1973-12-07

PRIVILEGE


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because I feel that some hon. members have questioned my integrity on two occasions: The member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on Tuesday December 4 and the member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) on Thursday December 6. I also wish to point out that such an attack had also been made against me as chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates by the member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) on Monday, March 15, 1971.
It should be pointed out that those three members are not regular members of the committee which I chair and consequently are unaware of the rules established by that committee.
Hon. members will agree with me that these three members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have shown political pettiness and niggardliness in their vicious, violent, scathing, low, sectarian, false, erroneous, malicious, discriminatory, detrimental, pernicious and misleading attack. I can think of other qualificatives, Mr. Speaker, but of course I would not dare use them in the House because I know you would find them out of order. I do not want to follow the bad example set recently in this House by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).
There are three charges laid against me: first, refusal to recognize hon. members of the official opposition; second, irregular use of an illegal chronometer; third, favouritism toward government members to the detriment of those of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday, December 4, you gave me the opportunity to explain myself. It seems however that these explanations are not sufficient since the hon. member for Calgary North played another dirty trick on Thursday, December 6.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and respect the decisions made by Your Honour in each case. However, in order that I may settle once and for all, for my colleagues, the public and my constituents, this question which has been dragging on since 1971, if you rule that this is a prima facie question of privilege requiring a motion, I am ready to suggest that this question be discussed before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as the hon. member for St. John's East and myself have already suggested.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) has given notice to the Chair of his intention to rise on a question of privilege concerning the circumstances he has mentioned. I remind the hon. member that his notice reached the Chair a bit late.
Still he could have risen after the hour of notice, that is in a few minutes. However, I thought that it would be easier to try and settle the matter immediately. The hon. member for Laurier has referred to the fact that this question was raised a few days ago by another member who suggested that there was a question of privilege which should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Now the hon. member is suggesting that the matter be studied by another committee of the House. The Chair at that time ruled that there did not seem to be a prima facie question of privilege which should be studied by a committee, and I do not see how I could now change this ruling. The hon. member has referred to certain incidents which occurred in a committee. It has been suggested repeatedly that committee deliberations should not be discussed by the House except in the form of a committee report. I regret, like all hon. members, the difficulties which may come up occasionally, similar to those the hon. member has alluded to, but I see no point in having the deliberations of a particular committee looked into by another one. That, in essence, is the ruling I gave the day before yesterday, I believe, and I see nothing in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier to justify any other decision today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy
Council): Mr. Speaker, I shall try again today to make some progress with the business of the House. We had a meeting of the House leaders, as suggested yesterday, and I believe there is a basis for proceeding to clear out of the way a number of important bills.
As I understand the consensus reached, we will deal with all stages of the Parole Act and of the residential mortgage bill without debate. We will also give second reading to the parks bill and, having achieved all that, we would give passage to the Canada Pension Plan Bill No. 2-
An hon. Member:: Would you try for No. 1?

December 7, 1973
Business of the House


Mr. MacEachen:: -and the Family Allowances Act. If the hon. member tempts me I will put in CPP No. 1.


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: May I, not only on behalf of the Official Opposition but on behalf of the only opposition left in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we agree with a House order as outlined. We now have the deletion of the third reading of the parks bill, which bothered us yesterday. We are pleased to honour the commitment we made.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: You have already spoken. One speaker for each party.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a word on behalf of the influential opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, on behalf of the party in this House that is making parliament work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are straight out of Charles Dickens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry that my friends of the Official Opposition, the members of the oil lobby, are so distressed this morning. May I say what I rose to say, namely, that the package the government House leader has reported to Your Honour is one that all four party House leaders agreed to this morning. There might have been added one qualifying word. Where the minister said "without debate" he could have said "without further debate", because these measures have been debated at length at various stages. But the proposals suggested by the minister have our support.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, despite the vagaries of the hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party, the only efficient opposition party in the House, that is the Social Credit Party of Canada, is here to work. Whatever that hon. member may think, the agreement of the Social Crediters was needed for unanimous consent. We were pleased to give it this morning.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the House for its co-operation and suggest that we might deal with

this package of legislation when Government Orders are called before we deal with the debate on the oil bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table copies in English and French of a paper entitled "The Criminal in Canadian Society-A Perspective on Corrections" prepared in contemplation of the federal-provincial conference on corrections to be held at ministerial level in Ottawa next week.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has received from the Korea Electric Company Limited, the national electric utility of the Republic of Korea, a letter of intent to purchase a 600 megawatt CANDU nuclear power station, together with an option for another. This is the second time this year that another country has opted in favour of the Canadian nuclear power system, featuring heavy water moderator, natural uranium fuel and pressure tube reactor. In March the Argentine Atomic Energy Commission chose for Argentina's next nuclear power station a 600 megawatt CANDU offered by AECL and an Italian partner, Italimpianti. Contract negotiations for the Argentine project are in the final stages and are expected to be completed around the end of the year.
Acting on the letter of intent, a team of AECL engineers will go to Seoul this weekend for technical discussions relative to the Korean content of the plant. Another team will follow in January to complete specifications and the scope of supply and to set parameters for pricing the project. The aim is to complete the agreement by March.
I would also remind hon. members of the offer which has been made to the province of New Brunswick, mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his statement yesterday, of federal support for a CANDU nuclear power station in that province. As part of the government's general policy of providing financial assistance to the installation of the first commercial CANDU nuclear plant in each province, the government will also be prepared to extend similar financial assistance to the province of Manitoba just as soon as the provincial utility decides to proceed with such an installation.
The growing acceptance of the CANDU nuclear reactor system both at home and abroad has led to a requirement
December 7, 1973

for a further investment in heavy water production facilities, a question which has been kept before the House by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would like to announce, therefore, that the government will finance the construction of a new heavy water production plant of 800 tons per year capacity in the province of Quebec near the site of the Gentilly reactor. Once built the new facility should provide the assurance of adequate heavy water supplies both at home and abroad for the following several years.
However, projections indicate that the CANDU nuclear industry will continue to grow with even more heavy water needed in future. The government has decided that when the production of an additional federally financed heavy water plant is required in the next few years to support the nuclear program, such plant should be located at an appropriate site in either Manitoba or Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, as perhaps one of the greatest experts on this subject in the House of Commons I know I would be expected by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to say a word or two.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to begin by congratulating the minister first of all on receiving the applause of his colleagues today after they pulled the rug out from under him yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to congratulate quite sincerely the Atomic Energy Commission and wish them every success with these two prospective sales which I hope are completed satisfactorily. It will be interesting in due course for the House to be told the terms upon which the sales will be financed. However, I do know something about the dedication of the people involved in promoting the CANDU project in Canada, the way they have strived to make this project a success and the way they have worked to promote sales abroad. I wish them every success in this regard.
I think it is pretty clear that in the coming years Canada will have to depend a great deal on the development of atomic power. Obviously there will be a growing role for the CANDU system within our country and there will of course, be an increased requirement for heavy water to be manufactured in Canada.
One thing we note in this connection is a change in the approach of the government. The initial method was to interest private companies in the building of heavy water plants, the first one being at Glace Bay and the second at Port Hawkesbury. Now the trend seems to be away from that toward the government building these plants directly or through the Atomic Energy Commission. It will be interesting to have an explanation some time of this
Atomic Energy
change and whether it is an indication that private companies like Canadian General Electric and others who in bygone years evinced a great interest in building these heavy water plants have lost their interest or whether the government or the Atomic Energy Commission has decided directly it is in the public interest that these plants be built and owned by the government of Canada. It will be interesting to learn why this change in policy has taken place.
Finally, may I also say, in view of the interest the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has shown in the matter, that I am pleased to see reference made to the possibility of a heavy water plant being built in either Saskatchewan or Manitoba. I shall not take sides, of course, as between Saskatchewan and Manitoba but simply express the hope that before very long the hon. member for St. Boniface will have a heavy water plant of his own to boast about.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot claim the expertise in this subject the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) can, for which I thank God. I am interested to note that at the time this announcement is made the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) is absent from the House. According to newspaper rumours, he indicated that if the next plant was not constructed in the western part of the country he might tender his resignation. I am wondering whether that is the occasion for his absence.
On behalf of our party may I say this announcement of additional sales of the CANDU reactor is most welcome. I think the government officials involved in negotiating the sales deserve to be congratulated most sincerely. I welcome also the reference in the minister's announcement to the fact that when it becomes necessary to build a fourth heavy water plant it will be located in the western part of the country in either Manitoba or Saskatchewan. This is a welcome announcement and a necessary step. It is important that all parts of the country participate to a great extent in the development of this technology.
I suggest to the minister that, given the current success in the sales of the CANDU reactor, perhaps it is now time for the government to demonstrate even further confidence in the technology developed by our scientists by taking the plunge and going into production of these reactors with the assumption that we can reduce the relatively high initial cost of these reactors through economies of scale that would be involved in a sort of production line run and that by reducing those costs the potential for external sales of the reactor would increase. If increased foreign sales should not materialize, there is great need for such reactors in the future in this country and their production would not be wasted in any way.
Again I congratulate the government and the officia's involved on making these sales and on having developed a technology which is now finding worldwide acceptance and is making Canada one of the leaders in a new area of technology.
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, having heard yesterday the Prime Minister state the government's energy policy, and having listened today to the

