quote him again, stated:
Under the committee system, after decisions have been made, opportunities are available to Members of Parliament to demand explanations and to ask why certain things have been done.
Again, the hon. member for Nipissing is correct in a technical sense. It is true that in the committee we have an opportunity to demand explanations. But in the first place we do not always get those explanations and, in the second place, when we do, they are seldom adequate. Then again, valuable committee time which is now taken up as members seek information which could already have been given to them might then be more constructively used to examine the purpose and implications of a proposal in greater depth.
The hon. member for Nipissing went on to say of me:
He wants to push this matter further ... so that parliament has the power over decision-making prior to decisions being made, by reviewing administrative documents submitted to the cabinet by individual ministers.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am not seeking the power to judge decisions which have not been taken. I am seeking reasons for decisions which have been taken.
Supporters of the government, and I include the hon. member, acknowledge the complexity of the decision-making process, the complicated system of committees within the Privy Council structure, and so on, and they have admitted that in arriving at a final determination the government must go through a lengthy and involved procedure. Why should members of parliament not be allowed access to at least part of the information which the government itself believes to be essential in arriving at a course of action? If the government, in order to arrive at a decision, requires volumes of information, evaluations and so on, surely it follows logically that parliament, which is asked to approve proposals placed before it, should be in possession of some, at least, of that information?
May I again quote the hon. member for Nipissing? He went on to say of me:
He wants the whole kit and caboodle; and he wants it all produced to individual members of parliament before the decisions are made. What is even worse, after decisions are made by the government, he wants to have the power of hindsight in respect of all those documents so he can review the decision-making process and try to pick holes in it.
I suggest that that comment betrays a certain partisan defensiveness and a misinterpretation of parliament's role.

December 13, 1973
Transport Budget Forecast
We are not here to pick holes for the sake of picking holes. But we are here to correct mistakes before they are visited upon the public.
The hon. member for Nipissing then suggested that my proposal would be delaying the whole parliamentary process. I suggest, on the contrary, my proposal might speed it up. Because if at least part of my proposal were followed through, we could avoid hours our partisan wrangling and sparring over basic information that commonsense dictates should already be in our possession. The hon. member for Nipissing then went on to say:
When we look at the whole process of government and the way ideas are fed into the system, we can see how impossible it becomes to expect that all this information leading to government policy could be analysed, classified and fed to someone who has trouble with the blue book.
By the "blue book" I assume the hon. member is referring to the estimates. It seems to me that that comment cultivates and encourages the mystique, which in turn, leads to the obsession with secrecy that surrounds not only this government but, I suspect, all governments in this country. It cultivates the mystique that we are amateurs unable to cope with the professional and expert documentation that the government has at its disposal, that somehow we are incapable of assimilating a lot of information. If that is true of us, then surely, Mr. Speaker, it is true of the members of the cabinet themselves, some of whom are not long into their portfolios, and the behaviour of some of whom portrays at the very least a certain amateurism.
Since government supporters of recent weeks have implied that the cabinet or ministers cannot only decide on the basis of the kind of information that is made available in the estimates, then why should we be expected to be able to decide? The trouble with the estimates blue book-I mention this because this is the basic source of reference that members have available to them in considering government expenditures and proposals-is not that it contains too much information but that it contains too little real information. A sea of figures is not necessarily a sea of facts, and in no sense is it a sea of wisdom.
I suggest that the comments of the hon. member for Nipissing betray what I might call an over-all patronising tone, that somewhow the complexities of government are rather beyond ordinary backbenchers and members of opposition parties, and that if we leave it to the government they will provide us with all we really need to know. I assume that the inference to be drawn from this is that the sooner we give our approval to legislation and expenditure proposals, the better.
To be fair about this, I do not suggest that this is a disease that is common only to Liberal governments. I know it to be true of the Conservative government of the province of Ontario, and I should not be at all surprised if New Democratic governments in their jurisdictions incline toward the same point of view. My concern is with a principle that I think ought to be established more fully in our parliamentary system. I emphasize this point because I am really not here to score partisan points. I am trying to assert-though I may say it is difficult in this parliament, which is nothing if not partisan-that there is an important principle here and it is a principle to which I do not think enough attention has been paid.

Having taken issue with a number of the points made by the hon. member for Nipissing, I want to express my appreciation to him for the way in which he dealt with the central principle none the less. Although he does not agree with me, he at least devoted his entire speech to the basic subject, and I appreciate that.
I have one final point to make, Mr. Speaker. I want to contrast the volume of information that is available to ordinary members of the elected assembly, both nationally and in the provinces, with the amount of information that is available to ordinary elected members of council at the municipal level of government. I admit that we are dealing with a different structure when we talk about municipal decision making. But at the same time we are talking about a wide range of far-reaching decisions, decisions with great implications for the future of our society which are made by elected, rather ordinary men and women, involving the expenditure, in this country globally, of hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
I know that when members of municipal councils come to decide upon a course of action, it is not a question of one or two members of council secreting unto themselves the documentation underlying a certain proposal and telling the other members of council to take it or leave it. It is a question of each member of council having available to him or to her all the information that is available to any member, be that member the mayor or a member of board of control or a member of the executive council, depending on the precise structure of that municipal council.
I suggest there is no evidence whatever that the provision of this kind of information to the municipal councils of Canada has inhibited the proper consideration of proposals, that it has worked against the public interest, that the confidences implicit in this information have been betrayed. None of this has happened and there is no evidence that it has. On the contrary, I suggest that the decisions that are taken at municipal council meetings are probably as well informed as, and I suggest in my many cases better informed than-I speak here of the amount of knowledge shared by all of the eld elected members on that council-decisions that are taken either in this House or in the provincial legislatures. Whatever be the merits of the decision that is taken at the municipal level, in my experience it is most often a decision based on a very large input of information and a very substantial contribution from most members. Each member is privy to the same considerations, evaluations and documentation as the proposer of the proposition.
Without drawing too broad an analogy between the municipal levels and the provincial and federal levels of government, I suggest that we have seen the principle of maximizing information at work, particularly in recent years, most successfully in the more sophisticated councils, and it has worked well. The citizen has benefited. The citizen is better informed because his representatives are better informed, and in the end the decision itself is the better for it.
I think that in sessions to come-and I would hope in the next session of parliament-the government should seriously consider reviewing its procedures and criteria
December 13, 1973

and should the range of documents and information made available to members of parliament. In my colleagues names there stand on the order paper scores of motions calling for evaluation studies. There are at least 22 more motions, in my name, of a similar nature. Hon. members may be pleased to hear that I do not propose to quote them seriatim. All these motions, mine and those of my colleagues, point toward the same principle that decisions are being made at the executive level which involve billions of dollars, the wisdom of which we have to take largely on the say of the ministry.
The ministry would not be unique if it did not put its own activities in the best light. But the role of the opposition, the role of parliament, is not merely to act as a "clack" for the executive. I suggest that if we had more information at our disposal we could carry on our traditional function more effectively. I suggest, for what it is worth, that if we had more information some of the political snarkiness and partisan backbiting might recede so that we could do a good job on some of the issues which the public would like us to deal with.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it must be pointed out that this is the fifth time the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Grier) has had this House debate the matter of departmental program forecasts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good for him.


Charles Robert Turner: Good, yes. I am still not perfectly clear, however, whether the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore has raised these motions as a matter of principle or as a dedicated search for knowledge. The Treasury Board calls for the program forecasts of departments so that a wide array of potential program matters can be assembled at one point in time and examined on an integrated basis. These program forecasts are tentative plans only: they are proposals developed by public servants within the particular mandate of an individual department. When they are being prepared, few restrictions are made on their scope and individual departments submit their proposals without any full appreciation of the total policy, priority or financial parameters that the Treasury Board will use when selecting appropriated resource allocations.
Invariably, the total amount proposed in the program forecasts of all departments collectively greatly exceeds the available resources that the government can direct to both new and ongoing programs. The program forecasts are prepared many months in advance. I believe departments begin work late in the year on forecasts that lead to the main estimates for a fiscal year that will not even begin until about 18 months later and will end about 30 months after the initial planning. The projections that are included in program forecasts for additional future years would, of course, be even less well defined. Prior to the Treasury Board's examination of the program forecasts, the cabinet must review both their longer-range and their short-range objectives and priorities. Revenues from taxes and other sources must be estimated and the general economic situation for Canada during the year under study must be evaluated.
Transport Budget Forecast
Within this framework, selections must be made from the many competing proposals, and most departments will be disappointed by the number of their plans which do not receive support. After extensive consideration by cabinet ministers, the results of the program review are reported to the individual departments. It is my understanding, however, that departments are not required to edit or correct their program forecasts after the decisions have been reached. As they were only tentative proposals in the first place, their primary usefulness has been served and the departments shift their attention to the details of preparing their main estimates submissions in accordance with the results of the program review.
The end product, of course, is the annual blue book. This is one of the main reasons the program forecasts of departments are treated as internal documents. Proposals prepared by public servants so far in advance of the date of execution, and without full awareness of total government considerations, should not be subjected to intense review by members of parliament using the wisdom of hindsight. This, surely, would tend to discourage the development of imaginative proposals in the future.
In addition to this principle of confidentiality there is a practical flaw in what this motion proposes. Information is a delicate commodity and it is only useful if it fits the purpose. It is easy to have too much information and not enough knowledge. I believe that the adoption of this motion would produce an excess of information but very little additional knowledge or understanding. I am sure we all agree that the confidentiality of the government's spending proposals is such that no information concerning main estimates could be generally released to all members of parliament prior to the tabling of the estimates. This occurs in February, and our standing committees then have until the end of May to study the estimates in considerable detail.
The blue book each year contains over 600 pages of detailed information in each of the official languages, or over 1,200 pages in total. It is my opinion that the availability of many times that amount of information, which still would have to be studied within the same time-frame if the operations of government were to continue, would be more of a distraction than a help in our search for knowledge and understanding of the estimates. And this would be the situation if each member of this House received a copy of the program forecast for every department and agency.
We all have full schedules: we must divide our time wisely between our constituency duties and our work in the House. Appropriation acts are important, but there also is a large amount of other legislation that we must study and debate intelligently. In considering the main estimates, I doubt whether many members would have the time to study this additional information or, in fact, would need it to enhance their understanding. Our standing committees provide ample opportunity for detailed examination of particular programs in the estimates, through the questioning of ministers and officials. Additional written information can be obtained from these officials if a committee member so requests. But selectivity is the key to knowledge here, not tons of information.
8724