December 7, 1973
Atomic Energy
announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), I must say that, once again, this seems to be a mini-speech from the throne, inasmuch as this policy statement seems in keeping with the expectations of Canadians and parliamentarians.
We have problems, I know, and the Canadian people are counting on their representatives in the House to find solutions, not 20 years from now, but at this very moment, so that they may stop living in anxiety. Are we really going to run short of energy in one area or another. We must stop thinking that we have in Canada natural resources that we are unable to develop and that we must rely on others.
I have been interested for quite a long time in the matter of heavy water production in Canada. Attempts were made by the federal government, the provincial governments, and even by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), when he was premier of Nova Scotia. If we are to rely on information obtained from scientists, it must be admitted that they recognize today that the failure of the Glace Bay project was due to the poor quality of the water that prevented the end from being achieved.
Today, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has conducted extensive research in this area. I am aware of this because I have always kept in touch with this agency to make sure that they were really working in earnest and to find out whether they were going to recommend to the government to set up a new plant in a suitable location where the climate and the quality of the water would allow a large production at the lowest possible cost, thus enabling nuclear plants to operate at full capacity.
I have always been disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that it was decided to build nuclear plants without a secure supply of heavy water to operate these plants at full capacity.
I have nothing against Russia, but I remember very well that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to a question I asked him in this House, replied that the slowdown at the Gentilly nuclear plant was due to a shortage of heavy water and the inability of Russia to supply more. Because of this answer, I have kept urging the minister and the government that more research be conducted with a view to sitting up a heavy water plant in Canada which could produce more of it in order to allow our nuclear plants to operate at full capacity.
I kept insisting, Mr. Speaker, that this plant be built in the Montmagny area, in the county of Bellechasse, and as recently as yesterday, I talked with the mayor of Montmagny, Dr. Gaetan Gauthier, to whom I pay tribute because he made representations and worked sensibly with his council members, along with his committee, in order to secure a heavy water plant in the Montmagny area.
Today, I must admit that the decision made by the cabinet was a sound one in the light of the information given to me by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. At any rate, I am glad that this plant is located in the province of Quebec. I am a Canadian but I am also a Quebecker. I read in the minister's statement that the government is considering the installation of another plant in a not too distant future in another area of Canada. I think, Mr. Speaker,
that this is the proper procedure in order to bring Canadians closes together instead of dividing them and to enable Canada to benefit fully from all our forms of energy, so that we may work together to solve problems and meet the needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that you are anxious that I complete my remarks. I will conclude right away but, in any case, I hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources will continue to show great energy and that this plant will operate as soon as possible, so that we may be self-sufficient and produce all the energy we can in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Previously the minister had indicated that the price freeze on Canadian crude would terminate at the end of January and the Prime Minister had said on national television that the price freeze on Canadian crude in its present form would end in January. I would like to ask the minister what happened. What changed the policy between the time of the Prime Minister's statement on November 22 and yesterday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will have been aware of widespread disagreement on the question of the pricing of Canadian produced oil in Canadian markets, both within this House and, indeed, on the part of a number of provincial governments. It seemed to us appropriate, in light of the forthcoming first ministers' conference, that this is the kind of question that should be focused on nationally and on which we should seek to get some national agreement. On that basis it seemed reasonable to postpone the date for future increases until we have some agreement with regard to the current position and also with regard to a pricing mechanism for the future, to be discussed within the framework of a first ministers' conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the benefit of the freeze on Canadian crude to consumers of gasoline, home heating oil and other petroleum products throughout most of the country, is there any reason why the government of Canada, through the minister or the Prime Minister, in its beneficent way could not provide some price shelter also for the people of the Atlantic provinces and the people of Quebec who are now paying very much higher prices, particularly for home heating oil? Is there any justification for the minister and the government continuing the

December 7, 1973

existence of these two sorts of Canadians? Is there any justification the minister can give for continuation of a policy which imposes the highest prices on those Canadians with the lowest personal incomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did make some reference to certain ameliorating actions the government had taken with regard to those consumers in the eastern Canadian market who need assistance the most. This proposal of the Leader of the Opposition for cross-subsidization of eastern consumers by the western producing interests is an important question to be considered at the federal-provincial conference. Unfortunately I cannot announce anything today in that regard.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister did not mean to twist what I said. I am not talking about cross-subsidization. I want to make it very clear that I am not asking western producers to subsidize eastern consumers. I am asking the government of Canada to provide an equal hand for all Canadians. In view of the Prime Minister having indicated in response to a question from the hon. member for York South that before the year's end legislation would be introduced to indicate the way in which prices will be determined after the freeze, would the minister tell the House whether that legislation is now prepared, whether it will be presented to the House before the end of the year, and what kind of mechanism is intended?


Mr. Hees:: A quick conference is necessary.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what legislation the hon. member is referring to.


George Harris Hees: Why don't you listen instead of talking, Don?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would think the hon. member for St. Boniface could be a little quieter now that he has some hope of getting a heavy water plant.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Fraser:: Here comes the heavy humour plant.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for St. Boniface, but I remind hon. members that we are still on the very first question and we now have a point of order. Certainly we are not moving as quickly as we ought to try to move. As I say, the hon. member for St. Boniface has a point of order, after which we will try to move on a little more quickly with the question period.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to make the suggestion, in view of the fact the Leader of the Opposition had trouble making his question clear to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that possibly his confrere who spoke on behalf of the opposition yesterday might be able to do it for him.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Prime Minister's statement in the House on November 22 with regard to the pricing process of Canadian crude following termination of the freeze in which he said, "we will have to introduce legislation certainly before the year's end to indicate the way in which these prices will be determined", may I ask the minister whether this legislation has been prepared, when will it be presented to the House, and what kind of mechanism is intended?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, legislation clearly will not be introduced before the federal-provincial conference. It is specifically for the purpose of talking about questions like the pricing problem that the Prime Minister will be meeting with the other first ministers. On that basis I would think the appropriate time for legislative change would be after the federal-provincial conference when we have achieved a consensus.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It appears that a number of members are seeking supplementaries on this first question. We will start with the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham and then go to the hon. member for Yukon.


CANADIAN CRUDE OIL-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF WHEN PRICE FREEZE WILL END
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of pointing out a further zig-zag in policy I will merely ask the minister this question. On the matter of the termination of the price freeze there are a lot of misinterpretations of the very vague language of the Prime Minister yesterday when he used the phrases "heating season" and "the end of winter". I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he can possibly give us his interpretation of those phrases? What date has the government got in mind for now lifting the freeze?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the reference to the end of the heating season is probably as accurate as it is possible to be. I think this is a question that should be discussed at the federal-provincial conference. Very obviously it will be at the end of the fourth or perhaps the fifth month next year when the weather improves.


Mr. Nielsen:: Not where I come from!


CANADIAN CRUDE OIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE EXTENDED PRICE FREEZE WILL APPLY REGARDLESS OF POSITION OF ALBERTA AND OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that there is neither need nor justification for changes in the price of domestic heating oil during the present heating season and that the government will undertake discussions with the government of Alberta and the oil companies to secure their agreement to achieve this goal, would the minister state in the House, without reservation, that the government will impose that freeze regardless of the predictable position

December 7, 1973
Oral Questions
that will be taken by the oil companies and their ally, the premier of Alberta?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will not say that categorically. I would seek, first, to get their support. I hope we will have the support of the province of Alberta and the oil companies in this regard. Of course, if that support is refused we will have to consider our position and I will then advise the House.


DOMESTIC OIL TO WHICH LONG-TERM PRICE INCREASES WILL APPLY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary, again on the question of price in the longer term. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that we must in the long term allow the price of domestic oil to float upward in order to ensure the development of future resources, would the minister tell us whether price increases would apply to the conventional reserves of about ten billion barrels or was the Prime Minister speaking only of the higher cost oil from the tar sands?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the questions in the choice of a pricing system, whether we might have a multi-level pricing system in our market. I think that will be discussed more fully at the federal-provincial conference.


OIL EXPORT CHARGE AFTER FEBRUARY 1 NEXT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO PORTION WILL BE RETURNED TO COMPANIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary to clarify another statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday regarding the disposition of the export charge as it will be called after February the first. Can the minister state without reservation that no portion of that charge will be returned to the multinational oil companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it would be the intention to bring it into the public sector. Discussions, of course, will continue with the province of Alberta with regard to the possible sharing of the export charge. If there were a decision that some part of it should go to Alberta, it would then be for that province to determine where it would go. At the federal level it would be the intention to take it into the public treasury.


CONSULTATION BY MINISTER WITH OIL COMPANIES TO PREVENT UNJUSTIFIED PRICE INCREASES
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister announced yesterday that the price freeze would not be applied in eastern Canada.

I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he had discussions or contacts of some sort with, among others, the Exxon corporation, which supplies eastern Canada, in order that the people of that region do not suffer from an exaggerated price increase in oil products.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had no such contacts.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. minister say whether he intends to discuss with provincial premiers or with his counterparts the development of a policy or guideline which would protect the eastern Canada population against an exaggerated increase? Has he specific measures to suggest or is it only a general discussion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this question is on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. As the marriage was consummated yesterday afternoon, is it the intention to call the new party the "Liberal New Democrats" or has the hon. member for York South insisted that it be called "NDP Liberals"?


Mr. Sharp:: You can do better than that.


CRUDE OIL-EFFECT OF PRICE FREEZE ON SYNCRUDE PROJECT-PRICE LEVEL NECESSARY TO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is along the lines of a question asked by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. The Prime Minister said yesterday that "in short, we must in the long run allow the price of domestically produced crude oil to rise toward a level high enough to ensure development of the Alberta oil sands." Does that mean there will be no development of the Alberta sands until the price freeze goes off? When he added, "but not one bit higher", how high did he mean, $10 a barrel which the economists are talking about now to develop this project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would anticipate that the Syncrude project would be going ahead. So the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that this will not delay action in that area. With regard to the appropriate level of price, that obviously is a matter that will have to be discussed at the federal-provincial conference particularly with relation to the expected cost of synthetic oil developments in the coming years.


SUGGESTED TAX CONCESSIONS TO REDUCE PRICE OF GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL TO CONSUMERS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I make this suggestion to the Minister of Finance, and I put it as a question. In light of the fact the Prime Minister has made the statement that the price of crude petroleum must go up, has the Minister of Finance given any consideration and, if not, will he give consideration to
December 7, 1973

tax concessions so as to reduce the consumer price for gasoline and heating fuel?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I interpret that suggestion as a suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we are still on the first question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon, who was on his feet when we adjourned yesterday, on a supplementary and then recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES AT FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary I intended to ask yesterday had to do with milk but my supplementary today has to do with the oil situation. The minister has mentioned the federal-provincial conference in January where these problems are going to be discussed and particularly the lifting of the price freeze at the end of the heating season. Can he assure the northern residents of Yukon and the Northwest Territories that they are going to have representation at that conference inasmuch as the heating season is somewhat longer for them than for the rest of the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a first ministers' conference and in that respect I am not exactly certain how we accommodate them, but I can assure the hon. gentleman that the interests of the two territories will be adequately represented.


Mr. Hellyer:: Will the freeze stay on until the frost comes out of the ground?


HIGHER HOME HEATING COSTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO ASSIST PEOPLE UNDER CERTAIN STATUTES
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the Prime Minister's reference yesterday afternoon to higher home heating costs. Yesterday the Prime Minister referred not only to the Canada Assistance Plan but also in an oblique way to the old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and family allowances. Is the minister prepared to make a statement as to what definite ways the government has in mind for assisting people with higher heating costs under these pieces of legislation?
[DOT] (U50)


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Give him the same answer you gave him at caucus last Wednesday.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the noise from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is over.
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: Give him the same answer you gave him at caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to move a little more efficiently. It seems that the minister heard the question asked by the member for Winnipeg North Centre and perhaps he could attempt to reply to it now.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was answering for me and I had difficulty understanding what he was saying. I wish to say to the hon. member that old age pensions will be increased in January according to the escalation formula. The figures released Tuesday, show $108 for the basic pension and $184 when combined with the supplement for a single person starting January 1. This will represent another increase in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. With regard to aid under the Canada Assistance Plan, I have written to my colleagues and have already received a reply from Prince Edward Island indicating that they will increase their payments under the Canada Assistance Plan by 10 per cent. I have approved the increase and confirmed that the federal government will share in a flat increase of 10 per cent in benefits. I would also like to remind hon. members of a bill passed by the House last week, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: -which has given to the provinces another $190 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that after the Prime Minister said all that yesterday afternoon, he said, and I quote his words, "something more may well be required"-


Thomas Miller Bell: How much more do you want?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will the Minister of National Health and Welfare make a statement before the Christmas recess as to what that something more is going to be?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, with regard to something more, I might say that Newfoundland is receiving $24.1 million more, Prince Edward Island, $4.6 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appeal to hon. members to assist the Chair in getting the question period moving just a little more quickly. As hon. members know, we are still on the first round of questioning. At this pace, I am not sure whether we will go much farther. I will now recognize the hon. member for Egmont.

December 7, 1973
Oral Questions


OIL-EFFECT OF EXTENDED PRICE FREEZE ON DOMESTIC CRUDE ON PRICES IN QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC CANADA THIS WINTER
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the Prime Minister's statement yesterday afternoon did not really clarify the situation with regard to the need for a two-Canada oil policy, particularly the application of the freeze with respect to eastern Canada, will the minister advise whether the price freeze that is to continue in effect for the rest of the winter season will have any bearing in Quebec and Atlantic Canada where prices have already risen since September by 20 per cent and are close to 40 per cent over the level of prices in western Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the intent would be to seek continued agreement with regard to the freeze on the basis that we are seeking to hold prices down except where the cost of offshore crude feedstock necessitates increases.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact, referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the Prime Minister said something more may be required but no discussion will take place until January and presumably there will be no action until after that time, what mechanism will be in effect to deal with these offshore companies so that the increasing disparity that exists between eastern and western Canada will not be allowed to become even worse?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, we will follow the same procedure we have followed until this point. With regard to action to be taken, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has pointed out there has been a substantial transfer of financial resources to those particular provinces, and we would think they would be in an excellent position to take action with regard to these commodities in their own jurisdiction.


EXTENSION OF PIPELINE TO MONTREAL-CONTINUATION FARTHER EAST AS REQUIRED-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In his statement yesterday the Prime Minister indicated that in addition to building the Montreal pipeline it would be extended as required to points farther east. What did the Prime Minister mean by that reference? What determination will be made by the minister with respect to building this pipeline, and how soon will there be some announcement with regard to an extension to these eastern points?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one question to be considered at least in the shorter run is the modification of the Portland pipeline. As the hon. member may know, there are a number of discussions current with regard to the extension of additional pipeline connections farther east, either from the St. Lawrence or Lorneville. These discussions, among other things, will include the ability to make

the line reversible so that in times of crisis feedstock could be moved back and forth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a further supplementary, but we should try to have fewer than three supplementaries to each question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As the minister has referred to the Lorneville situation in particular, and as there has been anticipation for some months in that part of the province of New Brunswick respecting the building of that capacity, does this mean the minister's department will accelerate its decision in this regard instead of holding up the project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have not been holding up the project. There has been an extensive examination of the factors involved, particularly the economic factors, in the different pipeline possibilities. As the hon. member may know, there are at least three of them: the lower St. Lawrence, Lorneville and Canso. There is obviously a problem of choice involved as to which is the best in the over-all Canadian interest.
[ Translation]


CONSTRUCTION OF HEAVY WATER PLANT IN QUEBEC- REQUEST THAT REPORT TO CABINET BE MADE PUBLIC-USE OF BANK OF CANADA TO FINANCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could the minister inform the House if the report filed with the cabinet by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will be published, or whether it is considered as a confidential report? Moreover, could he inform us when the building of this plant will start and when is the plant expected to be in operation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know precisely to which report the hon. member is referring. The heavy water plant will be in operation, I think, within about four years.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I would like to ask a supplementary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker.
The report to which I refer-and I think my question is quite clear about it-was brought in after the study undertaken by the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. This report was certainly submitted to the cabinet so that the latter may rule wisely and decide about the location of a heavy water plant.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Such report will not be made public.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience but as this matter is most important, I shall be brief. In view of the federal government's announcement regarding the building of such a plant, could the minister tell us whether the government will
December 7, 1973

have recourse to the Bank of Canada to finance this construction so that Canadians will not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh no! Not again!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am hurt by such remarks whenever I utter the words "Bank of Canada". It is the bank of all Canadians and everybody seems to be insulted. I regret that very much. It is a Canadian institution and we should have the right to talk about it in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I ask my question very seriously, Mr. Speaker. I am never joking.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his question because we are going to be short of time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the government intends to use the services of the Bank of Canada to finance that project so that Canadians will not have to carry unnecessary interests and pay for four plants to get only one at the end.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to use normal sources of financing to that end.

[ English]


SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF BOXCAR CONTROLLER TO FACILITATE MOVEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I turn from oil to wheat and direct a question to the minister reporting for the Wheat Board. Has the government given reconsideration to the appointment of a boxcar controller with appropriate powers. The legislation would be passed very quickly by the House because during the last eight or nine days the backlog has increased and the Wheat Board has been losing contracts. Some have been lost completely and others have been deferred as a result of the failure to make available the necessary boxcars, which the railways naturally will use for the carriage of other commodities on which a greater profit can be realized. Would the minister, in these circumstances, not be willing to bring before the House legislation to do something to reduce the backlog of 75 million bushels of wheat at the present time, get the wheat moving and thereby enable the Wheat Board to fulfil its contracts?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the railways gave the Wheat Board figures as to the number of cars which could be put into the movement of grain and the railways have in fact been keeping very close to that number of cars. There is, of course, great pressure upon the railways from those who wish to move many other products, and the effort of the railways is to serve all customers as well as possible. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Transport, would look
Oral Questions
seriously at the question of the appointment of a controller, or some other device, if he felt that any unfair attitude was being shown as between various products. But I think it is a little unfair for members from the prairie region to say that wheat only should move, as it would be for members from British Columbia to say that lumber only should move. I think we should appreciate that an effort must be made to serve all products as effectively as possible, although sometimes a difficult judgment has to be exercised.


John George Diefenbaker: The conversion of the minister from being a representative for Saskatchewan will be interesting to the farmers of that province. I ask him whether or not the government will give consideration-the responsibility is his because he is looking after grain-to giving a controller the power to allocate cars between the various claims by producers of commodities. Let him not give an evasive answer. The fact, please.


Otto Emil Lang: As far as cars available for grain are concerned, a very effective block shipping system was set up several years ago along with coordinators at the terminals, measures which were never put into effect while the right hon. gentleman was prime minister. I am happy to tell the right hon. gentleman that my supporters in Saskatchewan find I can represent them and the people of Canada at the same time, something which he never managed to accomplish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The exhilaration being displayed opposite would indicate a source other than heavy water. I am glad to have that admission from the minister. It has been my view that he has forsaken the west. He now admits it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


OIL-ROLE OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN POLICY CHANGES ANNOUNCED BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Were the policy changes announced by the Prime Minister yesterday based in whole or in part on recommendations from the technical advisory committee to the minister? If so, to what extent?


George Harris Hees: No. They were based on the recommendations of the New Democratic Party.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The changes announced were of a more long-term nature, not with regard to emergency interruptions of supply with which the technical advisory committee has been concerned. As the hon. member knows, the terms of reference of that committee are to deal with the

December 7, 1973
Oral Questions
crisis situation which might be faced this winter in the event of the interruption of supplies to eastern Canada.


James Balfour: Did the technical advisory committee approve the extension of the price freeze?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have really answered that question already. The committee is concerned with the threatened interruption of supplies to eastern Canada.


OIL-REASON FOR SEVEN YEAR DELAY IN MAKING CANADA SELF-SUFFICIENT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of industry figures that our present oil production is 300,000 barrels a day above our consumption, can the minister explain why the government now feels it needs seven years to make Canada self-sufficient in oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman will re-read the statement, he will know there is no intention to cease exports to the United States during this period. The construction of plants to extract oil from the tar sands could well require very extensive investment over a considerable period of time before self-sufficiency is realized.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General arising out of his comment a few weeks ago that the situation at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary at Prince Albert was getting back to normal. Did his statement take account of the fact that inmates who are in segregation and dissociation are denied the right to make telephone calls to anyone and that this right has been suspended indefinitely? Can he explain why some of these inmates have been kept in the hole, in solitary, in one instance for more than 200 days? Does this represent a situation which is back to normalcy?


William Warren Allmand: I would have to look into the individual cases. I know that some inmates are kept in segregation for a long time because they still present behavioural problems to the penitentiary. But I will look into the cases and get the names and find out what is wrong.


Frank Howard: Would the minister also look at that section of the penitentiary in which these particular inmates are kept and determine whether or not this was the area of the penitentiary to which no key could be found, as a result of which the penitentiary subcommittee, when it visited Prince Albert, could not get in to see what was going on?


William Warren Allmand: I will do that, Mr. Speaker, and I might have our recently appointed ombudsman look into that question.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his parliamentary secretary, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Since federal law provides that the only way in which residents of the town sites in national parks can appeal lease rentals is through the Federal Court, will the government extend to those persons the same treatment as was extended to the native people at James Bay by financing their test appeal whose purpose is to clarify federal law? Can the minister give us an affirmative answer to this question before December 15 which is the deadline set by his officials?


Otto Emil Lang: I shall be glad to look into the matter and discuss it with my colleague.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. When applicants for admission to Canada are granted unconditional landed status by the Immigration Appeal Board as provided by section 15 of the Immigration Appeal Board Act, should this not finish the matter as far as applicants are concerned, or are their applications subject to further processing by immigration officers?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The normal practice of the department is to have the person concerned medically examined before he is landed. Should the hon. member be aware of a problem in any particular case I would be glad if he would bring it to our attention.


REASON FOR NOT EXTENDING SHARING OF EXPORT TAX WITH PROVINCES BEYOND THE FREEZE PERIOD
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House on what basis the government decision was reached not to extend the 50-50 sharing of the oil export

tax with the four western producing provinces beyond the freeze period?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has already replied to that question by saying that this is a matter to be discussed with the provinces in January.