December 13, 1973
Transport Budget Forecast
It may be that the real problem for the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is that he has not yet learned to make full use of the information that is already provided to him. I noted in Hansard for last May 24, when the hon. member spoke to an identical motion concerning the program forecasts for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that he made some remarks concerning the blue book, the estimates. He referred to the blue book as a "veritable sea of figures". He pointed out that he was a new member in this House and "perhaps a member who has been here for a generation or longer may be able to find his way through them". He conceded that the presentation of estimates had been altered somewhat in recent years, but he still found that the blue book's program descriptions and outlines of objectives shed no light on the expenditure programs detailed in its pages. Frankly, I find this difficult to understand.
The hon. member seems to believe that the way to comprehend this "sea of figures" is to dilute it by adding 10 or 20 times as many figures. He wants to count the branches on the trees and forget about the forest. As the hon. member has indicated that he does not understand what the blue book is all about, perhaps a few words of guidance would be appropriate. Of the 600 pages in the blue book, the first 50 provide valuable summary information. There is a description of the contents of the book and the method in which the information is presented. This is followed by a number of statistical tables. These tables provide total information by department covering both budgetary and non-budgetary expenditures, and also show breakdowns in terms of operating, capital and grants and contributions' spending.
Another table deals with man-years by department. There are presentations of the estimates by the various functions of government and by standard objects. Another table presents major budgetary items showing the division between estimates to be voted and those that are statutory. In these tables, the new estimates are compared to the estimates for the present year. There is a wealth of information for a new member to digest in just these first 50 pages of the blue book. They provide comparative data which indicate clearly the major areas of importance established by the government.
The blue book then presents considerably more detail on the programs of each department and agency. The estimates of the Secretariat of State, for example, run to some 60 pages in the 1973-74 blue book, and those for the Ministry of Transport cover 50 pages. Each departmental section begins with a general summary. This is followed by a subsection for each program. The various votes, statutory amounts and non-budgetary items are shown for the program. Then the program's estimates are displayed against the component activities, showing expenditures for operating, capital grants and contributions and non-budgetary items. Any revenues or free services received by the program also are displayed.
There is a brief written description for each program, including a statement of its objectives and sub-objectives. Expenditures also are displayed by standard objects. There are details on the manpower planned for the program. Grants and contributions are itemized. In all cases

the new estimates are compared to the current year, and in several tables the actual expenditures for the previous year also are shown.
The subject of the motion today is the production of the program forecast for the Treasury Board. Section 28 of the 1973-74 blue book contains 13 pages of information on the Treasury Board, including the National Research Council of Canada which reports through the President of the Treasury Board. I will not go into full detail, but I would like to point out that the Treasury Board's estimates are displayed under three programs: central administration of the public service, government contingencies and centrally-financed programs, and employer contributions to employee benefit plans. The program concerned with the central administration of the public service is broken down into six activities: expenditure, management; personnel management; evaluation and planning; administrative policy; departmental administration; contributions to superannuation accounts. The expenditure, management, activity has an authorized level of 100 man-years. I would like to read the description of this activity that is contained in the blue book. It reads as follows:
Expenditure, management-On the basis of the analysis of departmental plans and programs to recommend to the government the acceptance or modification of specific expenditure proposals in order to: reflect the priorities which the government assigns to the objectives; increase the effectiveness of existing and proposed programs; increase the efficiency with which the manpower, facilities, equipment, materials and supplies are used in the operation of programs; and to develop the estimates for the approval of parliament.
I understand that the 100 man-years in this expenditure, management, activity-with considerable help from the other 555 program man-years in activities such as planning and evaluation, personnel management and administrative policy-are devoted full-time to the examination of the various expenditure plans of departments and agencies, not the least of which are the program forecasts.
If the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore is having difficulty comprehending 600 pages of blue book information, I doubt that he could do a better job with 10 or 20 times that amount of supporting program forecast data. A large number of man-years at the Treasury Board are devoted to integrating the program forecasts of individual departments into a comprehensive package that is related to the over-all objectives of the government and to the available resources.
I would think that the departmental program forecasts would only be meaningful when they were examined in such a total context. Efforts by opposition members to select isolated proposals for scrutiny would not be a contribution to the better understanding of the government's intentions; and clearly it would be impossible, given the volume of data and the time available, for any member of this House to make comprehensive use of all the program forecasts.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore suggested in earlier remarks on this subject that he would settle for some form of edited version of the program forecasts. I submit that such an edited version already exists and is presented to all members of parliament and to the public. It is called the blue book. This is the book that individual members of parliament should in their studies deal with
December 13, 1973

proposed government expenditures. It is not a perfect document and it could stand improvement, but it is of considerable value when properly understood.
I think that if this motion were adopted it would result in a large waste of public funds in terms of thousands of printed pages of material delivered to members of parliament and probably the Senate that not only would not be read but would probably fill up half the office space on Parliament Hill. Surely this is not what we would consider as progress in our examination of the government's expenditure proposals.
In closing, I wish to state again my objection to this motion and recommend to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore that he earnestly study the contents of the blue book and then ask himself whether he need take up any more of the valuable time of this House in seeking information that he does not really need.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who has just spoken referred to a speech that I made in May when I admitted that, as a new member, I had difficulty in finding my way around the blue book and I was questioning whether it had all the values that the hon. member ascribes to it. I want to tell him that I am now a few months older, a little less new, and I find the blue book even less helpful than I had thought it might be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I have difficulty in accepting that kind of point of order. In effect, the hon. member is answering the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), and I think he should not seek the floor unless he has a real point of order which concerns the proceedings of the House.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier), when he raises motions and inquiries of this sort, is in effect filling one of the roles of an opposition member. I think they have an obligation to speak out and to secure as much information as they can, no matter whether it eventually ends up in the waste-basket or in their closets as material which they can read when they are no longer serving as members of parliament. There is a large amount of information available to all hon. members. I think the hon. member, in presenting the motion in this way, has indicated that he wants information of a special type on a particular subject-and I think, frankly, that he is entitled to ask for it.
It has been my experience, in the very short time I have been here, that this government is probably the least secretive government that we have ever had in this chamber. I think the opposition parties weaken their own case when they sincerely seek information such as the hon. member has done here and then put on the order paper not five, ten, fifteen or twenty questions, but 259 motions for the production of papers. It is pretty difficult, then, to take them seriously and to believe they are sincere. It seems to me they should zero in on areas where they really want papers and where the government would be hard-pressed to come up with arguments as to why they should not be produced. Perhaps the debates would then be better debates. I am somewhat suspicious of the sincerity of
Transport Budget Forecast
opposition members when I see on the order paper 259 motions for the production of papers.
Second, on cursory examination today I noted that 3,424 questions have been placed on the order paper this session. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) has indicated that 80 per cent to 85 per cent of them have been answered. However, the opposition still say, "We want answers to the other 15 per cent." It may be precisely those questions which are the ones that should have been placed on the order paper in the first instance and should not have been smothered and buried under 3,424 others. It seems to me that if members of the opposition concentrated on questions to which they legitimately wanted answers, they would not weaken but would in'fact strengthen their position. It is very easy to answer many questions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Is the hon. member trying to leave the impression that there is any operation of government which is not legitimately subject to the scrutiny of members of this House?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member was probably talking to his colleague rather than listening to my comments. I made just the opposite point. I think each department is subject to scrutiny, questioning and motions for the production of papers; but I do not think this scrutiny requires 3,424 questions and 259 motions. The point I am making is that members of the opposition parties, by putting that number of questions and notices of motions for the production of papers on the order paper, in fact weaken their case.
From my experience as a former parliamentary secretary, I can say that when we looked at many of the questions which came to our department we found them extremely easy to answer; and if we found that one out of 15 questions was difficult to answer, it was very easy for us to say we would answer 14 but would have to delay the answer to the fifteenth because it was too difficult, because we did not have the information, because the information was confidential or for some other reason. I say that you weaken your own case, when you are going after a particular department, if you ask too many questions and put on the order paper too many notices of motions for the production of papers.
Every department should be subject to the most careful scrutiny by members of the opposition and by members of the government party. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that before a minister produces a bill or a policy he has to clear it with his backbenchers. This is an area where we can focus on the things we are interested in, rather than blanketing the minister with 50 questions, of which only five are tough, with the result that he answers the other 45 first.
I think hon. members opposite could make better use of the money that has been made available to opposition parties for research and in that way find out what, in effect, is in the blue book of estimates. If the hon. member
26695-40 (

December 13, 1973
Transport Budget Forecast
for Toronto-Lakeshore has difficulty in that respect, I sympathize with him. However, I suggest that opposition members should make use of their research staff to zero in on their particular fields of concern without trying to become experts on the whole book, because that is impossible even for members of the Treasury Board. By making proper use of research facilities and staff we can find out what we want and then put questions on the order paper that make more sense. This would put the government in a position where it would have no other course than to answer those questions because it would look ridiculous if it allowed them to remain on the order paper.
As I have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this government has been the least secretive of any. It was on this government's initiative that funds were made available to opposition parties so that their members could do better research, become better informed and be in a better position to question ministers.
I agree with the removal of estimates from committee of the whole and referring them to the appropriate standing committees so that members of those committees can become experts in particular fields. I defy any member of this House to say that he can become an expert in every field for which we have responsibility in parliament; but by having a special standing committee dealing with particular estimates, by using the blue book and the research staff and by doing a little digging on his own, a member of parliament need not feel frustrated. Also, the information he needs can be obtained from the minister during committee hearings. I am proud of this government for making money available to opposition parties so they can do a better job in carrying out their responsibilities. However, Mr. Speaker, I must say it was much more fun in the previous parliament when I was sitting opposite the NDP benches and could hear their interjections.
I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore. I thought he made a rather weak analogy when comparing city councils to this chamber. City councils work to develop a particular project and budget. I point out that all the information in the blue book is available to cabinet ministers, but I do not think each of them reads all the material that has to do with another minister's responsibilities. However, the principle suggested by the hon. member has some merit.
The hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) has pointed out that it would be very costly to circulate all this information. It seems to me that if the opposition parties each selected one of their member to serve on a shadow cabinet-as I understand is done unofficially at the present time-possibly all this information could be made available to that particular expert, so that if he were questioning the Minister of Transport, for example, the member also would have all the information available to the minister. This is an approach that could be considered. In this situation I suggest that not only would selective material be made available, but in fact all the information that was available to the minister. But, of course, we would run into the difficulty of finding enough members of the NDP to form a shadow cabinet, as will be the case particularly after the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are not
shadows; we are real.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I would have much more to say, Mr. Speaker, but time has run out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity just before private members' hour of beginning my remarks related to energy policy in Canada. In the short time I had, I suggested I would deal with the present situation in the province of Saskatchewan, a riding of which I have the honour to represent, and with the situation related to the oil industry in Saskatchewan. Also I propose to deal with the proposals of the government of Saskatchewan, its implications and suggestions for policies on a national level or, indeed, for any other province of Canada. I was pointing out at five o'clock that the Saskatchewan oil reserves are some 800 million barrels and that our rate of discovery of new resources had levelled off in the last seven years. However, our production rate continues at 80 million barrels per year. This means a lifespan for our oil fields of only ten years. If we discover more reserves, then obviously the lifespan of our oilfields will be extended.
Our oilfields were developed by private interests, and those private interests were well rewarded. By 1964, the oil industry collectively in the province of Saskatchewan had found and had sold enough oil to recover the costs of exploration and production. Since 1964, $800 million in profits has been realized in the province of Saskatchewan from oil only worth at that time between $2 and $2.50 per barrel. I emphasize the figure of $800 million in profits, Mr. Speaker.
December 13, 1973