NUCLEAR REACTORS AND HEAVY WATER PLANTS-DATE OF EXPANSION IN WESTERN CANADA-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the Prime Minister's statement in the House yesterday, and in view of the difficulties we are presently facing in respect of more conventional hydraulic generating stations and the need for nuclear research and development, could the minister make a statement as to the time frame he is looking at in regard to the possible expansion of heavy water plant sites and nuclear reactors in western Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my statement, it seems that the earliest nuclear reactor in western Canada will be at such time as the Manitoba utility decides that it should bring a nuclear reactor on stream for its purposes. There has been some discussion in British Columbia, as the hon. gentleman may know, with regard to the possibility of a nuclear reactor to meet the power needs of Vancouver Island, but I think it is fair to say that that discussion to the moment has been inconclusive.
With regard to additional heavy water plants, this depends to a degree on the rate of sale of the CANDU system in other nations. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has been active in its export program, and it will be a combination of additional nuclear plants for export and for Canada which will determine the time frame within which the next one will be brought on. Judging by this year's rate, that should be at a fairly early date.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should like to commend the minister for the statement he made and also with respect to sales. The lack of confidence that has been evident in places such as the Whiteshell nuclear research station, I believe, will be rectified to a great extent. In light of the expanded acceptance of the CANDU reactor, I should like to ask the minister whether he has in mind a widespread expansion of research and development funds for nuclear research in our present installations.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. gentleman for his kind remarks. I think it is fair to say that because of its active export program AECL has been concentrating its attention on marketing the existing reactor. It does have two modifications which are currently under study. As to a specific program to increase research, I do not think that at the moment they have any proposal in regard to Whiteshell, though obviously that is a site that they would want to concentrate their efforts upon when additional research does come along.
Oral Questions


PETROLEUM-REFERENCE TO MINISTER'S STATEMENTS CONCERNING ALBERTA MARKETING BOARD AND LIFTING OF PRICE FREEZE
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources having to do with the minister's insistence in the past that he will always stick to the written record. The minister on November 14 in the miscellaneous estimates committee was asked about his position if the Alberta government, by way of royalty or a marketing board, raised its prices to world prices for petroleum products and he said "Yes, indeed, that would certainly reduce, if not eliminate, the export tax". When asked if that would be acceptable to him the minister said it would certainly be acceptable. Would the minister say now whether he will still stick by that statement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of the proposal to hold a meeting of first ministers, among our requests to Alberta would be one that it not change the current policy but discuss it at this conference.


Mr. Speaker:: We have just about reached the end of the question period. The hon. member for Calgary South might ask a supplementary and then I will see the hon. member for Selkirk.


Peter Colwell Bawden: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on November 14, in response to a question whether the government was irrevocably committed to lifting the freeze on crude prices, said yes, that was the policy as announced. In view of the uncertainty that has been created in the provinces and for the Canadian people and the fact that Canadians cannot trust his answers, will he say whether this will change in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and refers to the statement he made last week about disclosure to a member of this House of confidential information contained in a document. On the assumption that the long established procedures referred to by the minister in his statement to the House last Thursday include suspension, followed by an inquiry, possibly dismissal and the right of appeal, can the minister tell the House how far these procedures have now gone? Specifically, can he tell us whether the person charged with the leaks has at least been suspended from the public service, as is required-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply to the first part of the question. It seems to me that a question as long as this one takes a little too much time away from other hon. members with questions to ask. I assume that the hon. member

December 7, 1973
Oral Questions
has now asked his question and the minister might be allowed to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is continuing. I was in touch with the officers who are in charge and they are pursuing their inquiries in accordance with the procedures set down. Of course, no one has been charged. The investigation is continuing.


ALLEGED DENIAL OF GASOLINE TO CANADIAN MOTORISTS IN UNITED STATES-POSSIBLE RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENT
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week I drew to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the possibility that American service stations were refusing to sell gasoline to Canadian automobile drivers in the United States. The minister indicated he would ask the Department of External Affairs to investigate the matter. Would the minister inform the House if he has now looked into these allegations, whether there is any truth to them and, if there is, what action is being contemplated to avoid distress to Canadians driving in the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we did make inquiries. First, we determined that there is no government policy, whether at the federal or state level, which would discriminate against Canadians. We also inquired of the American Automobile Association and they said they had no such policy. Of course, individual service stations, if they are short of supplies, may have to decide to whom they will sell their supplies, but as far as we know there is no discrimination against Canadians as such.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I have a related matter concerning a problem anticipated at some Canadian border points during weekends when American service stations are not even serving their own nationals and American nationals cross the border to fill their tanks in Canada. Is any consideration being given by the government of Canada to entering into discussions with the government of the United States to try to regulate these two related problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as far as Canada is concerned we have no policy of discriminating against Americans or other foreigners. The hon. member will have noticed that last weekend, which I think was the first on which American service stations were not open, there was no exceptional demand for gasoline in Canada and we hope this will continue to be the situation. If, however, the situation changes I can assure the hon. member that we will pursue the matter.


EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL- DISCUSSIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF STEEL FROM HAMILTON MILLS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and has to do with the long awaited extension of the oil pipeline. Can the minister advise what specific steps have been taken or definite discussions had, if any, to ensure adequate supplies of steel from the great city of Hamilton?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, we have been in discussion with the pipeline company which, in turn, has determined the availability of steel from Stelco-Hamilton produced steel. The Canadian Commercial Corporation will be authorized to go ahead to assure the availability of steel for the start of the pipeline.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
As the hon. Minister of Finance is aware of the shortage of some food products in Canada and as he urged all farmers to increase their production, could he tell us if he is considering partial repayment to the farmers who have been penalized in recent years because of overproduction of foods we are short of today?


PROPOSED HEAVY WATER PLANT AT GENTILLY-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES REQUIRED TO OPERATE
Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
On behalf of my constituents, I wish to thank him for his decision to build a nuclear plant in Gentilly.
Can the minister tell us how many employees will be required for its operation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that such a question is in order. The Chair gives the floor to the hon. member for South Shore.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I am seeking a very important and necessary clarification of

part of the Prime Minister's speech appearing in yesterday's Hansard at page 8481:
The market in the east for Canadian oil going through the pipeline must be certain. It must not disappear if international oil suddenly and temporarily drops in price.
I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether this is a promise or a threat, and if the Prime Minister is going to disappear will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that it will be up the pipe?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River and then call orders of the day.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and has to do with the shortage of rail cars. In light of the disastrous effect the shortage of rail cars has in various western provinces in respect of various industries, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has had any discussions with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and the Minister of Transport regarding the possibility of removing the very heavy import restrictions on equipment of this nature coming into Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting on that and other matters affecting the movement of rolling stock in the country. Orders of the day.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege in relation to an answer I gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a few minutes ago. I may have inadvertently misled the House. I believe I referred to $190 million in increased equalization during the course of the current year. I have now made some quick calculations. I had already started to say that Newfoundland would receive $24.1 million, P.E.I., $4.6 million, Nova Scotia, $22.4 million, New Brunswick, $20.5 million-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Marc Lalonde: -Quebec, $72.2 million, Manitoba, $10 million and Saskatchewan, $20.9 million, for a total of $175 million, not $190 million.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
Parole Act


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
For the last few months I have been privately complaining at least 20 times that the copy of Hansard which is left in my desk is in the other official language, which is not my mother tongue, and no improvement has been made since. Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether it would be possible for the House proceedings to be printed the same way as the committee proceedings where both versions are in the same copy. Since it is under your chairmanship that the statutes have been published in both official languages within the same volume, would it be possible to have the House proceedings in both versions also in the same volume so as to avoid those repeated mistakes which are occurring in spite of our private complaints?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 4, consideration of Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motions Nos. 1 and 2 (Mr. Howard).
Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that the question is to be put on the two motions which were under consideration. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division. Motion No. 1 (Mr. Howard), negatived on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on Motion No. 2. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.

December 7, 1973
National Parks Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Howard), negatived on division.


Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-191, to amend the Parole Act be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FINANCING BILL
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved: that Bill C-135, to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


NATIONAL PARKS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-224, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Marc Lalonde: that Bill C-211, to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payr ment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Marc Lalonde: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
December 7, 1973


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the government House leader might like to get back to his seat. Since the Thursday question was not asked yesterday, I wonder if the House would be interested in knowing what of the few remaining items we shall deal with next week and in what order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the debate on the oil supplies bill today and if not completed will continue with it on Tuesday. Following that I should like to take Canada Pension Plan bill No. 1.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I wonder if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would like to ask the House to revert to motions to make a brief statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had informed the hon. gentleman who made this suggestion that Mr. Serjeant is not being prosecuted in Tanzania and I expect his imminent discharge. The hon. member for St. John's East had raised the question with me and as a result of the action of the Canadian government Mr. Serjeant's case has been disposed of.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 6, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: I believe yesterday the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) had the floor.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to resume this debate and congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his excellent outline of a national energy policy for all Canadians, Canadians
Energy Supplies Emergency Act from every part of this nation. This policy contrasts with the no-policy of the Conservatives, although I must say that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) attempted to give his view of what the policy should be from the point of view of the board room and was certainly reinforced last evening by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) in this respect. Somehow,
I just cannot believe this is the prevailing view of the whole party, but who knows? I feel that the New Democratic Party has taken too much upon itself in saying that this is its policy. I should like to show that for nearly a year the Canadian petroleum corporation, or as some of us call it the "Oil-Can" had been on the drawing boards and was actually being considered. A very good document was produced in the month of June which refers to most, if not all, the things mentioned by the Prime Minister last night.
This policy is the policy of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Government and we support it to a man. If hon. members will consult Hansard for October 25, they will see that four speakers on the government side-each of us, including the minister-talked about federal involvement in the tar sands. Clearly, we were very concerned that the approach to the tar sands was the approach taken by a commission of the Alberta government, not some group from New York. These are our policies. We stand behind them but welcome the support of the NDP in this respect.
There are three major elements involved in the Prime Minister's speech and involved in a national energy policy. The first has to be an adequate and secure supply of oil and energy. The second has to be a much greater degree of Canadian control. The third is a single fair price adequate to ensure a secure supply. The Prime Minister discussed these elements last night in general. I should like to deal in some detail with certain of them. Let us deal first with the matter of an adequate and secure supply for all Canadians, both in the short-run and in the long-run.
This bill is designed to assist in securing that supply and making sure that all Canadians do not go short and that no one in Canada suffers. The minister has suggested in respect of the short-run that if there is a shortage of 10 per cent a voluntary program would be effective. He outlined suggestions along that line. If the shortage in the east should go up to 25 per cent, then there would be mandatory allotments and beyond 25 per cent there would be rationing. These short-run possibilities are all covered in this bill. It is however the long-run situation which concerns me most. I should like to deal with the long-run supply situation for a few minutes.
According to the Canadian Geological Survey, CGS, in 1972 Canada was considered to have 134 billion barrels of ultimately recoverable conventional crude oil, that is excluding the tar sands or shales. But by 1973, even though we had only used about half a billion barrels, the CGS estimate had gone down to 99 billion. I am only taking a guess, although I have had some consultations and discussions, that by the beginning of this year the figure will be closer to somewhere between 60 billion and 70 billion barrels. So that in the course of two years we have used roughly one billion barrels, the estimated ultimately recoverable quantity has dwindled from about 134 billion to something between 60 billion and 70 billion barrels, about half of what it was before.
8524

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
We must also consider that when we refer to this figure of 60 billion to 70 billion barrels we are talking about the oil that is available from the western basin, about 15 billion barrels, and about half of that has already been recovered. We can, therefore, reduce this estimated figure of ultimately recoverable oil outside of Alberta to somewhere in the area of 50 billion barrels, not including, as I said before, the tar sands or any shales that may be available. This is conventional crude. The Prime Minister indicated in his speech yesterday, and this was indicated also in the discussions we have had with petroleum geologists, that the bulk of this 50 billion barrels that is still to be recovered comes from very difficult frontier areas.
There have been very disappointing results in terms of exploration discoveries in the past year or two, which brings us to the conclusion that if we are to continue growth we will have to develop the tar sands. By the early 1980's, it is expected we will need something in the neighbourhood of two million barrels of oil a day ourselves, which will be close to three quarters of a billion barrels a year. Therefore, if we arrive at this point in the early 1980's or by the mid 1980's, what we will have to develop are the tar sands. According to the figures that I have seen from CGS, we have in the neighbourhood of 60 billion to 70 billion barrels of accessible mining type tar sands, and quantities that will vary from 200 million to 600 million barrels of so-called "in situ" sands which have to be extracted in a different fashion. The problem with the mining is that the capital investment is very high. It is estimated that to bring out the two million barrels from the tar sands-and it appears likely that Alberta crude will run out in 1980-1985-we will need an investment of about $30 billion.
It is not just a matter of investment but also a matter of time, how fast you can set up a plant. The industry claims that each plant will take a year and a half. If you peruse a study that was carried out by a government appointed committee of some 40 or 50 senior civil servants in the Alberta government-this was not an outside committee but an interdepartmental committee which produced a very fine document-you will find that we may need up to four years to set up one of these plants. So, we do have a serious problem.
I must say that last night I was very disappointed when I heard the statement made by the Hon. Eric Kierans over the CBC which was totally in error. Perhaps all hon. members on the other side were not here during the whole speech of the Prime Minister or may not have heard parts of it because of the enthusiasm of members on this side for the Prime Minister and for his speech, but I would like to repeat what was said twice by the Prime Minister. At one point Mr. Kierans indicated that $40 million was a ridiculous amount of money to cover the cost of the exploration of the tar sands. Certainly, it is a ridiculous amount of money for exploration, but the tar sands need not be explored, they are not like another oil area. We know where the oil in the tar sands is. Mind you, you may want to take samples, but you know where it is. That amount of money is not for exploration. This $40 million is for research, and in that sense it may even be more than necessary. My feeling is that if necessary more will be

added. It is the research into the in situ tar sands so that the oil may be extracted by methods which are not known to the oil industry that require research. That is what the $40 million is for.
I should like to read a short excerpt from the Prime Minister's comments to make sure that everyone has heard what the Prime Minister said. He said:
It will assist and participate in the research and development work necessary to develop an in situ technology for the production of the vast amounts of oil from the oil sands which cannot be extracted by presently known methods. To this particular end, it will invest approximately $40 million over the next five years in co-operation with the province of Alberta and private firms. Should the province of Alberta prefer some other arrangements for carrying on this project, such as an independent Canada-Alberta institute, the government would be quite prepared to discuss it with them.
I like this concept and I think the people of Alberta will like it. The government will be prepared to discuss it with them. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) then questioned the $40 million, and the Prime Minister said:
No. It is $40 million for research.
I think that the CBC and Mr. Kierans should be corrected. It should be pointed out to them that they made a very serious error in commenting on the Prime Minister's statement relative to this policy.
I have dealt at some length with the shortfall, and I have expressed my concern regarding what will happen in the future when there might be greater energy shortages. This contrasts greatly with the attitude of the other parties in the House which do not appear to be concerned about the long-term supply. I am not referring only to the debate in the last two or three days or in the last two or three months. Since we have been here as a parliament we have been listening to the Conservative Party saying that there is unlimited oil, there is no shortage; let us not worry about it.
During the committee meetings, this is the kind of thing we heard. So, I feel that not enough attention has been given to this problem. What is the solution? Of course, we have to find alternate supplies and we have to depend on some world supplies. We have to find other methods of achieving energy sufficiency. But I think the most important area that we have to consider seriously is conservation, and now I would like to deal for a moment with the subject of conservation. We have mentioned short-term conservation, both voluntary and mandatory, such as turning off lights and measures of this kind. This is part of conservation but a serious look at conservation must include other ingredients. It may even include a substantial change in our lifestyle. Possibly we can expect that type of thing in the not too distant future. It certainly means that we have to rationalize things like our transportation system. It does not make sense to have an airplane flying from Toronto to Montreal using six times the fuel per passenger mile that a railway uses. It means that our railways have to develop fast, rapid transportation.
We should also take another look at Pickering airport. In discussions with the President of the CNR he has convinced me that the $400 million to $800 million involved in that project could establish rapid rail trans-
December 7, 1973

portation between Toronto and Ottawa and Ottawa and Montreal.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What about STOL?


Paul Edmund McRae: We should examine it also. This is part of the problem connected with the over-all transportation system. I am told there is a factor of four to one in the use of fuel by trucks per ton mile as compared with railways. We must also examine the question of private transportation versus public transportation. If there were not so many private cars on our streets there would be more buses, and the. buses would move faster. These are some of the things I think of when I refer to life style.
There is another problem that has to be solved and conservation seems to be the answer. If, by using a magic wand, we could solve all our energy problems tomorrow we would still create a whole series of other problems. Cheap energy means that we use up our resources at a much faster rate, in turn creating other problems. Therefore, the establishment of a conservation board is one of those elements that are important in terms of secure and adequate supply of energy.
The other ingredient of a secure and adequate supply of energy is the delivery system. We must have a secure delivery system. Here, I must admit that this is perhaps the only element of policy that I have seen coming from the Conservative party. Apparently it made this suggestion a part of its policy in 1969, but it was dealt with only in a very "iffy" way during the 1972 election. There seems to be no argument on this matter. If the phrase "secure energy supply" is to mean anything, it means our energy supply will only be secure if the pipeline to be built is built entirely within the boundaries of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: I would advocate that the pipeline be built in three stages. The first stage would start at St. Ignace, about 30 miles from Sault Ste. Marie, where the oil line now runs, and go from Sault Ste. Marie to Montreal. I understand that the distance between St. Ignace and Montreal is somewhat shorter than the distance between Sarnia and Montreal. The cost for tunnelling and laying the line might be slightly higher, but securing the right of way would be relatively simple as most of the land is held by the Crown.
The second and third stages could almost be built simultaneously, although there should be discussion as to which should come first. The second stage would be to run that line from Gretna, Manitoba to Thunder Bay and around Lake Superior to the Sault. In that way we would have a secure line from Manitoba, at the point at which oil now leaves by pipeline to flow through the United States, to Montreal. I think that is absolutely essential in terms of secure energy deliveries.
The third stage, which could be started soon, would be the extension of the line from Montreal to assure a secure supply to the Maritime provinces. This portion of the line would be reversible, so that oil could flow in both directions, and should be built to accommodate other products besides oil. In short, our delivery policy should be such
Energy Supplies Emergency Act that eventually Canada will have a completely Canadian delivery system stretching from coast to coast.
The second element of a national energy policy which the Prime Minister dealt with, and which I think is absolutely essential, is the quick reversal of the present ownership situation. We must get away from 80 per cent or 90 per cent American ownership to a position which is the reverse of that. The quickest way for this to be done-


An hon. Member:: There are no Alberta members present.


Paul Edmund McRae: I am sorry about that. The quickest way for this to be done would be through the Canadian petroleum corporation announced by the Prime Minister yesterday. I am sorry the Alberta members are not here. They should be interested because I think the Canadian petroleum corporation offers a great opportunity for the people of Alberta. The Prime Minister indicated this yesterday, and I would like to say a little more about it today. It offers an opportunity for the independent Canadian producers. These are the people I would like to see supported. Here, I speak of the Canadian producers who are actually exploring, and the Canadian companies which are doing the drilling.
The Canadian petroleum corporation must also assure supplies to independent Canadian retailers, who are now being forced out of business because they cannot get oil from the multinational corporations. It is extremely important that we, as a government, undertake to support these small independents in every way we can. The Canadian petroleum corporation can give that support. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue after we resume.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for lunch I was talking about three elements of a national energy policy that the Prime Minister so eloquently laid out yesterday, namely the adequate secure supply, adequate Canadian control and ownership and a single fair price adequate to maintain this supply.
I should like to go back for a moment to a point that has to do with the notion of Canadian control and ownership and the Canadian Petroleum Corporation or "Oil-Can" or whatever it will be called, and to stress the importance that this company will have in its dealings with the Canadian independents. I think this is a group that could very well be in some trouble in terms of price and other factors. One of the important elements in our policy has to be that we will make sure that we support these independents, that we will support the people who are doing the exploration and we will support the people who are doing the drilling, the Canadian companies in that business. We should also make sure that supplies get to the small
8526

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
retailer. It is possible that 200 or 300 of them may go out of business in the next six months in Montreal alone if they do not get supplies. It is these people we want to support, to make sure they get supplies and are allowed to remain in a legitimate business even though small. The small business interests will benefit from the Canadian petroleum corporation.
The third element in the policy is the price. I think that we must have, first, a single price, a fair price and a price that is adequate to meet the demands of our supply needs. The single price is the first thing I mention and when I say single price I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there should be one single price across Canada for oil, excluding transportation costs. Perhaps some day if we rationalize our transportation we can include that in our price. At this point, I think we should have a single price; the people from the east and from the west, Alberta and British Columbia, should be paying that single price. It may be that a producing province, in order to equate this with internal problems or to give the people in the province a fair deal, will want a return in some fashion of some portion of the price. I have heard the Premier of Alberta say this is the sort of thing they may want to do, but there has to be a single price across the country.
Point No. 2, Mr. Speaker, is that the price has to be fair. This is the point upon which there is a great deal of concern. The price that is arrived at has to be justified. There is no justification for someone who can produce 100,000 barrels of oil at $3 per barrel being given $6 per barrel for it. There cannot be a windfall effect and this is one thing we must understand, that there should be no rip-off. The price has to be justified. On the other hand, there have to be ways of inducing people to explore and put money into the tar sands and so on. The NDP feels that they are the only ones concerned about a price freeze, but they must remember that on September 5 it was this party which imposed that price freeze.
There are all kinds of things that we can do about pricing, and all kinds of ways to avoid this windfall type of pricing. My own suggestion, and one that I feel strongly about, is that a national marketing board, separate from a Canadian petroleum corporation, should be established. I think it should be separate in the same way that I think it is wise to have the CBC separate from the CRTC. I do not think the regulatory body or marketing board should be governing the corporation that is operating the business. I think a national marketing board is a good way of achieving a single price. It is also a good way of avoiding a rip-off. A national marketing board could buy $3 oil or $4 oil-I guess there is no $3 oil left-it could buy $6 oil and it could buy from offshore. It could commit itself to buying so many hundred thousand barrels a day from the tar sands at $8 or $9 a barrel and it could commit itself to buying offshore and northern frontier oil at $9, $10 or $12 a barrel. In other words, you can have a mix of prices, each price justified by the fact that we need the oil and are meeting costs with a reasonable profit to the people producing the oil. The final price can be a single price which is an amalgam of all these prices. It would be fair and no one would be ripped-off. This objective can be achieved by a national marketing board.