In the world situation of escalating oil prices we now face the possibility of private interests-in terms of the large multinational corporations and oil companies operating in the province of Saskatchewan-having the opportunity to gouge massive profits and windfall gains from the province of Saskatchewan. If they take that profit and those windfall gains, there is no guarantee that one cent will be spent on research, development and exploration for new fields and new sources of petroleum in Saskatchewan. They could spend it, because of their multinational interests, in any part of the globe where they have business interests. Therefore, the government of Saskatchewan last week introduced legislation to prevent these private interests in the province gouging the rightful heirs to the resources-that is, the people of Saskatchewan. The government of Saskatchewan will not allow them to take windfall profits and invest them anywhere the private interests like: it has moved to a program of public control. This action of the government is related to almost every field in the oil industry of Saskatchewan: it is related to exploration, to production, to refining, to profits, to utilization and, indeed, to conservation.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of comment to the effect that this proposal of the socialist government of Saskatchewan is somewhat congruent with the position of the government of Alberta. I think we could test this contention best if we examined the remarks of the president of the Canadian Petroleum Association when he had read the legislation introduced in the provincial legislature. He said that the legislation proposed by the Saskatchewan NDP government that in effect takes control of the province's oil and natural gas is probably the most vicious piece of legislation ever enacted in North America.
Of course, we have heard similar contentions before. We heard them in connection with the government auto insurance and in connection with hospitalization and medical care. Yet those programs were expanded across the Dominion of Canada. I predict that the kind of policies enunciated by the government of Saskatchewan will become the criterion for public action by governments and people who will be concerned in future with the development of our energy resources. The petroleum association did not attack the activities of the Alberta government in the same way that it attacked the activities of the Saskatchewan government. That alone should show any member the difference between the action taken by the province of Saskatchewan and that of the province of Alberta.
What are the powers being established by the government of Saskatchewan? The legislation is to establish an oil conservation board which is to phase-in production controls. That government is moving in the direction in which I believe every level of government concerned with this matter ought to move. It is doing something to conserve our resources and to make sure they are properly utilized in order that future generations will have enough energy for the production of the primary commodity, food. The province of Saskatchewan has not been satisfied just with establishing an oil conservation board: it has already established a potash conservation board. The jurisdictional rights of that conservation board have been challenged
Energy Supplies Emergency Act by the government of Canada and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). The federal government has said that natural resources such as potash should be left in the private hands of the potash industry.
Therefore, in dealing with a natural resource such as oil, Saskatchewan has moved not only to establish its constitutional right over natural resources but to establish the province's legal holding or legal right with regard to oil within the province. It has done this to avoid the kind of challenge that was encountered regarding the potash conservation board. Although the oil and gas freehold rights within the province of Saskatchewan are in the hands of large private companies, the provincial government has moved to assume control and ownership of these freehold rights. Before the introduction of the legislation the province held 66 per cent of these legal holdings; now, however, it will be in control of 90 per cent of all reserves. The only people to be exempt from the provisions of the legislation will be farmers operating the many small holdings throughout the province. The multinationals, the holdings of the CPR and of the Hudson's Bay Company are to be challenged.
As the legislation relates to windfall profits, the province is moving to make sure that the difference between the wellhead price of $3.98 a barrel and the domestic or international price will not go into the hands of the private oil corporations who can invest the money anywhere they want, but will go to the province of Saskatchewan which will use it for investment in Saskatchewan-for exploration, research and the development of oil supplies and reserves. This investment will meet the needs of Saskatchewan and of the people of Canada. There is a fundamental difference between the actions of Alberta and of Saskatchewan in that regard. Further, there is a price, called the base wellhead price, of $3.08 and there is also the barrel price of $3.38. Under the legislation, the oil companies will be allowed to keep the 30 cents, with the proviso that they spend it on exploration and development in Saskatchewan. If they do not, the moneys accrued will go to the province and to the people of Saskatchewan.
The tax on non-producing mineral land is to increase from 20 cents per acre to 50 cents per acre. If this tax is not paid, the mineral land lease is to revert to the Crown, the only exemption, again, being for farmers who hold some of these lands. There is provision for the production costs of oil companies in Saskatchewan to be reviewed twice yearly. This provision is included in case there is need to revise the wellhead price, in order to meet any legitimate increase in production costs. Further, there is provision for companies to receive a rebate from the treasury of Saskatchewan for exploration and development carried on within the province. If there are new findings, the province is to be given the right to gain an equity in those findings. The legislation also allows for control of wholesale pricing within the province.
So, Mr. Speaker, the democratic (socialist) government of the province of Saskatchewan has said that our nonrenewable resources are not to be handed to the private interests: these resources are to be utilized as a public utility for the benefit of the province and the people of Canada. I submit we ought to follow that government's lead and treat and develop our non-renewable resources as

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act public utilities. What are the implications of this policy nationally and for other provinces? I believe the province of Saskatchewan, in announcing this kind of policy, has shown a guiding light in the cold winter blizzard. It is introducing the kind of program which will mean that in the province there is to be public control of our resources and that they are to be developed in the interests of the people, and not of private capital.
Further, I believe the provincial government has done something fundamental which any national government, regardless of political philosophy, will need to consider. What do I mean? A province with less than one million people, whose major business is agriculture, has said that the multinational corporations can no longer be a law unto themselves, that they have a moral obligation to the people of the province with regard to the manner in which they extract the resources, sell them and make profits from them.
The province is saying that no longer can multinational corporations adjust the free flow of capital across boundaries or provincial borders without being obligated and accountable to democratically elected governments, provincial or federal. The province has outlined the kind of approach which national governments must take to all sorts of multinational corporations, not just to those operating in the oil industry. Therefore we, the people's elected representatives, have gained the right to plan and organize the utilization of a non-renewable resource for the public interest. The multi-national corporations are being called forth for public accountability.
In the move related to revenue from oil leases and lease rights, by increasing that revenue from 20 cents to 50 cents an acre the province of Saskatchewan has shown the federal government the manner in which they can move to increase their revenue from some of the many leases that are now held across the Northwest Territories. In order to have the right of lease, these corporations must be prepared to pay for it.
We have a public corporation, Saskoil, in the province of Saskatchewan. Saskoil will gain some of the funds related to the windfall profits that might have gone to the multinational corporations. These will be used for exploration, development and control of wholesale pricing. Through its experience in the activities in which it is involved, that public corporation can offer an outline for the kind of power and jurisdiction which the national petroleum corporation as suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ought to have.
The kind of policy enunciated in the province of Saskatchewan means there is a move toward something very fundamental to the national interest, namely, a government is openly saying to its people that it is not going to sell or to allow its oil products to be plundered from the ground and sold on the market for a fast buck. That energy source, because of its non-renewability, will be dealt with through a conservation board. The flow of the product from the fields will be done in an organized and planned manner, not according to the freewheeling of a few private corporations. This is the natural resource about which the provinces feel most strongly in terms of

their right to have some control. This power was only gained by the western provinces in 1930. It has allowed Canada an opportunity to seriously reconsider the basis of our confederation. The national policies outlined by Sir John A. Macdonald and carried on by each successive federal government is surely, in these fast changing times, being called into question and calls for massive review of our energy resources. The Prime Minister and his ministers should now begin seriously to examine the economic and social foundations related to confederation. I believe very strongly that we will hold this country together and that there is no question of western or eastern separation.
I believe we can do this by making some fundamental changes in the economic arrangements of this country.
Western members from all parties have talked about the freight rate structure and its inequities. We have talked about some of the policies relating to the marketing of wheat and domestic feed grains. We have talked about the need for revision of the eastern tariff structure as it relates to protection of the eastern market at the expense of the western producer. We have talked about income stability for western producers. Perhaps now, in a less emotional situation, the first ministers of our country will consider the need for revision of the economic and social basis of a national policy that has become outdated. The federal government has an opportunity to learn from the actions of the province of Saskatchewan how to gain public control over a very essential resource, as well as how to develop it offshore and in the Northwest Territories.
When the Premier of Saskatchewan appeared over provincial-wide television he said there should be some accommodation, because of economic issues, for a province which in principle agrees to a domestic price that is different from the international price. We have faced a two-price system for other commodities and we have not hollered about or condemned all of confederation. Every day of the week farmers in the province of Saskatchewan, which is our greatest wheat producing area, subsidize domestic wheat for the consumption of the Canadian population at a rate of 50 to 60 cents a bushel. That is a subsidy by the farmers of Saskatchewan to the people of Canada that should not be forgotten.
The Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has by edict, not by resolution of this House or by change in legislation, introduced a kind of domestic price on feed grain. What province is the greatest producer of feed grains? Saskatchewan. We have taken issue with that policy far more emphatically than the domestic price of our wheat.
We have a commodity called oil. We are relating it to domestic prices. The premier suggests an accommodation, a revision for some of the economic and social ills which Saskatchewan feels strongly about. The Premier of Saskatchewan has not gone as far as the Premier of Alberta. That is why I resent remarks such as "blackmail". The Premier of Saskatchewan said he is prepared to agree to the principle of a two-price system for oil in Canada, with an accommodation. That is not the case with the Premier of Alberta. I want to quote to this House the opening remarks of the Premier of Saskatchewan when addressing
December 13, 1973

the people of his province. This ought not to be forgotten in the sequence of events. He said:
Tonight I want to talk to you about our new oil policy in Saskatchewan. Before I do, let me first say that the Saskatchewan government approves most of the moves toward a national energy policy announced last week by the federal government.
We support extension of the oil pipeline to Montreal and other efforts to make Canada self-sufficient in oil. We support the announced intention to set up a national oil corporation to help find and develop new Canadian oil and gas. We support the intent of the federal government to hold down the price for Canadian consumers of western Canadian crude.
He went on to say they did not accept the method in which export tax funds will be handled. Therefore, on many economic and social issues there is room for accommodation. I usually enjoy cartoons, but the kind of petty and ridiculous cartoon that appeared in tonight's Ottawa Citizen will not in any way, shape or form help to resolve this question.
The minister, in his answers, referred to the export tax. However, he did not clear the air in relation to the way in which the money would be turned back to the province. I believe that if he were to clear this matter up, accommodation would be far easier.
I support without hesitation the principle followed and the action taken by the government of Saskatchewan. A government of Saskatchewan is saying once and for all that a non-renewable resource is a public utility which cannot be misused by multinational corporation but has to be used in the best interests of the people. That is a legitimate policy, the kind of program which ought to be considered by other provinces and by any national government, regardless of party.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight), I found myself wondering whether we were in the House of Commons or in the Saskatchewan legislature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not feel it is the role of a federal member of parliament to attempt to defend a policy introduced in a provincial legislature. I thought we were supposed to be talking tonight about a federal bill.


John Napier Turner: A two-policy party!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It would seem to me that if the action taken by the premier and government of Saskatchewan is as good as the hon. member would have us believe, the premier and his supporters are the ones best suited to put that message across not only in their own province but thoughout Canada. They do not appear to have got through to the Ottawa Citizen-


An hon. Member:: They were wrong about medicare, too.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I don't know if it is a good policy as far as Saskatchewan is concerned, but I must say it worries me, as a Canadian, because it seems to me to be another example of a tendency to balkanize this country. But
Energy Supplies Emergency Act whether the Premier of Saskatchewan accepts a policy or not is not the point. His policy should stand on its own feet. If he agrees with our policy, he should say so loud and clear; and I believe the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) should say exactly the same thing. I am concerned, because if one province begins to use the natural resources it happens to own as a means of bargaining with the federal government, what is to stop each and every province doing exactly the same thing and saying, "We shall go along with a national policy, But..." Mr. Speaker, that "but" does not fit in with my idea of a national policy.
The bill before us is a weapon the government must include in its arsenal if it is to attack energy problems. The debate on second reading has been wide-ranging, touching on all aspects and leaving it open to all hon. members to express varying points of view. But if what I have read in the press is true, and if what I have heard around the corridors is true, and if the official opposition intend to filibuster this measure as they are threatening to do, I say they are adopting an irresponsible posture, endeavouring to create a phony issue. The issue is not this bill; it is not the subject of this bill: it is, rather, the setting up of a national petroleum corporation, pricing, the construction of a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, the export tax, wellhead prices, the ownership of resources including those discovered offshore, the distribution of windfall profits, exploration, and so on. To filibuster this bill is to adopt a posture beneath the dignity of what one would expect form Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
When I spoke of an opposition filibuster I heard voices from across the way telling me to sit down. I gather that no one on this side of the House is supposed to participate; we are not supposed to attack the opposition. This afternoon the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) spoke, and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie) wanted to speak after him because he had other responsibilities to meet tonight. I do not fault him for that. Many members of parliament have similar engagements, so we had no objection to letting a second Conservative member speak. We wanted to be reasonable. But there comes a point at which government supporters have to stand up and let it be known they are proud of a policy to which they made a substantial contribution, and proud of the minister who currently bears such a heavy responsibility.
The tragedy about a filibuster at this time is that it may very well deprive the federal government of the authority it will need to cope with an emergency situation in the future. If the opposition filibuster this bill, they may well endanger the people in the eastern part of the country whom the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) says he is endeavouring to protect, if we are to believe press releases coming out of Halifax today.
There may never be a necessity to allocate supplies on a national scale. I hope it will not be necessary. However, my information is that some degree of allocation is already taking place and that the corporations are themselves deciding who shall get supplies as gas stations find they do not have enough to meet the demands of their customers. It seems to me that if there is to be allocation, it is the