[DOT]	(1410)
I understand that a national marketing board is one of the alternatives available to us. I hope the government takes a very careful look at this possibility. I realize it will not be easy to put such a board into effect. It will be necessary to deal with the province of Alberta which has proposed its own marketing board. Any dealings of this kind must be based on co-operation.
There is no doubt there is concern in Alberta about the rest of Canada. Albertans have a very important resource, and they need some quid pro quo in order to make this kind of deal possible. I suggested a quid pro quo in speeches I made in October and November. It is very seldom we agree, but my suggestion was similar to the one made by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) that the quid pro quo might be within the transportation policy.
The Toronto area, the golden horseshoe, is in a position of overgrowth. The mayor of Toronto is visiting places like Thunder Bay, saying that Toronto has had enough growth and suggesting that we take some of it. One of the ingredients of a national policy for redistributing growth must be some kind of equity in the freight rate structure. This must be designed to redistribute the growth.
Alberta has two major industries, oil and ranching and all the smaller industries that flow from them. It could use some diversification. An important quid pro quo could be this transportation policy. There is a great deal of merit in a national marketing board. It can effect a single price, ensure there will be no rip-off, and ensure adequate money will be available for further development and exploration.
In conclusion, I wish to review the points I have made. Our national energy policy must achieve certain things. There must be an adequate and secure supply. There must be enough exploration. Most important, we must develop the tar sands as rapidly as possible. We must have a very active conservation program. There must be a Canadian national pipeline which will eventually stretch from coast to coast. Our energy supplies, particularly oil and gas, should be controlled by Canadians. The vehicle for this will be the national petroleum corporation which must support the industry, including the independents. We must have a single fair price to ensure adequate supplies of oil in the future. With these ingredients, which were announced in the policy statement yesterday, Canadians can be assured that our energy policy is in safe hands and moving in the right direction.
[ Translation]


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on such an important bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill asks such great things of Canadians that it is imperative that we should consider it seriously and take whatever measures are indicated to meet the needs of Canada for oil products and ensure the developments provided for in the bill.
[DOT]	(M20)
In considering this bill, Mr. Speaker, I ask myself the following question: Why did the government wait so long before introducing legislation to set up an energy supplies
December 7, 1973

allocation board responsible for the distribution of our resources according to the needs of the various Canadian regions? It seems to me the government should have shown more foresight before waking up in the very middle of a crisis. It should have been easy to foresee in view of the Arab-Israeli war. But the government was blind.
It was easy to see that things were going well between those two countries. Since the U.S.A. supply Israel with armaments, and Canada is supposed to be one of their accomplices, it was obvious we would eventually have difficulties with regard to our gas and other oil supplies.
This bill causes us to look at the situation not only in Canada but throughout the world. Few people foresee an end to the present acute world-wide oil crisis. And the conflicting news going round on the matter further add to the existing confusion.
In many countries of western Europe, all car traffic is prohibited on Sundays, especially in West Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium. Great Britain, Finland, Norway and Poland announced further energy conservation measures. According to the latest news, Mr. Speaker, France and Great Britain will be spared an additional 5 per cent cutback in oil supplies that Arab countries intend to apply this month against all countries who oppose their policy in the Middle East.
In the United States, President Nixon announced further restrictive measures prohibiting gas stations from staying open from 9 p.m. on Saturday until midnight on Sunday. Companies will have to reduce their deliveries of liquid fuel to individuals by 15 per cent, to business concerns by 25 per cent and to industries by 10 per cent. Supplies of aircraft fuel have be reduced by 5 per cent and again to 15 per cent starting next month.
Mr. Speaker, as you see, we are in great difficulty and it is high time for us Canadians to take the required steps, inasmuch as it is materially possible and feasible to extend the pipeline and to ensure the development of our natural or oil resources. Supplies from Alberta barely meet Quebec needs.
It has been recalled that we import about 25 per cent of our oil from Near East countries. Moreover, it must be noted that most of our supplies come through the Port-land-Montreal pipeline. Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi may stop providing Montreal refineries with oil carried by the Portland pipeline.
The 25 per cent cutback in Arabian production may result in a 20 per cent decrease in world supplies. Eastern Canada would then feel directly the effects of such a cutback as well as of a world shortage.
Granting, Mr. Speaker, that work volume is comparable to that of previous years, we must anticipate a possible shortage for next year. Because of a possible worsening of the Quebec situation, it is our duty to take the necessary measures to ensure the provision of essential services and also to advocate voluntary consumer restrictions.
With regards to the federal project of extending the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal, no decision should be made before further meetings between the federal and Quebec governments.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I regret that Quebec did not see farther than its nose and that it prevented the extension of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline, in order to promote the building of a deep-sea harbour to import foreign oil instead of encouraging Canadian oil companies.
Mr. Speaker, I blame Quebec's childish policies. If we are short of oil in Quebec and were taken by surprise, the fault lies with the province. The Quebec government persisted in wanting the federal government to build a deep-sea port to get foreign oil, while it would have been preferable to extend that pipeline to Montreal.
Today, we say that if there is a Borden line, the fault lies with Quebec. Quebec could have been provided with a Canadian service that would have been able to provide sufficient supplies to meet the needs of the eastern provinces. In order to develop our resources and sell our oil at reasonable prices, the time had come to take the necessary steps and provide for the financing of that project with Canadian capital and at low interest rates since it is to serve public interest.
We also believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government should issue the development permits it usually grants to companies developing Canadian resources in order to keep certain controls so as to meet with whatever situation might arise. However we regret to see that this legislation is limited to the creation of machinery, without specifying political and economic frameworks, without creating any financing agency, since in those great projects, the "dance of millions" will start, and that will increase the price of money as well as building and production costs. In all their speeches, not one of the previous speakers mentioned finance. Yet, this field is the most important. It is the first one for which we should make arrangements for easy term financing of such gigantic projects.
Mr. Speaker, the important thing is not the price freeze, but the freeze on interest rates. Interest rates are now excessively high and if we go ahead with these big projects we shall have to pay these high interest rates, which will increase construction costs and the cost of living of all citizens.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated yesterday that he would propose measures to cope with that. Since family allowances and old age security pensions are geared to the cost of living increase, the latter will therefore continue to increase to unequaled heights. If the cost of living goes up again, Mr. Speaker, how will the Canadian people survive? How will they pay all those taxes and the excessive interests on money? How can we make both ends meet if we undertake to build what must be built and ensure urgent and essential developments in our country? We should also devise technical means to finance all those projects at very low interest costs, that is the administration costs.
Moreover, the Prime Minister stated yesterday that he would only have to ask the steel makers to produce at cost price. Why does he not ask those who control money and credit to also supply credit at cost price? Because as a good many others he is tied by the neck, a servant of financial magnates. He is not one of those who want to give back to the state what belongs to the state.

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Mr. Speaker, the state must be independent, and the way we are acting now, we are far from being independent. We depend on foreign capital, on those who make capital out of nothing. If we want to develop our natural resources, we will have to ask permission of these servants of financial interests, as if they owned our natural resources.
Everybody says that these natural resources belong to us, that all we have to do is develop them, but in order to do that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), the Prime Minister and the government will have to kneel in front of big finance to ask permission to develop these natural resources. It will be necessary to take the assets of all Canadians, the assets of all new developments and to credit them to this sacrosanct finance.
There, Mr. Speaker, is where we stand. This is how we should work in a logical way. This is where we should put all our activities in order to build what we ought to, make Canadians benefit from their resources and not take them away from them by doing what we do now. Instead of developing our resources for Canadians, we develop them for a few financiers, to their profit at the expense of Canadians. We commit Canadians to pay a tribute for generations and these developments will never be theirs. They will always be the property of those who finance them.
If we want a sovereign government, Mr. Speaker, the time has come, with respect to the great developments that are essential, to assume our financial sovereignty, put it to the test and at the disposal of the Canadian public. The time has come for us to use it to develop our resources and satisfy the needs of Canadians, so that they will secure and, above all, retain the ownership of their assets and property.
Mr. Speaker, in order to bring about the necessary developments, namely, the sharing of Canadian resources with the Canadian people, thereby providing them with the bare necessities of life, we shall have to get even deeper into debt while paying tribute to high finance. Mr. Speaker, we shall be enslaved even more than we are now, because the Canadian debt is astronomical and the interest on the federal debt alone exceeds $3 billion. This debt is huge and unbearable. If we increase the public debt even more through these developments, we will increase interests as well. We will therefore increase taxpayers' interests and taxes to such an extent that they will be compelled to go bankrupt.
The previous speaker said a moment ago that independent companies were going bankrupt, but when this pipeline is built under the present system, all Canada will go under. Mr. Speaker, everything will go into the hands of big financial institutions that exploit to the utmost the economy of countries, in particular that of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this government has carried out a short-range policy and I will prove it in a few moments. As a matter of fact, a large percentage of Canadians have been kept unemployed for several years. Therefore, we could have carried out the developments that were necessary for Canada and provided some work for these people instead of paying them unemployment insurance benefits, instead of taking from those who work in order to give to those who do not work. This is what we could have done.

But the government, with their short-range policy, have always blocked everything. We are always blocked by finance. A lot of projects should have been undertaken but were not because the necessary funds were not available and we were afraid of getting further into debt.
Our financial institutions are there to serve us and had they done just that instead of catering to the few big financial institutions that we know, we might have distributed our resources to the benefit of Canadians and put at their disposal the wealth that exists everywhere in Canada. We will never lack oil or energy products since we are able to develop them. There is plenty of energy and oil products in Canada, but in order to develop them, Mr. Speaker, we have to get into debt for generations to come. Such development should be possible without getting into debt.
New developments require new credit and it should be issued without interest. Mr. Speaker, we could give back our national heritage to the Canadian people, we could leave them their assets instead of merely changing their owners. To hand over undevelopped natural resources in return for credit to finance them is as bad, Mr. Speaker, as giving the neighbour's house to the State or to somebody else.
In order to carry on the necessary developments, Mr. Speaker, namely to distribute Canadian resources to Canadians and look after the bare necessities of life, we will have to go into debt forever.
Under our current system we have all the necessary facilities to give Canadians a sound economy and develop all those major resources and mainly our oil resources. We have all the necessary facilities for their transportation and development. We also have, if we want to take the time to think about it, all the necessary facilities to finance those enterprises without creating new mortgages on old mortgages.
Thus the administration cost would decrease as the debt is amortized and Canadians would become owners instead of have-nots. Under the current system one must be an accomplice and a parasite to give our natural resources to foreigners for developing them. They are being mortaged and in addition to that perhaps we will have to pay them ten times within ten years.
I would like to say a few words about the speech made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as reported in today's Le Devoir. I will only quote one excerpt. The Prime Minister stated:
This is why the government has decided to invest $40 million within five years in a research and development project of the Alberta oil sands; this is also why it is prepared to make equity investments in the corporations which will exploit those oil sands as well as in those which will do the same in the Arctic and offshore through the new national petroleum company.
The new national petroleum company has no financial facilities. And to finance it the government will have to find money somewhere. The Prime Minister stated that the government will buy shares in those corporations and financial developments. To buy shares it will need money, and the Prime Minister will do as usual: he will try to sell phares on Canadian market to suck up all the savings of
December 7, 1973

the taxpayers and hand them over to the state that could find other sources of financing.
When the state takes all the available savings, there is nothing left to set up industries, and promote the economic development of Canadians. All government levels, provincial as well as federal and municipal, take hold of the people's savings and invest them on the long term in projects like those that have just been mentioned, while Canadians are without money. No one can invest except the Industrial Development Bank that gouges Canadians, industrials and businessmen by lending them money at exorbitant rates.
Mr. Speaker, the quotation continues as follows:
Among the five main points of the new national oil policy, which is explained elsewhere in detail, the construction of a pipeline to Montreal is perhaps the least spectacular measure, as this decision was announced three months ago; but, according to Mr. Trudeau, it is "by far the single most urgent step towards the achievement of our national goals".
Mr. Speaker, we all agree on that point. This pipeline should have been built long ago. But we know that what is most important is to find the money to build it. If we do not do so, we will build it to the expense of Canadians, and we will involve into debt not only the present generation but generations, to come, and we have no right to do that.
I go on quoting:
Without a pipeline, said the Prime Minister, eastern Canada will never be certain that it can meet its requirements should overseas supply be interrupted.
Moreover, without a pipeline the government is unable to guarantee a market in Canada for Canadian oil at a level sufficient to ensure the development of the oil sands and other Canadian sources of supply.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that this will require once again billions of dollars, and those billions, we will not find in the pocket of a beggar, when there is only about $414 billion in legal money in circulation. According to figures of the Bank of Canada, there are about $4!4 billion in legal money in circulation. Are we going to pay off all our debts with $41/2 billion, when the federal debt amounts to almost $48 billion? Federal, provincial and everybody's debts in Canada exceed $130 billion. We have $4 VS billion to pay them off. Are we going, with $414 billion, to pay for developments that amount to $5, $6, $7 or $8 billion? No figures are available in this regard. These are figures that I submit to the House, but I am quite sure that it will amount to about $10 billion. Only $414 billion in legal money in circulation. Therefore, we will have to issue new credits. Those new credits will be issued through debts, mortgages, repayments. We will have to repay perhaps three or four times more than we received.
This is the assumption, Mr. Speaker. Governments should open their eyes instead of laughing at what we are doing and what we are suggesting. Instead of laughing at the suggestions we made, the implementation of which we long called for, they should keep their eyes and their ears open and try to understand once and for all that it is impossible to develop a country by running it deeper and deeper into debt and by always paying back double or triple the amounts received. It cannot and will not always work. It can work for some time but not always. I keep on quoting:
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Even though the extension of the price freeze west of the Ottawa Valley until the end of winter smells of political opportunism, the overall position of the Trudeau government on the long term price system effective for the oil industry stays unchanged. Evidently, Mr. Trudeau now agrees with the NDP that for the moment higher prices for Canadian oil would neither be necessary nor justified. On the other hand, he threatens that "this undisputable fact" and "this unpleasant truth" that the era of plentiful and cheap energy has gone.
We want to prevent prices from going up but the problem will not be solved by freezing prices. Prices are frozen and then, as in the United States, they have to be unfrozen, otherwise industries close down. In order to prevent their closing down, prices have to be unfrozen.
What we need, Mr. Speaker, is to adjust prices to the purchasing power. Consequently, prices must be lowered instead of frozen. The economic method we advocate contains a price adjustment mechanism which would also reduce the cost of production and the cost of finance which would allow for cheap production for all Canadians and allow them to live decently in their country which is bursting with wealth. Finally, it would allow for the distribution of that wealth because it belongs to Canadians. It does not belong to a few financiers who never lifted a shovel and never will and who use only their pen to print figures and lend that accounting to the state or large corporations who will be developing the energy we will need to keep Canada operating. This is a banker's pen run country.
The government must take control of that pen and force financiers to issue new credits for new developments at administrative cost. Then, Mr. Speaker, we will be doing something for this country. We can develop everything that is physically possible and normally good to develop. We will never be able to do it otherwise, certainly not by continuing to increase debts, mortgages, the cost of living and setting up a kind of economy where life becomes impossible, governments rip off individuals to pump money in the pockets of high finance. Mr. Speaker, we will have to put an end to this one day.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, debating Bill C-236 on Friday afternoon seems a bit of an anticlimax, having decided which way the vote will go next Monday. I really cannot help but think, in respect of this emergency act, that the government could be accused of using a sledge-hammer to kill a fly. The government has not proven the energy crisis in Canada is severe enough to justify this far-reaching intervention in the rights of the private sector, retailers, wholesalers or of the provinces at the present time. The government has not justified the need for these sweeping powers to deal with the present situation in Canada. We should not be stampeded into giving up all rights as individuals merely to deal with the problem, although it is important, because the net result may well be worse than the problem itself. We have just dealt with the foreign investment bill, and many considered it of little significance, by which the government is going to effectively divest most areas of Canada of what little local control they have.
Before this bill is passed, there should be an intensive inquiry into Canada's energy crisis to determine the true extent of it. We have been told time and time again that

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act this energy crisis is a crisis of transportation and distribution rather than of production. In the short-run, this is undoubtedly true, but there are many more serious portents in respect of the long-run. I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealt with them adequately yesterday.
We have heard criticisms from the NDP that the decision of the Conservative Diefenbaker government was instrumental in creating the oil shortage by instituting the Ottawa Valley line and not continuing the pipeline to Montreal. Without the creation of the Ottawa Valley line, there would have been no market for western oil except what the United States took, and the western oil industry would not have been developed. There are those who suggest that this policy cost Ontario dearly, an estimated $500 million in ten years. But perhaps to put it in proper perspective, I should remind hon. members that the consumers of Canada will benefit to the extent of $150 million in this year alone by the discounting of wheat and feed grains to the western producers for the benefit of consumers who are mostly in eastern Ontario.
We have heard so many conflicting statements, Mr. Speaker, as to what is the real or expected shortage of supplies that we are entitled to hear from the government exactly what its assessment of the situation is. If there is to be a serious shortage in the Maritimes and Montreal, let the government present its findings and analysis if it has any.
Now, what about the possibility of resumption of supplies of offshore oil. It certainly seems likely that the Arab oil blackmail will be unable to last indefinitely, but it certainly and probably will last for this winter. In assessing the Middle East situation we must realize that Syria and Egypt, the Arab Republic, are now in a very weak position and that the strength of the Arab world has shifted to the monarchies. Jordan hardly joined in the fighting. Certainly, the Arab kings are fearful for their monarchies and really fear the Arab Republics more than they do Israel. They are also aware that they might lose the U.S. market permanently. Indeed, it seems likely that the Arab oil boycott has already set in motion the measures necessary to allow considerable independence from the Arab demands.
We need to know in the short run, what is the situation this bill is designed to cope with; we want to know what powers the government will have and what the objectives are. Can the allocations board be criticized for its lack of independence? There are thousands of products that can be affected by the decisions of the board. No one will oppose a reasonable amount of allocation and regulation if necessary, but the dimensions of the immediate crisis must be made clear.
Mr. Speaker, turning to the longer-term crisis, there are those who suggest that this may well be a turning point in the lifestyle of the people of this continent. The conservationists have made the accusation that the Americans, with 8 per cent of the world's population, are using 33 per cent of the world's energy. Somehow or other, many Canadians accuse the Americans of this, but they forget that we Canadians are in the same position. They forget

also that we are part of the North American continent, and that we cannot escape the fact that if there is a lifestyle change in the United States there will be one for us. Already the stock markets are reacting by the most drastic fall since the great depression and are still on their way down. With about 40 per cent of the North American economy tied to the automobile industry, any drastic change is bound to severely affect our economy.
There are those who suggest that by keeping the price of fuel oils far below world prices we could somehow insulate ourselves from the world prices and still have a prosperous economy. There are those who suggest that by somehow preventing the export of energy, we could have a very cheap supply and could isolate ourselves from the North American economy. Mr. Speaker, surely it is impossible to do this on any more than a short-term basis without doing serious damage to our own energy resources. Keeping the price of oil and gas so low, when it is such a valuable commodity, can only increase the drain on the rather limited supply of cheap oil and gas that is available to our country.
It has always been interesting to me that when a rural family had to accept welfare for some reason, the first thing that the welfare officer did was to have them throw out the woodstove and replace it with an oil burner, on the basis that the family was deprived. Rationing by price is certainly one of the most effective methods of reducing consumption of these very valuable commodities of oil and gas and, if we are seriously concerned about the preservation of these very important commodities, we should allow rationing by price.
If we are concerned about sudden drastic increases causing hardship, we could look at the staging of prices and financial support for the disadvantaged groups. After all, we are doing just this with regard to food. There has been a drastic increase in the price of food, but no one has suggested that we should have a price freeze on food because it is recognized that we need these price increases if we are to have food on the table. Indeed, there are those who suggest that precious oil and gas commodities should not be burned in stoves but should be reserved for the use of the plastic industries and for production of the many products that have enriched the lives of the people of the world. If nothing else, this debate should focus attention on some areas in which our energy needs can be debated.
There is one aspect of this bill, and an aspect of the export tax, that is very disturbing to anyone who thinks seriously of the prospects of Canadian unity. The implementation of the export tax without consultation with the government of Alberta, on a non-renewable resource, is one of the greatest attacks on a region and a province that has been made in this country. First of all, this tax, which may or may not be justified, could not be implemented in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec without their consultation. This is a serious manifestation of what the government of Canada is willing to do in the periphery areas at any time it suits it, on the basis of so-called national interest. It also happens that the government of Alberta is a Conservative government, and therefore this administration felt completely free to inflict any punishment it wished on the people of Alberta. Similarly, under the provisions of this bill the government can
December 7, 1973