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act responsibility of the government to take such action and not the responsibility of the multinational corporations.
I say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that we are prepared to sit here over the holiday if necessary to pass this bill. If we are obliged to sit here, I think we can award the official opposition the title "The guys who stole our Christmas". Make no mistake, the spirit of Christmas is here. This bill, which is for the general benefit of Canadians and for the particular benefit of those who live in eastern Canada, will get third reading even if we have to stay here during the Christmas season.
The Leader of the Opposition says we have a two-price system and that he and his party are in favour of a one-price system. Well, one price would mean a higher price for all Canadians. The interesting thing about this stance is that it is in direct contradiction to the policy adopted in 1961 by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). In order to encourage the development of Alberta resources, the country was divided into two regions in accordance with national policy. I have no quarrel with that decision; I think it was necessary and right. But one of its consequences was that prices in the west were higher than they were in the east. Now the situation is reversed and the east will pay more than the west until the pipeline is available to guarantee a supply of western crude. Then, maybe, a one-price system will be possible.
One of my recommendations to the minister will be that we set up a pricing agency; possibly the national petroleum corporation could fill this role. All the oil would be pooled and the price would be the same all over Canada except perhaps for a proportion reflecting the cost of transportation. When the Conservative Party talks about one price at the present time it is not facing up to reality. Fortunately, the Canadian public is too intelligent, too sophisticated and too well-informed to approve a one-price system today, especially when the suggestion comes from a party which concedes it has no policy or, at least, a party which has yet to produce one.
As to the pipeline proposal, I am parochial enough to hope that it will run from Sarnia to Montreal, but if it is in the best interests of Canadians that the pipeline should go through Sault Ste. Marie, so be it. I say that the heartbeat of the chemical industry in the Sarnia-Lambton area is prepared to concede that a pipeline going to Sarnia may not be crucial. I feel it is incumbent upon me as the member for that area to point out that the distance might be shorter, that we might need more steel than necessary for a northern pipeline, but I also recognize that it will create jobs if the pipeline goes through the north: it will be going through areas not as densely populated. So, Mr. Speaker, there are plusses on the side of both groups; but it seems to me that we in the heart of the chemical industry valley can certainly use that pipeline and tap into it to the benefit of the growing petrochemical industry in the Sarnia-Lambton area.
Why do I say we need more, Mr. Speaker? It is contemplated at the present time that a large, world-scale plant will be built in the Sarnia-Lambton area, the Sarnia ola-

fins and aromatic project which has become known as the SOAP project. It is a project worth $230 million, and at the present time there are four partners looking into the feasibility of building such a world-scale plant. So feedstocks to the petrochemical industry are an absolute necessity.
Many people do not appreciate what the chemical industry manufactures. They have a tendency to think of it as being pretty well localized. I say, with respect, that a healthy chemical industry is healthy for all of Canada. We have heard about the petrochemical industry and the chemical industry building itself up in Quebec. Certainly we have it in Sarnia, Ontario, and now we hear of a large-scale plant being planned for Alberta. As I say, a healthy chemical industry is very definitely healthy for all Canada. The chemical industry has a multitude of raw material sources. It uses these materials to manufacture products which are numbered in the thousands, most of which lose their identity in the finished product that the public sees. For example, the raw material, propylene, which is derived from crude oil ends up as foam in an automobile dashboard. This differs markedly from industries which have many raw materials and a single product, such as the automobile industry, or an industry such as petroleum which has a single raw material and many products. The extent of its linkages with other manufacturing industries is evident. For example, four major industrial groups-agriculture, mining, forest products and textiles and clothing-have a major and direct linkage to the chemical industry. So a supply of crude oil to this particular industry is an absolute necessity.
A strong and growing chemical industry is in the national interest because it is a high-technology, high-value added industry which has a large multiplier effect in creating employment in other industrial groups. While the industry currently consumes the equivalent of only 3 per cent to 4 per cent of the crude oil refined in Canada, this roughly $70 million in feedstocks is upgraded to produce resins, synthetic fibres, organic chemicals and fertilizers with a final consumer value in excess of $2 billion. This value added effect, or ability of the chemical industry to generate wealth, is illustrated very vividly if one considers the case of ethylene, the world's largest volume organic petrochemical. Take the case of ethylene made from ethane. It takes $5.8 million worth of ethane to make $40 million worth of ethylene, which can then be converted into $140 million worth of first-line derivatives, such as vinyl chloride monomer, $300 million worth of second-line derivatives, and $800 million worth of third-line derivatives.
While it is obvious that a country should always strive to upgrade its raw material, it is critical that Canada do so with our petrochemical feedstock at this moment in time. Ethylene currently is in extremely short supply in Canada, as it is world-wide. In this situation, foreign producers or countries will invariably choose to upgrade products like ethylene in their own country and export added value products rather than export ethylene itself. As second-line derivatives become short, they will export third-line derivatives, and so on. Let me draw the attention of the House to these statistics. When we in Canada export $6 million worth of petrochemical feedstock, we face the prospect of importing back $800 million of third-
December 13, 1973

line derivatives. The adverse effect of this on the Canadian economy in terms of jobs, taxes and balance of payments is obvious.
The chemical industry provides high-quality employment for Canadians in its 1,200 plants. Scientists, engineers and managers with university-level education comprise some 15 per cent of our total work force of 76,000 people. The level of wages within the industry is 20 per cent above the national average. One study recently completed indicates that had the $766 million of chemical imports into Canada in 1971 been replaced by domestic production, this would have meant a permanent increase in employment in Canada of between 40,000 and 50,000 jobs. If we just balanced the trade, then 27,000 to 35,000 additional jobs would have been created.
Small plant size, small markets, low tariff walls, the upward-valued Canadian dollar, lack of integration, high transportation costs, global overcapacity and dropping prices gave the industry real problems. In effect, they were fighting products from world-scale plants which were built to serve markets ten times larger than their own, coming across some of the lowest chemical tariff walls in the world, and they were fighting with small plants sized to the Canadian domestic market.
It will take the petrochemical and the oil industries working together three years to establish a sound chemical feedstock position. During this three-year period a continuing co-operative attitude must be maintained between the two industries for the good of secondary industry. Where is the chemical industry going today, Mr. Speaker? For the following I am indebted to Mr. Elliott, vice-president of marketing at Dow Chemical. He has this to say. On the plus side of the industry are the expectation of good, over-all economic growth in Canada; the expectation that government will continue to encourage the development of secondary industry and the processing and upgrading of more primary products at home; rising world level of demand in chemicals, plastics and man-made fibres; currency alignments which have resulted in a devaluation of the Canadian dollar versus other world currencies, excluding the U.S. dollar; tax reductions for manufacturers which will help overcome the severe problem of low profitability in the industry, and the rising prices of chemicals. So the future is bright.
The Canadian government's policy of "Canada first," guaranteeing security of supply to a plant such as the proposed SOAP plant, is the correct policy. I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia talk of multinationals. When the members of his party talk of multinationals they never talk about their good side, only their bad side. I realize there are some groups that do have to be watched and regarding whom we must be cautious; but I should like to suggest to the House that hon. members also think a little about the plus side of the multinational corporations. After all, where else in the world could we get world-scale technology, capital and a global marketing organization hungry for products upgraded in Canada?
If we can marry this expertise with Canada's abundant raw materials, I suggest that we in Canada will have it made. It is a time to be bullish. I think the markets are there, both export and domestic. Canada has the raw materials and the skilled labour required. We have a
Energy Supplies Emergency Act sound base and a global scale technology. Capital is no problem. It is time to "go," Mr. Speaker. We have before us a bill to meet an emergency situation. I suggest that to kill or to filibuster this bill would be to create a phony issue.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for La Salle ... for Joliette rather.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any event, in Joliette it's as if it were the riding of La Salle!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the few minutes at my disposal to comment this important legislation, Bill C-236.
All hon. members recognize, as such, the importance of this bill in our present situation, and I doubt that I am exaggerating when I say that the Canadian people are very much concerned about the problems with regard to our oil policy.
We also recognize, Mr. Speaker, and this is of great concern to the people, the price increases in recent months. Of course, it is surprising that we should face price increases and feel concerned. But the problem does not seem to be one of production. Production seems adequate but, because there is no planning policy, transportation and supplies would seem to be the real problem. For lack of a policy, transportation and supplies are responsible for higher prices.
In view of the situation, it is clear that Canadians are very much worried about the next few months. We are all hoping as members that the government and Parliament will find ways to ensure that consumers are provided with the essentials. We hope that we will not be subject to rationing.
Of course I must admit quite objectively that no one could foresee the Middle East crisis which is surely of no help in solving the present problem.
I would like first of all to acknowledge the efforts made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in the last few months. One hon. member has put the price of $1 a year on the value of his services and his competence. Well I would like to be a bit more objective. We must admit that the present minister has made some efforts and has shown concern in the current crisis.
Bill C-236 seems to be aimed at giving this government some rather extraordinary powers and it is proper to ask ourselves if we are not infringing some provincial jurisdictions. The federal government has perhaps an opportunity to seize some powers, considering the present crisis. It would be embarrassing for the provinces to justify themselves with regard to those problems by keeping those powers.
Last week I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who assured the House that he was in favour of the establishment of a National Energy Board. We do not know exactly what will be the powers of that board. In my view, it is extremely important to know all of them and to be able to measure their consequences.

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
It seems that the establishment of a national energy corporation is required in view of the present influence of oil companies. It is clear and I think that everybody agrees that if the government was forced to accept certain price increases, the oil companies now have a marked influence on government policies, which is unfortunate.
Because of the lack of a long term policy which should have, I think it must be said, been initiated a few years ago, we are led to recognize more and more the marked influence of these companies and the need to establish a national energy corporation.
Once again, what will these powers be? We hope to find out as soon as possible. We hope that they will enable this corporation to restrict the influence that the oil companies have always had.
We have also heard the wish of the right hon. Prime Minister that the Borden line be abolished, that a pipeline to Montreal be built and, in short, that a national energy policy be developed.
Because of this oil policy, Canadians think that a national policy is the same as a national price. The price freeze for all Canada, except of course the eastern provinces, was announced in the right hon. Prime Minister's speech.
I think that we must wonder about the announced policy which provides for two prices, one for the east and one for the west.
We, in the east, have long deplored, Mr. Speaker, a feed grain policy which has been very costly, not only for Quebec, but for all eastern producers. We have denounced this policy for approximately 30 years and because of all our efforts and the support of the responsible agencies we have succeeded in urging the government to adopt its recent national policy, a policy which aims at, and should normally bring, equality between eastern and western producers.
I think that westerners have shown very great patience towards this policy which has been quite costly for western producers. And today we are considering a two-price national policy for oil products. I would urge the minister and the government to consider equal prices for easterners and westerners. It is unconceivable that we should accept this legislation which is favourable to easterners who have to face competition on the world markets and which, at the same time, provides for westerners a price freeze for the months to come namely the most difficult ones.
I would hope that the Prime Minister who announced a federal-provincial conference would first enable us to take stock of the provincial position about this policy. I wish that this federal-provincial conference will take place before this bill is passed. I do not mean that it should not have been submitted to the House. On the contrary, I find it necessary because of the current serious crisis and of Canadians' concern.
However, should we pass this bill during the next few days, being aware of the January federal-provincial conference, how could the provinces refuse to abide by orders accepted by Parliament? Why were not provincial officials first called and apprised of the principles of this legisla-

tion and of the powers we are going to grant the federal government and to which extent will the provinces be prepared to admit those powers?
The House is unaware of all the negotiations which have taken place between the federal and provincial governments especially the Quebec government. I have every reason to believe that the government of Quebec intends to make some suggestions and also to maintain some jurisdiction in oil matters. But as the federal-provincial conference will be held in January and chances are this bill will be adopted before Christmas, I wonder how we can count, for example, on the respect of the provinces while asking hon. members to adopt a bill before this federal-provincial conference has been held?
I think that this is an important aspect to point out because I do not quite see how this federal-provincial conference can be held only in January while we are being asked to pass a bill which should provide powers to the federal government. I do not suggest that these powers are unrequired, but I wonder how the provinces will react to these powers that the federal government wants to give itself, if it really wants to respect the wish of the provinces and listen to the suggestions that they could make.
Therefore, should we delay the passage of this bill? Should we ask the federal government for a federal-provincial meeting as soon as possible so that we may know exactly and specifically what the provinces want? As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this is a most important matter, particularly when there is talk of granting increased powers to the federal government in the field of energy. Again, without doubting the goodwill of the responsible minister and taking into account the current crisis, I have proof that he made very great efforts to correct the situation and give some assurance to the Canadian people.
Of course, as a Quebecker I could not fail to emphasize a particular aspect.
In fact, we have the privilege of being administered by a government in which more than half the members come from the province of Quebec. The people in Quebec expect those members to bring enough pressure to bear so that prices will be equalized between eastern and western Canada. In my opinion, the people in Quebec are absolutely right in hoping that government members from Quebec, who are a majority, will see to it to make the minister aware of this problem and obtain through this bill price equalization between eastern and western Canada.
Last Monday, during the debate on a non-confidence motion, I noticed that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) even asked whether the Quebec members were selling out their province. The question may have been relevant, Mr. Speaker, but as this bill has not yet passed third reading I take the liberty of calling upon members from the province of Quebec to make more pressures than ever before and urge the minister to give that guarantee that all eastern Canada and not only the province of Quebec will not have to pay more for its products than western Canada. It is extremely important to point out that aspect of the problem because the people of Quebec have a right to insist that representations be made by their members in that respect. Members from Quebec
December 13, 1973

have the duty to answer that question as well as meet the aspirations and desires of the Quebec people.
What the leader of the official opposition had to say might have seemed harsh but I think they were right on. I point that out to invite government members as well as other members from Quebec to impress on the minister the importance of ensuring that equity between eastern and western Canada and not to apply again that practice on the feed grain policy which proved very costly to the province of Quebec and eastern Canada and created some measure of economic separatism.
Quebec did not invent it because I remember reading an article on that not too long ago. Mr. Gerard Filion stated that economic separatism did not originate in the province of Quebec but had been invented 30 years ago by the Canadian Wheat Board which through its policy unfortunately practiced discrimination against eastern producers. We have before us a legislation which may have the same results.
Allow me, as a member from a constituency concerned with the problem, to remind the Quebec members that it is important instead of blaming or criticizing the minister to urge him to understand. I think he is open to any suggestions made in the House. We must make those suggestions objectively, and this is what I am trying to do. I ask the minister to ensure this price equalization between the East and the West. So, nobody in the East would be inclined to think that the federal government attempted to protect the West to the prejudice of the East.
I do not think at all that the minister intends to establish such a policy. I must say that even Quebec or eastern members must strive to obtain such an equalization from this government. Indeed, this must be said in this House. All members agree on the possibility of establishing a uniform price both in the East and in the West. I listened to the remarks of other members, even western members, who are clearly in favour of a single price across Canada. Thus, we will have obtained from this government the necessary respect and objectivity.
I want to take this opportunity to point out that the Quebec government still has a long term policy for the petrochemical industry. For many months people have been talking about the building of a seaport for giant tankers. Rumors were even heard about a possible agreement between Quebec and Saudi Arabia providing for the building of refineries. To what extent will this bill allow the province of Quebec to fulfill its ambitions?
I do not know yet the powers that the federal government will be yielding in the field of energy. We are talking about a federal-provincial conference. Now, I believe all those questions could have been discussed before the bill was introduced in this House. I am not saying this piece of legislation is not needed. But, I would have liked, Mr. Speaker, this federal-provincial Conference to take place well before the introduction of this bill. To what extent will this bill allow a province like mine to undertake anything worth while? Of course, other members will want to emphasize the interests of their own provinces and that is normal. If they did not, they would not be performing their duty in an objective way.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
As far as I am concerned, I am keenly aware of the importance for my province to have its petrochemical industry developed further. I am anxious to see my province get ahead with certain projects relating to refineries, supplies, and security where petroleum products are concerned. The extension of the pipeline to Montreal will have Quebeckers pay more for Canadian petroleum products than for off-shore products. Considering the price situation on the world market, it could very well be that for some time, the oil coming from Alberta will not be more expensive in the East than the one coming from foreign countries. It is also possible that, in view of the fact that the crisis may well cease to exist, people in Quebec could be forced to pay higher prices because we will still have been provided with supply facilities.
We know perfectly well that if we build this oil pipeline, there will be compulsory minimum consumption. What will be the price of the products coming in from Alberta? How far is the government willing to go with its pricing policy which would enable us Easterners to take advantage of a resource coming from Alberta, a Canadian resource. I am not against our consuming Canadian resources. On the contrary, I think we should consume products coming from a Canadian province. But I think it is equally important that we guarantee Easterners prices which will not be higher than the prices they can get abroad. It has been suggested that the government absorb any excess and I think this is very good. The government should guarantee to people of both the East and the West, the benefit of identical prices.
I believe that my remarks are very objective and I hope that hon. members will think of securing this equity to both eastern and western Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard various comments. There are objections, arguments and criticism on both sides of this House. I think that as a whole, members of various parts of this country have made excellent suggestions and I hope that the minister, who paid great attention to the debates, which is heartening for us hon. members, will consider these suggestions and that Quebec members will take advantage of the fact that they are in large numbers to force this government to answer my suggestions, that are also put forward by members from Quebec.
Besides I am convinced that Quebec members are quite interested in satisfying as much as possible their constituents. Before I conclude, I would like to refer to the lead article I was reading recently in a Montreal weekly paper. It was written by Claude Lavergne and calls for reflection. This is what Mr. Lavergne said:
The energy policy announced this week by the Trudeau government is a step in the right direction. On a short range basis, it prevents Canada from suffering a crisis in the uncertainty of a general election, then it secures the short term allocation of our western oil throughout Canada.
Nevertheless Ottawa did not go all the way in its efforts toward Canadian security in terms of stability in the field of energy.
Having decided to maintain the oil price freeze throughout Canada, with the exception of the eastern provinces, including Quebec, the federal government is not afraid to create two classes of citizens within one piece of legislation and within the same boundaries.
This was not said by me, Mr. Speaker, but by a very objective editorialist. He has often praised this govern-

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act merit, criticized it from time to time. I think that his article was worth being read in this House.
Therefore, having decided to maintain the oil price freeze throughout Canada, with the exception of Quebec and the eastern provinces, as I said, in fact the central government has given this responsibility to the provinces while it is the only one to profit by the present price increase. And I go on:
By shifting this responsibility upon provincial governments, he is making fun of people, and in order to understand this fully, one must take a close look at the oil tax structure.
On the other hand, Ottawa takes full advantage of the rising market because it applies its tax in terms of a percentage of the sales price to the wholesaler, a tax which is, of course, in any case, passed on to the consumer. This means, therefore, that Ottawa should be the first to help the consumer, which, of course, does not prevent the provinces from also giving him a helping hand.
There is no doubt that this situation will be considered at length at the federal-provincial conference on energy-
According to me, this conference comes too late.
-which will bring together all the premiers in Ottawa in January, but all the same, in the meantime, nothing will be done to help the taxpaying consumer who is condemned in addition to remain helpless in the face of a further spiralling inflation brought about by this galloping increase in the prices of energy.
It must be noted also that Ottawa is the only level of government to tax heating oil which is not a luxury in Canada, needless to say.
The Minister of Health and Welfare emphatically stated that he saw to it that welfare recipients will not have to suffer hardships because of this price increase. However, the fact remains that by taking such action, he is giving them a Greek gift.
He is giving with one hand while getting twice as much in the other and in many cases, from the very people to whom he is giving a bonus.
It seems that if the New Democratic Party-
I regret that there is no member of that party in the House at the present time. I continue the quotation:
-which will support the Liberals tomorrow on the non-confidence motion, sincerely wants to help primarily the poorer Canadians, it will have to make the full weight of the balance of power felt in favour of a remission of oil charges.
It would be a beneficial measure for the consumer!
Mr. Speaker, that editorial deserves some consideration. The government is not necessarily blamed, but urged to consider the seriousness of the present crisis in Canada as well as the difficulties and worries it is causing for all Canadians. Every weekend in our constituencies, many ask us what will happen and if the government will provide the needed supplies. Therefore production is not the issue. It seems that we produce enough oil products to keep us warm this winter. It seems that the problem is one of transport and supply. The lack of long term policy is causing concern to the Canadian people, and rightly so. A world crisis also distresses the government. To be sure, our role consists in making recommendations and helpful suggestions to the government with the hope they will be taken into consideration. I believe my remarks have been very practical. I am quite willing to co-operate for a national policy set up which would be equitable throughout the country, but if this measure did not ensure equal prices for both east and west, I would not be able to support it.

I would have wished that the provinces be invited to a meeting before the bill is introduced. I doubt that the bill, if passed, will meet all the criteria and all the aspirations of the provinces. The lack of prior consultations with the provinces still leads us to believe that the government is mistaken and in spite of that we are still called to take a position on a crisis, a problem that it is urgent to settle. I trust that Quebec members will assume their responsibilities by getting from the government equal prices in the East and out West so that Quebec citizens do not pay more for their products than westerners.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, could I put a question to the hon. member for Joliette?


Roch La Salle: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette has referred to a division, to two parts of the country, East and West. Does he remember that the Borden line was the work of a progressive conservative government of which he was once a member and to which he has sworn that he would not belong anymore? Furthermore, does he know that it was the previous progressive conservative government which divided the country in two parts? He also referred to the feed grains policy. Does he know also that this discrimination between East and West concerning feed grains was encouraged by progressive conservative governments and especially by that of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question regarding the so-called Borden line is a legitimate one pertaining to this debate, but it seems to me that matters regarding feed grains might be raised at another time. I recognize hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) for his response.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to state very objective opinions. Whether this policy was adopted by the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals is hardly any concern of mine. I urge this government not to repeat the same mistakes. Whether they were made by this or that government-and I feel perfectly free to talk about this-is irrelevant. I only say to the government that if the Progressive Conservatives have made mistakes, it is not forbidden to think that so have the Liberals. That we do not always repeat the same mistakes is what matters. I only urge this government not to make mistakes, to make the necessary corrections to the bill it introduced and which does not guarantee price parity between eastern and western Canada. And if the Progressive Conservatives are responsible for such mistake, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) will see to it that the Liberal government does not make the same mistake.


Albert Béchard: I would ask the hon. member for Joliette whether he was in the House last Thursday when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his speech
December 13, 1973

announcing the oil policy. Has he forgotten that the right hon. Prime Minister then said that he wanted to make Canada one country by abolishing the Borden line, and that the policy was for oil to run at the same price throughout Canada? It is a six-year program.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister. I had gathered from his speech, Mr. Speaker, just what the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine understood, and in view of the declarations of the minister in charge, that the east is far from being assured of benefitting from prices as low as those in the west. To my mind, the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine should study the consequences of this bill, because it does not do much to guarantee equal prices. I am very happy the question was put to me: it gives me a chance to tell the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine that I am willing to co-operate with him so that all Quebec members insist that the minister set the same prices for the east, and specially for Quebec.


Albert Béchard: Does the hon. member for Joliette know that there is-
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If this is the last question, I will allow the last reply.
[ Translation]


Albert Béchard: Could I ask a question to the hon. member for Joliette, Mr. Speaker?
I heard the comments that the hon. member just made, but is he aware that there is no pipeline yet between Sarnia and Montreal? Is he aware of that? And does he know that until there is, we shall have to get oil from somewhere?


Roch La Salle: I am certainly aware of it, Mr. Speaker, but is there any need to ask such a stupid question? It certainly must be a stupid question, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious.
I should like to tell him that the hon. member for Joliette is aware there is not yet any pipeline between Sarnia and Montreal and that he understands that this policy was aimed at extending the pipeline to Montreal and I said clearly in my speech that I was not against the idea. I only wanted that the province of Quebec be assured of getting a fair price. The hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine did not give me the assurance that his government would promise Quebec equal prices with the west. And this is what the Quebec population would like to learn not only from the hon. member for Bonaventure-iles de la Madeleine, but from all other members of the province who are in majority in the government. As for the French power within the Liberal party it is time, Mr. Speaker to make maximum use of it.
[ English]


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edxnonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some suggestion that the Conservatives are filibustering this bill. May I just point out to you that the last four speakers have been non-Conservatives. If I could put a title on my speech it would be this,
Energy Supplies Emergency Act "Don't try to turn the rest of Canada against us, Mr. Trudeau". That warning appeared in an editorial in the Edmonton Journal two days ago which began with the following words:
Prime Minister Trudeau's attempt to portray Albertans and Premier Lougheed as the ogres in the energy crisis is surely a cheap and barefaced cover-up. It ill becomes him.
That sums up the feelings in Alberta today about the energy debate. Something is happening in Canada today that I do not like. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is playing with national unity in order to demonstrate to Canadians that his energy policies-and only his-are saving unity; and, of course, that Alberta is looking out only for Alberta and thus hurting Canada The Prime Minister shows signs of wanting to pit the rest of the country against Alberta so that he will have a ready-made election issue. The strategy is becoming clearer all the time, and it is in this context that we are now debating Bill C-236, the energy supplies emergency act. If it needs saying, I will vote against this bill on second reading because I am opposed to its principle.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) have given lengthy explanations of their opposition. I am in agreement with their views and add the following reasons for my opposition: the government comes to us with an act that would-
-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-
Acknowledging that it cannot prove that an emergency exists, the government tells us that the bill is for insurance against an emergency. No wonder the hon. member for Peace River called into question the integrity of the "insurance broker". Let us not forget that the proposed energy supplies allocation board would have immense powers and that, as clause 10 makes clear, the board would act under the instructions of the government. Again, all this might be acceptable if there were a genuine national emergency. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no energy crisis in Canada. As the Prime Minister himself noted when he spoke in the debate on this subject in 1972, Canada imported 770,000 barrels a day, while at the same time exporting 950,000 barrels. During the same time we produced 1.7 million barrels of oil per day, while consuming 1.55 million barrels. Eighty per cent of that production came from Alberta.
The Alberta government has made it clear that it will not allow Canadians to suffer from an oil shortage this winter. In a policy statement on the use of Alberta energy, Premier Lougheed set security of supply for Canadians as the first of five priorities for the Alberta government. The premier said:
Eastern Canada is confronted with a possibility of shortages this winter because of action by the Arab oil states-and I want to make it clear that Albertans feel a genuine concern about this situation. We have indicated our willingness to assist in every way possible to help ease this problem. In fact, national security of supply has been an Alberta concern for many years. In 1959, and again in 1969 and again in early 1973, the Alberta government attempted to persuade the federal government that a pipeline to Montreal was and is in the national public interest. The response in the past to this suggestion has been negative. If the Montreal


'8736 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act pipeline was in operation now any shortages of energy in eastern Canada could be avoided.
Mr. Speaker, we do have severe transportation and pricing problems, but these could be solved by federal-provincial consultation provided that an atmosphere of good will can be maintained. At the very least, we should give no thought to passage of Bill C-236 until we see the outcome of the federal-provincial conference of first ministers on energy in January. The preceding member, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), elaborated on this point at length. The atmosphere of that conference will be crucial in achieving joint federal-provincial policies and programs on the use of Canadian energy. If this bill passes before the conference is held, it will produce more confrontation rather than the consultation which is so desperately needed to solve energy problems.
I believe that the extreme coercion involved in Bill C-236 could only be justified under exceptional conditions, and then subject to the consideration of justice. Thus, we come to this question: In the absence of any clear demonstration of a national emergency, why does the government want such a club in the form of an energy allocation board? One answer to that, a deeply troubling one, is the predilection of this government for authority.
With the benefit of hindsight, Mr. Speaker, we know the government overreacted to the crisis of October, 1970, which led its taking exceptional powers under the War Measures Act. The government did indeed trample on individual liberties and civil rights. It depicted the crisis as greater than it was, then stepped in to save the country with dictatorial action. Many members were later sorry that they had given their consent to the War Measures Act. If the public had known at the time the limitation of the crisis, it would never have supported the sweeping deprivation of civil rights.
I point out to you, sir, and to members of the House that the wording the government used when it sought these powers in 1970 is very similar to the wording used in seeking the present powers. On October 16, 1970, speaking in the House when he introduced the War Measures Act, the Prime Minister said:
The government recognizes that the authority contained in the act is much broader than is required in the present situation, notwithstanding the seriousness of the events.
He went on to say:
To those who will voice concern at the extent of the powers assumed by the government under this procedure, I can only say that I sympathize with their attitude, and applaud them for speaking out. I hasten to suggest, however, that the legislative record of this parliament in the field of individual liberties contributes unequivocally to its credibility and good faith.
We know what the credibility and good faith of this government have been like in the intervening years. May I draw your attention to the words used by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in introducing this bill last week. As recorded on page 8442 of Hansard, the minister said:
In spite of its efforts, the technical committee is unable to advise the government of the precise extent to which international crude oil deliveries to Canada will be reduced. However, the committee has recommended that the government plan for possi-

ble curtailment as great as 20 per cent for these areas which are dependent on overseas oil.
Thus, we see the government once more coming to us with an evaluation which is not supported by facts. Actually, in the present situation the facts have not been outlined which led the government, in its extremity, to seek these powers. The government's swift and unnecessary use of extreme powers in 1970 makes it imperative that before we ever again give such powers to it, or one of its created boards, it must prove to us that a crisis really exists. Denis Smith, one of Canada's distinguished political scientists, has summarized the situation in the following way:
At the moment of decision, when it has been forced to choose between participation and the exercise of the state's authority, the Trudeau government has always opted for authority.
There is a second and even simpler explanation for the government's motive in presenting this bill. We have seen how the political balance in this House has sent the government scurrying leftward to start a national petroleum company. We have seen the vigour of the Prime Minister's attack on Premier Lougheed in Vancouver last Friday in which the Alberta premier was depicted as an oil baron blackmailing his fellow Canadians. We saw the strange performance of the Prime Minister yesterday in linking the record of the Alberta members in this House on the energy question to, of all things, the language issue.
Responding to the assurance of the member for Peace River, that Alberta members want to secure the supply of oil for the people of eastern Canada, the Prime Minister said " ... I wonder if he could assure a supply of Alberta members to Quebec on the bilingual policy." When I objected to this tarnishing of Alberta members as bigots on the bilingualism issue, the Prime Minister responded" ... it is more important to Quebec to have acceptance by Canada of the bilingual policy than to have a gallon of oil from Alberta." Linking bilingualism and energy is a feat of political legerdemain that can only divide Canada. To pose the energy question in these terms is an outrageous, irresponsible act of the Prime Minister.
Over the past few days and weeks, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the strategy of isolating Alberta forming in the minds of the Prime Minister and those Machiavellian figures who stalk the east block. That strategy is: Alberta versus Canada on energy; Alberta versus Quebec on language; Alberta squeezing or freezing the Maritimes; Alberta the bad, Trudeau the good. What an election issue! What a dream! Let us not be so naive as to dismiss the idea that this government would try to create such an election issue. This is a government that uses, and abuses, national unity for its own political survival.
Marc Lalonde: Don't confuse Alberta with Alberta tories.


Douglas Roche: But the Prime Minister should take note of a basic fact: Albertans are Canadians first. We have contributed our share to the development of Canada and we will continue to do so. As the Edmonton Journal remarked:
Albertans do not back the witless slogan, "Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark". Albertans recognize that the national oil policy of a federal Conservative government which gave us an Ontario market benefited us. It benefited Ontario too, and that is
December 13, 1973

how Canadians who are also Albertans, would want it. Don't try to turn the rest of Canada against us, Mr. Trudeau.
Whether we are talking about language or energy, Mr. Speaker, Albertans are the brothers of eastern Canadians. We will not be the tools in a ploy to set up an energy dictatorship. We will oppose policies inspired not by the needs of Canada but by Liberal desperation.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, as my contribution to this debate tonight I propose to tell the House of the particular significance of energy in my constituency of Medicine Hat and, more specifically, the city of Medicine Hat and the close town of Redcliff. These two locations, only five miles apart, comprise approximately one half the total population of my constituency of Medicine Hat. In addition, I propose to try to indicate to my colleagues the impact of our present energy debate on myself as a native Albertan from the viewpoint of a rural agricultural land owner of both surface rights and mineral rights. May I first point out that southeastern Alberta's interests are mainly concerned with the production, use and export to other parts of Canada of natural gas. While there may be some oil deposits and production, it is our natural gas that I will be commenting on in particular this evening.
First, a brief history of gas discovery and development in the constituency I represent. Natural gas was first discovered in 1883 by the CPR when boring for water at a point 40 miles west of Medicine Hat. Gas was struck at about 700 feet and was used to light and heat a railway section house. Later, in 1891, Sir William van Horne, then president of the CPR, offered to loan a drilling outfit to the town of Medicine Hat to be used to locate coal beneath the townsite. No coal of any importance was located, but a strong gas gusher came in at 660 feet. This became Medicine Hat's first gas well. Gas from this well was used in commercial operation by Charles Coulter to burn limestone and manufacture lime for his building operations. In addition, I should point out that this particular gas well was also the first gas well in the province of Alberta.
In 1892 the CPR drilled a second gas well adjacent to their railway station. This well was used primarily to entertain visiting dignitaries who came through on the railway. They did this by rather spectacular blowoffs that were fired to illustrate this tremendous natural resource below the city of Medicine Hat. One such blow-off for the benefit of Rudyard Kipling prompted the author to describe Medicine Hat as the city "with all hell for a basement". Later, in 1899, Mr. Coulter drilled a well in his backyard and used the gas for lighting and heating not only his own home but a number of his neighbours homes as well. In about 1900 or 1901 the town drilled five gas wells that were used by their waterworks plant and supplied all residences. This was the start of a city-owned utility system that still operates most successfully for both gas and electric power.
About this same period an enterprising promoter from Sarnia, Ontario, came west and settled just south of my own post office of Walsh, Alberta. His name was J. A. Grant. He established a very large ranching operation called the Sarnia Ranching Company. It was financed, of
Energy Supplies Emergency Act course, by risk capital from the Sarnia community. Grant had considerable know-how in the drilling industry and was probably the first commercial gas well driller in southern Alberta. Of course, he picked up this knowledge from his experience around Sarnia.
In the late twenties and thirties a series of wildcat oil wells were drilled east of Medicine Hat, all using ponderous hand-erected wooden towers and walking beams for the drilling action. It is worth noting that all these earlier wells were drilled in the expectation of finding oil and that the gas found in all of them was of very little practical and commercial use. One such well, known as the Draisin oil well, ran wild and burned for years in the Many Island Lake community just north of my ranch where it acted as a landmark and beacon when we trailed cattle across that open-range country.
As a schoolboy in Medicine Hat, two features involving natural gas have become solidly etched in my early memories. First, while learning to skate on the Saskatchewan River in winter, we were able to locate gas bubbling through ice cracks and light it to warm our hands and feet. Second, all our streets in Medicine Hat, even in my own school days, were lighted by gas street lights that were never turned off. From that beginning, Mr. Speaker, gas production has come a long way to the present day state of development. To illustrate this, I would like to bring members up to date with some figures. Here are some production figures for a 75-mile producing area centring at Medicine Hat. That is a block 75 miles west, south and north, but only extending 30 miles east to the Saskatchewan border. To the end of October of this year, 2,597 gas wells were producing 248 billion cubic feet of natural gas. There are 718 oil wells producing 18.9 million barrels of oil. Percentagewise, this represents about 10 per cent of Alberta's gas production and 2 per cent of our provincial oil production. In addition, this production comes from 60 per cent of Alberta's gas wells and 5 per cent of our oil wells.
The large percentage of gas wells is related to closer spacing and lower drilling costs of these wells due to relatively shallow production depths. These depths range from 1,000 to 2,000 feet. Not included in any of these statistics, supplied by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, is the tremendous potential of natural gas reserves under the 1,000-square mile Suffield defence research reservation just a few miles north of Medicine Hat.
Only this morning the Globe and Mail in a special report commented with some startling observations on these reserves. These observations are important enough that portions of this news item should be quoted for the record. This is a quotation from an article in this morning's Globe and Mail headed "Suffield gas prospects prove up."
The 1,000 square miles of the Suffield military reserve in southeastern Alberta are proving up a substantial natural gas potential following exploratory drilling under the auspices of the provincial government.
Petroleum industry experts have already suggested that the Suffield range could ultimately become the largest gas field in Canada, at least until gas finds in the Arctic islands or the Mackenzie River delta are developed.

December 13, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
"South of the sixtieth parallel it will probably remain unrivalled as the largest single gas field in Canada" says a petroleum industry man long active in the southeastern Alberta region.
In market terms it could increase Alberta's known gas reserves by 10 per cent, the equivalent of eight years' supply at present consumption rates in (Ontario.
According to preliminary estimates, eventual proven fuel reserves in the Suffield block could surpass an estimate made earlier this year by Premier Peter Lougheed that the area could hold four trillion cubic feet of gas worth at present wellhead prices at least one billion dollars.
Contractors have drilled 26 wells in the first round of the current winter exploratory program. All confirmed gas discoveries. Another 51 wells have been licensed to be drilled during the remainder of the 1973-74 winter season. About 78 wells will be taken down to an average depth of only 1600 feet to reach potential gas bearing zones to complete the evaluation phase of the military range.
Subsequently, private industry would develop the Suffield reserve in conjunction with the Alberta Energy Company which has among its portfolio of investments title to all the gas which might be found under the prairie land north of Medicine Hat and in the vicinity of the Medicine Hat gasfield, until now the largest proven accumulation of gas in Canada.
The Suffield gas is less costly to develop than fuel from the equally prolific foothills belt which because of difficult drilling conditions could be as expensive to explore as Arctic gas prospects. The Suffield gas, according to industry information, is probably the last of the easy-to-get reserves in western Canada. In addition, it is free of most impurities, dispensing with the need for expensive processing plant.
The article concludes by saying:
Pipeline connections to transport fuel from the Suffield block are readily available, too.
This concludes the portion of the Globe and Mail story that I thought was most timely and pertinent. As might be expected, this relatively recent energy development in my constituency has had some very satisfying results. First, the population of Medicine Hat, which has remained almost stationary during the ten years from 1961 to 1971 at about 25,000, has increased dramatically. Since 1971 it has increased by well over 4,000 to 30,500. In addition, the agricultural community served by Medicine Hat and Red-cliff-essentially the same area as I described in my comments about natural gas production-has enjoyed a long overdue bonus as a result of well drilling, pipeline construction and related service activities which have benefited the entire agricultural area. This agricultural community is one of the most sparsely settled areas in populated Canada due, of course, to its semi-arid climate with the ever-present threat of drought.
Here are some tangible results of the energy boom. First, the expansion of a longstanding ceramics industry and more recently a thriving fertilizer plant taken over from United States control by Western Co-operative Fertilizers Limited, a Canadian, farmer-owned corporation. I should mention, also, the establishment of a Goodyear Tire and Rubber plant. In the petrochemical field, a new carbon black industry known as Cancarb came into production only about a month ago. Also under construction in the petrochemical field is our $55 million Allarco plant.
All these developments, and many more, including sprinkler irrigation using natural gas for power, are the end result of generous reserves of relatively cheap natural gas. All Canada would benefit from these activities quite

apart from the value to central Canada of exported surpluses. It is no exaggeration to suggest that both the city and the rural communities serviced by Medicine Hat and Redcliff have waited some 20 odd years for this pay-off.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in a statement to the House on November 14, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) outlined the government's new policy with respect to the registration and licensing of all fishing craft, skippers, crew, traps and all other fish-catching units. The effective date of these new licensing regulations is January 1, 1974.
The minister's statement in this connection has given rise to a great deal of uneasiness and concern on the part of a large number of Newfoundland fishermen. The hon. gentleman failed to answer a number of important questions which are obviously in the minds of the fishermen affected. Tonight I should like the minister's parliamentary secretary to answer some of the questions which have been put to me by some of the fishermen in my constituency and in other parts of Newfoundland.
For example, how does the minister intend to define a bona fide full-time fisherman? The nature of the Newfoundland economy is such that people living in the rural areas must fish for certain periods of the year and must also, of necessity, get a job on shore, in construction, on the highways or whatever else offers, so as to earn sufficient money to exist. What will happen to such people? Will the minister's new licensing policy prevent them doing what they and their forebears have been doing for centuries, that is, earn a partial living from the fishery?
Another important question that I hope the parliamentary secretary will answer is this: How will the new licensing regulations affect the payment of unemployment insurance of fishermen? For example, will UIC benefits be restricted to full-time fishermen a defined by the minister and his officials? Or will they apply to fishermen who of necessity fish for part of the year and then work on shore for the rest of the year to earn sufficient money to exist?
Another important question that comes to mind is, how will these new licensing regulations affect many of our young people who have to fih during the summer to earn sufficient money to enable them to go to school or university during the winter? How will these regulations affect

many of our disabled veterans and others who suffer form disabilities that prevent them from becoming full-time fishermen? Will these people be permitted under the new licensing regulations to carry on as a they have been doing now for a number of years, and as their forebears in the province have for centuries?
These regulations as we see them, in the absence of any detailed information given by the minister, could very well have the effect of changing, perhaps destroying, a whole way of life in Newfoundland that has existed since we first settled in the fifteenth century. We believe the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) and the government have a responsibility to make sure that the people are affected by these regulations have them fully explained to them. I venture to suggest that all the people of Newfoundland will be affected by them, because the fisherman of Newfoundland also affects the entire population and economy of the province. We believe that these regulations are of sufficient importance to warrant hearings being held in the province, say by the fisheries committee or some other type of wide consultative body, in order that the fishermen become fully acquainted with the implications of the new regulations and their possible effect on their way of life.
I have had several public meetings with the fishermen in my riding since the minister announced these regulations on November 14, but I have been unable to find one who could tell me what they were all about. Obviously, the fishermen are in the dark, as it were, with respect to the possible effects of these regulations and I think this is grossly unfair on the part of the minister and his officials.
We have had a history of fishing in Newfoundland without licensing for nigh on 500 years. I contend that if the minister decides to defer the implementation of these regulations for six months or a year in order to give the fishermen a chance to find out what they are all about, this will not have any drastic effect on the future of the fishing industry. The least the Newfoundland fishermen expect is that they be told what the regulations are about and hopefully given the chance to express their opinions and views on the question of licensing and the future of the fishing industry.
I suggest it is unheard of for a minister of fisheries to stand in his place in this House and in a very dictatorial way declare by way of ministerial decree that the fishermen of Newfoundland will be required to be licensed as of January 1 next. We are not against licensing, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of gathering statistics on the industry. But certainly I and my colleagues on this side of the House feel that in a matter of imposing restrictive licensing on our people, especially at such short notice, we are entitled to know all the facts and implications of such a policy. For this reason I hope the parliamentary secretary will enlighten me tonight and will tell the people of Newfoundland what are the possible effects of these new licensing regulations.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have three minutes in which to answer about ten minutes of questions. I shall do my best. I think there has been a misinterpretation which has led to some confusion. Let me try briefly to make some points. The basic reason behind the
Adjournment Debate
licensing program is simply that it is an inventory: I think that is the best way to describe it. It is an inventory or stocktaking.
The hon. member, who has been in the building trade, will know that if one is to build a house, one must know what materials are available to work with. We do not know how many boats we have, and we do not know how many fishermen we have or where they are. It is a stocktaking, inventory or head count so that we will know what we are dealing with. Then we can go on to manage and improve it. That is the first point.
There will be no restrictions. Those who have fished will continue to fish. Anyone who has a history-I think the policy says this in so many words-in the fishery and has fished for seven years, eight years or more will be able to do that. There is no restriction on the number of fishermen. Anyone who wants to fish will be able to get a licence.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Bill Rompkey: I have only three minutes: you will have to let me continue. So far as the registration is concerned, it will start with the offshore fleet, the trawler fleet. It is a head count. It will gradually move inshore. It will be about 18 months or more before we get to the inshore fishery. In the meantime, while it says that the policy will come into effect in January, 1974, by the time that policy is applied in respect of the inshore fleet there will have been adequate time for consultation.
We will be setting up very shortly committees in the Atlantic area which will have on them a majority of fishermen and people from the industry, federal fisheries people and people from the provincial government. These people will be looking at the policy of registration and licensing. They will decide how it could be applied to their particular area. I think that is the answer to the question concerning what is a bona fide fisherman. I think we have not stressed enough the committees that will be set up on which the fishermen will serve. They will be consulted. We would like to leave to them the question of the definition of what is and what is not a bona fide fisherman.
For those who do not fish commercially there is absolutely no restriction in respect of small boats 35 feet and under. There is absolutely none, and the policy so states. Anyone who wants to fish or jig for cod or set a herring net, or whatever, will be able to do so. There is no thought to deny the birthright of Newfoundlanders, as I think has been suggested from time to time. People who want to fish to provide a few meals in the winter time, or who want to put some fish away, or the pensioners whom the hon. member mentioned, will be able to do this. There is no thought of applying this policy to that type of person.
Let me deal with a few other points the hon. member raised. So far as unemployment insurance is concerned, I agree with him that changes should be made. We are working toward making those changes. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the plan as it presently exists is unfair to fishermen. I think it should be changed. I believe what we would like to see is possibly some sort of catch insurance eventually. We cannot do that without this licensing policy because unless we know who the catch

December 13, 1973
Adjournmen t Deba te
insurance policy is to apply to, how can it operate? It cannot operate; it is impossible. So we must have the licensing policy in order to put into effect a proper catch insurance program. I think this is what many people would like to see. I think they would like to get away from unemployment insurance but, as a sequel to unemployment insurance and as an improvement on unemployment insurance for fishermen, have a catch insurance program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I am very sorry but I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary because the time allotted to him has now expired.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH REGIONAL OFFICES-POSITION OF NORTHERN ONTARIO
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, on April 10, 1973, in the Standing Committee on Regional Development an exchange took place between the minister and myself in respect of decentralization. I should like to remind the House of some of the things the minister said to me at that time. At that time I asked the minister whether the government was decentralizing in Toronto, and he replied that they were not. I asked whether northern Ontario was not ready for decentralization, and the minister replied:
I am sorry, I have not been asked the question about how we are going to decentralize because I am afraid we got sidetracked onto a few other issues. But I will be very glad to say to you that we are not decentralizing to Toronto. That would not be decentralizing at all; it would be recentralizing in another place, and that is not what we intend to do.
Then on July 17, 1973, as recorded at page 5699 of Hansard, I asked the minister the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the minister's announcement that DREE will be decentralized and four regional offices established, will he inform the House whether northern Ontario is to be the recipient of one of these regional offices?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it will not only be the recipient of a regional office; there will be other regional offices established in Ontario and there will be a very special office established in northern Ontario.
Then lo and behold, on November 26, 1973, the Regional Economic Expansion Department issued a press release in which the following statements were made:
The new organization plan provides for a major decentralization of the staff and activities of the department and for the establishment of regional headquaters in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto and Saskatoon. It also provides for the strengthening of the departmental offices in provincial capitals, which are to be headed by a senior official at the director general level.
It is fairly obvious that there is a great discrepancy between what the minister says will happen and what actually is taking place. The minister displays a complete insensitivity to the feelings and needs of the people in northern Ontario. What is in effect taking place is the recentralizing of the department's bureaucracy in Toronto, and if anyone knows how the people of northern Ontario feel about that kind of thing, how they view Toronto in the perspective of northern Ontario, they will know that it

means for them "business as usual" so far as DREE red-tape and the people of northern Ontario are concerned.
I raised this whole matter of what the minister euphemistically calls the decentralizing of DREE in the miscellaneous estimates committee hearing on November 28, 1973. I asked the minister about the cross-purposes of these two regional offices which he annouced, one in Toronto and the other at the Lakehead, and the myriad smaller offices in other parts of the province. The minister is never at a loss for words and he was not at a loss on this occasion, because this is what he said:
Well, a continuous monitoring service is built into the decentralization through which on a regular basis-and by regular, I suppose in most instances, it would be daily-advice is provided to a co-ordinating centre here in Ottawa on just what is happening, what offers have been made and so on within the various parts of the country.
The whole operation boggles the mind and sets the stage for even more confusion than before. Gulliver described some of these situations in his travels, and it seems to me that we in northern Ontario will experience that all over again. What the minister should be doing is setting up, in addition to the regional office in Thunder Bay, a regional office in Sudbury to service northeastern Ontario and eastern Ontario. He should be setting up a co-ordinating office in Toronto, not an office of the kind he describes in his press release which is in effect decentralizing the bureaucracy from Ottawa to Toronto.
Let Toronto have the co-ordinating office. Let them fiddle around with the statistical evidence once the approvals have been given and offers taken up in the areas that need them. It seems to me that the minister can uncomplicate things and can make them much smoother for the people in areas such as mine in northern Ontario who have applied for incentive grants under the DREE program.


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, following the announcement in the Speech from the Throne in January, 1973, that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would be decentralized, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) made public on July 16 a copy of a memorandum from his deputy minister to the staff of the department which described in detail the objectives, the basic plan, the principal functions and regional variations of the department's new plan of organization. The document stated clearly that the new plan would provide for a genuine decentralization of the department's analytical, implementation and administrative units.
The department's new plan of organization is aimed at providing for improved integration of departmental activity, for a better capacity to administer existing programs and for improved interdepartmental co-ordination. It also provides for more comprehensive analytical work and for co-operation with provincial governments in the identification and pursuit of developmental opportunities.
On August 10 the minister announced the locations of the regional offices of the department, and in the case of Ontario the announcement mentioned that the regional headquarters for the Ontario region would be in Toronto and that there would be an office in Thunder Bay. At the time of that announcement the minister also indicated
December 13, 1973

that consideration would be given to the establishment of other departmental offices in northern Ontario.
When appearing before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates recently, the minister further stated that this matter would receive priority consideration once the department's initial decentralization is completed. The Toronto office will be headed by an assistant deputy minister, who was appointed on October 19, and the Thunder Bay office will be under the direction of a director. The decentralization of the department is now well in progress. The six assistant deputy ministers have been selected and their appointment was announced on October 19 and on December 3. The appointment of four of the ten provincial directors-general was made public on November 20, and further appointments are to be made soon.
I think that from my comments the hon. member will conclude that no time is being wasted and that this department is rapidly putting into place the administrative machinery to implement its new programs. Detailed consultations about these new programs have been held over the last months will all provincial governments and these have now reached the final stage. The minister will be making announcements about the objectives and features of the department's new development thrusts in all provinces over the next few weeks as soon as agreements are reached with individual provinces.
In the case of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, it can be said that the consultations have been very effective and it is hoped that the signing of a general development agreement covering the federal-provincial developmental effort in Ontario will take place soon.


AIR TRANSPORT-HEAD TAX ON PASSENGERS- SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR PASSENGERS USING FEEDER AIRLINES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I see with regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is not in the House tonight to participate in this debate, but as I look over the serried ranks of the government benches it comforts me to realize there is someone there to speak with all the awesome authority of the Minister of Transport. I asked the minister on December 6, as recorded in Hansard at page 8471, if he would consider making changes in the new head tax of $2.80 on air passengers that would make it less discriminatory against people who live on islands or reside in cities and towns on feeder airline routes. His answer was no.
Victoria airport has been vastly overcrowded for a considerable length of time. I asked a question, that was answered on September 19 this year, concerning the crowding of a variety of airports and received a list of seven airports which showed that Victoria was far more crowded than any of the others. This is a very handsome airport but far too small for the number of people crowding through it, particularly in the tourist season. I need only say that Victoria airport in the tourist season is a little more than twice as crowded as Toronto airport was before the opening of terminal No. 2, and anybody who had the experience of passing through Toronto airport before they opened terminal No. 2, which drained off
Adjournment Debate
hundreds of thousands of people, will realize just how crowded our pretty little airport is.
I might say in passing that it is very well staffed and managed and the people who are employed there, like all the people engaged in welcoming tourists and visitors to Vancouver, are noted for courtesy and efficiency. I understand there is a compromise solution that has been offered to enlarge the airport, which I welcome; but I would have preferred that they had moved their plans two years ahead to a more appropriate date of 1974 and had gone ahead with the original plan to enlarge it. However, I do not want to upset anything that will alleviate the overcrowding situation next summer.
On the question of the $2.80 head tax, Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to design a more iniquitous and unfair tax than this when you relate it to the people who are going to use it. It is not related to the length of the trip or the ability to pay, or first-class or economy fare or old age pensioners; it is just a kind of bludgeon and everybody is hit with $2.80 no matter how far they are going or no matter how long they will be in the airport. I understand a change has been made now and that people will not have to pay $2.80 every time they change on a single trip.
Just looking at the trip from Victoria to Vancouver, that comes to $13 now. I might recall for the parliamentary secretary that 11 years ago we used to travel from Victoria to Vancouver for $5. It was subsequently raised to $8 and it is now $13. This tax will make a total of $15.80, a 21 per cent increase. At the same time there is a subsidized ferry route which takes you to Vancouver for $3.25 midweek and that includes the bus to the ferry and to downtown Vancouver. The fares for air travel do not include bus fare, so that adds another $4. People are going to be discouraged from using air travel from Victoria to Vancouver, and 80 per cent of our passengers go to Vancouver. It is not only bad business and unclear in its execution; it is also likely to cost them dearly in passengers in the long run. When they enlarge the airport they might find that passengers have dropped off.
We have no proof that the department is in need of this money. Airports have always lost money; airports always need money. I suspect someone has come up with this idea for raising money perhaps after travelling in a foreign country where they have seen a sales tax or a head tax. A sales tax would be more fair than this type of tax. Somebody probably came home and said to the Minister of Transport, "Let's charge everybody $2.80 for using our airports". Probably they do need the money, but they have not explained to this House or anybody else that they need it. They would do well to look at the submission made by the Air Transport Association of Canada. This group, of course, is not disinterested but they ask that the proposed airport charge should wait.
At the present time, although it is due to start on or after January 1, there is no inkling whether the tax is to be collected with the ticket, whether there will be cash registers in the airports, whether the commissionaire is going to collect it, the tax collector, or who. This is a disgraceful display of bad administration, Mr. Speaker, and it should be halted until they find out, first, why they

December 13, 1973
Adjournment Debate
need the money and, second, how they are going to collect it and whether they can figure out a system for people travelling short distances which would be more fair. People who travel short distances, other than people on the west coast, are usually the people from the east coast, the most depressed area in Canada.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the problem the hon. member faces. He has explained it very well and the problem with regard to short flights. May I begin my answer by reading the press release put by the Department of Transport on December 4, 1973. It reads:
The $2.80 airport charge announced yesterday, which is to be levied on air carriers, will be applied only once regardless of the number of planes a passenger embarks on in the progress of a continuous one-way trip, transport minister Jean Marchand announced today.
In his news release of yesterday, Mr. Marchand announced that the airport charge will be levied as soon as the administrative details can be worked out. To clarify questions which have arisen, Mr. Marchand said there will be only one charge regardless of how many planes a passenger embarks on in the course of a continuous one-way trip.
This answer obviously affects to a major degree people flying on shorter airline routes. It is true that achieving reasonable equity in the collection of this charge, while at
the same time minimizing the impact on any particular group who use the airport facilities, is a difficult task. The earlier proposal for an air transportation tax had the advantage of being directly related to air fares and thus in relative terms it appeared less onerous. However, while the impact of the transportation tax may have appeared less severe, in terms of equity based on use of facilities it had obvious undesirable features. The current airport charge which is to be collected from the air carriers at the rate of $2.80 per enplaning passenger is in fact almost directly proportional to passenger use of airport facilities.
The airport charge is levied on the carriers. It is not yet clear how they will choose to recover the costs involved. However, in the competitive air travel market it may be that strategic pricing will require the adjustment of any particular air fare by more or less than the amount of the airport charge. Until carriers have obtained approval for any revisions to tariffs it will be difficult to know what the final impact of the airport charge will be.
It is intended that the levy on air carriers of $2.80 per passenger will remove a portion of airport facilities' costs from the general taxpayer and will have them borne by those who choose to travel by air. This, in my view, is a significant step in achieving equity and fairness in the allocation of airport costs.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, December 14, 1973