extract from the provinces all their resources and thus deprive them of a reason to exist. This situation cannot help but strengthen the feeling that, for western Canada at least, there is not much in the Canadian confederation for them. The government has given the excuse that the oil companies were making windfall profits and therefore the tax was necessary.
Mr. Speaker, in a Finance Committee meeting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) suggested that out of every dollar of this tax, about 22 cents would have been returned to the producing province and that of the balance, almost 40 cents would have gone to the federal government in corporation tax. Even if the whole dollar were used by the oil companies as profit, with no re-investment, 40 cents would have been returned to the dividend holder but, so if he were a Canadian he would have paid a third, on the average, to the federal treasury.
If companies are making windfall profits, there are many other ways in which they can be taxed. Canada has only ten years supply of conventional crude at the current rate of usage. The rate of discovery in Canada has been disappointingly low, and there has been a net drop in reserves. In the province of British Columbia, under an NDP government, the number of wells drilled in 1973 compared to 1972, dropped from 190 to 138, with Saskatchewan staying almost the same, and only Alberta showing a 50 per cent increase. In recent committee meetings it was pointed out that last year the industry found only 75 million barrels of oil, and the equivalent in gas, for an expenditure of $385 million, which amounts to a rate increase of $5 a barrel.
The Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists estimates that although our potential reserves amount to 60 billion barrels, significant quantities of oil can only come from one area, namely Newfoundland and Labrador, at $5 to $6 a barrel. It is also pointed out that the 3 million or 4 million barrels of oil that geologists claim lie undiscovered in western Canada either do not exist or represent very high-cost oil. This leaves the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan as the prime sources of Canadian energy requirements. But all indications are that the tar sands oil will be expensive and that it will cost at least $6 a barrel before it could be exploited. Clearly, the price could be much higher.
The development of the tar sands by Syncrude, which holds rights on eight square miles out of the 30,000 square miles of tar sands, will cost upward of $1 billion which will be invested in processes that are not yet completely proven. This is hard to see as a sell-out to multinational corporations, particularly when the Alberta government has begun indexing, which will provide the people of Alberta with a stake in the profit and will ultimately benefit the people of Canada through the transfer of payments.
Almost certainly, the development of the Alberta tar sands will provide Canadians with expensive energy because the project is work-intensive and the costs will rise as the general wage level rises. Furthermore, the project will be competitive with similar projects in the large conventional oilfields around the world, such as the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act one in Alaska and the one in the North Sea where four wells have a proved potential of two billion barrels of oil, and taking into account the Colorado shale sands and coal gasification it is almost certain that Canadians will have to pay a high price for energy if we must rely on the Athabasca tar sands.
The announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday that, in effect, Canada will have to rely on the tar sands as the major source of energy requires a great deal of thought and consideration. All the authorities suggest that the development of the tar sands is an expensive proposition. If it is to be made economic, this fact will have to be recognized by the federal and the provincial governments. Oil from the tar sands will not be cheap oil, and if these governments attempt to ignore the fact it will not be possible to proceed with the development of the resource. It seems certain that significant changes will have to be made in the tax on conventional crude oil, and rather than obtaining more government revenue from the tar sands development lower taxes will have to be applied if the cost of the tar sands project is to be low enough to produce oil at a price competitive with other conventional fuels.
In the eagerness to abolish the export tax it has been forgotten that oil prices are set on the international market and that the price of crude has risen partially in relation to the devaluation of the American dollar. It is certainly analogous to the price of wheat, which has risen from $2 to $5.50 based largely on the devaluation of the American dollar.
I do not see how a widespread differential in oil price on either side of the U.S. Canada border can exist. We would have to curtail or virtually prohibit the entry of American cars into Canada. This would disrupt our tourist trade and it would certainly disrupt the historic pattern of trade between the two countries. Unless we wish to retreat within our borders and cut off the movement of goods and people across the border, we cannot have an effective two-price system. The Americans are attempting to ration their energy through rising prices, and this eventually creates a much better balance even if it has serious effects on certain segments of the economy.
There is another aspect of the oil situation that we should consider carefully. For generations the Maritimes and Quebec have benefited from cheap offshore oil. Almost certainly the historic trend in the development of oil will return when the situation normalizes. The Arab nations will continue to provide a large pool of conventional oil to the world because, whether we like it or not, the world will use the resources collectively.
In Canada we have a dual situation in view of the fact that Quebec represents a relatively independent segment of our nation. For hundreds of years, the French community in the world has been on good terms with the Arab world, as is evidenced by the fact that unlike the situation of the Netherlands and West Germany, France is now enjoying almost normal trade relations because of its exemption from the Arab oil embargo. It has been reported that a similar offer has been made to the province of Quebec and that they may expect sympathetic treatment from the Arabs. Why do we not use this advantage to broaden our contacts with the Arab countries and take
8532

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act advantage of the special possibilities that exist in this regard?
Yesterday the Prime Minister suggested that Canada would be glad to invest in a Mackenzie Valley pipeline to carry Alaskan and Canadian gas to the south. Investment agents are now advising that the purchase of Mackenzie delta stocks in such companies as Imperial, Shell and Numac are not very attractive because, in the view of many, the chances of success of the Canadian Arctic Gas system are not great. It is believed by many that the Trans-Alaska pipeline will be the carrier bringing North Slope gas to the U.S. market.
The so-called LNG technology is not new; it has been in operation for ten years. It is pointed out that the major disadvantage of the El Paso project, for Canadians, is that it is a U.S. project within the control of the United States. The events of the last six months have made the Americans distrustful of the suppliers of energy. It is widely stated in Washington that the recent pronouncements from Ottawa have caused Washington to be dubious of the sincerity of their northern friends. Some time ago it seemed that the Canadian Arctic Gas group was in a position of advantage, but even they admit that El Paso is a competitive project and that cost will be secondary to security. The Trans-Alaska gas line route is shorter and the Alaskan Indian claims have been settled, while the Canadian Indian claims have not. It is generally agreed that a treaty will have to be drawn up between Canada and the U.S. and that such a treaty is not possible at present in Canada. A study of the merits of the two projects indicates that the Trans-Alaska pipeline would bring great benefits to Alaska and would give it a chance to build a petrochemical complex for the provision of energy to the Pacific rim countries.
If the El Paso project is adopted, it is likely that the Canadian project could not be proceeded with as the amount of gas found in the delta is not sufficient to warrant the construction of a pipeline at this stage. Furthermore, even if the pipeline were to be built some time in the future to fill Canadian needs, the price of gas would have to be much higher than has been foreseen. The major reason for not building the pipeline, in the eyes of the Americans, is national security and their desire to see their project wrapped in the American flag. So that if Canadians feel they should go ahead with the construction of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, a great deal of effort will have to be made at the diplomatic level to bring this about.
It is too bad that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline has not been built, because according to the evidence which was brought forward in the committee the Mackenzie Valley basin is one of the areas where oil exists in small quantities. Without a pipeline to tap it, it does not seem that it will be worthy of development for a good many years yet.
Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a national petroleum company. It is difficult to foresee what will be its role. I took it from the Prime Minister's words that he sees it as an exploration company. But I point out that in the area of conventional exploration, where wild-catting is prevalent, government companies operate the poorest and

private companies operate the best. Manitoba has a government-sponsored mining company which is try-ing to find new mines. It has spent a considerable sum of money and is now being criticized because it has not yet found anything. So far as the tar sands are concerned, these are already discovered. The Alberta government has a stranglehold on production from them, and the profits from the oil sands will eventually become available to all Canadians.
The crux of the problem will be the extent to which Ottawa attempts to control and exploit western Canadian resources for the national good. If this is applied to all resources, eventually we will end up with a unitary state. The complete centralization at Ottawa of all resources would not be good for Canadian unity. If oil resources should be centralized at Ottawa, then a good argument can be made for having all the resources of all the provinces centralized in a similar manner. In a country of so many regions such as ours, this would place a great strain on confederation.
It has been suggested that a single national marketing agency would be valuable in the energy field. The Canadian Wheat Board is an example of a single national marketing agency. It has been very successful in selling grain abroad at as high a price as possible for the Canadian farmers, but when it comes to setting the price of grain within the country it runs into problems. Should it set the price in favour of the producers, or in favour of the consumers? Generally speaking, those with the largest political clout will win out.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae), who spoke earlier this afternoon, said that the proposed Canadian petroleum corporation would help small, independent petroleum producers. I suggest that small businesses find it very difficult to get along with government and government agencies. Large industries, in contract, have a lot of back-up and management and are able to deal with government on a much better basis. The Canadian petroleum corporation, far from increasing the input of small companies, will reduce their input in favour of the much larger companies.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, having worked for 25 years in the private sector, I sometimes happen to feel philosophical misgivings when we have to debate bills involving a much more intense activity from the government in the economic affairs of this nation.
When we will have to consider and to evaluate the interests involved and the general good of the Canadian people, I think we will have to offset any inclination we may have towards free enterprise and set our sights on the importance of protecting the Canadian people as a whole. That more or less sums up the problem put to us today in this debate and without hesitating, I must state that, on the issue of energy and oil, I stand left of center. Mr. Speaker, in the face of the insecurity we know here in the area of energy, I do not hesitate to take position in favour of marked and direct action on the part of the federal government in the area of energy in general and oil in particular.
December 7, 1973

Mr. Speaker, that is why Bill C-236, which for all practical purposes aims at giving the federal government extensive powers to administer the supply and distribution of oil in Canada during one year, is a bill we will have to support precisely because it aims at protecting the interests of Canadians as a whole.
I am pleased that this government has deemed necessary to restrict the duration of the bill, since it will expire in a year. If necessary, Parliament may approve an extension of the powers provided in the bill now under consideration.
As a result of the restriction applied under that legislation, I am ready to trust the cabinet as well as the agencies it will establish to cope with the present emergency.
Having said that, I woulk like to review the situation and add a few facts omitted by previous speakers. Canada is producing at the present time some two million barrels of oil per day. Of that amount, about 50 per cent is exported to the United States, while the other 50 per cent is used in Canada from Vancouver to Ottawa.
But in earlier years, the rest of Canada had to depend on offshore supplies. Going back some years, we realize that we began developing energy in Canada in 1947. Prior to that, Canada had been dependent on U.S. imports for western Canada and on Arab imports for eastern Canada.
Until 1947, Mr. Speaker, for all practical purposes, we were not producing a barrel of oil in Canada. It is only in 1947 that we started to develop the resources discovered in Alberta. In the following years, that industry was developed but it was in competition with a very sound and expanding industry in the United States which was competing with the new Canadian industry.
Then in 1961, the Canadian government took a first step and by creating a protected Canadian market for the western industry allowed that industry to develop.
That brings me to discuss the position of the province of Quebec on that issue. Some people wonder what is the position of Quebec in the present crisis, especially on the proposals put forward by both sides.
In the past, as I said, the province of Quebec has always depended on offshore supplies. That has always been true and with a few exceptions, it is still true today. The international market was operating and Montreal was supplied with fuel mostly by tankers, at least during the shipping period. There was also the pipeline which is still in use from Portland to Montreal that served to ensure the supply to a certain extent after the shipping season.
That system worked out quite well through the years but now the market has developed, the demand has increased and the oil shipped from Portland is not enough, especially when the supply may be stopped at Portland.
In 1961, when the Canadian government decided to set the Borden line, it was a sound decision, Mr. Speaker, but yet, at that time, that measure was to a certain extent contrary to the interests of Quebec because the refining industry in Quebec, particularly in Montreal, supplied the Toronto and all the Ontario market, since the tankers were not using the St. Lawrence Seaway to reach the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act United States and the Great Lakes with a sufficient amount of oil.
Over that period Montreal has been able to benefit from the Ontario market and when that decision was taken in 1961, it had a negative effect on the Montreal industry. We from the east and from Quebec in particular accepted it because this was a fair Canadian policy aimed at protecting and allowing the growth of a required Canadian industry.
In Montreal, we experienced for a number of years a freeze on our oil industry which did not grow until 1970, that is nine years later when we witnessed a growth in the field of refining for the province of Quebec.
To a certain extent, therefore, by agreeing to this policy we contributed to rationing at the development level. Obviously we did keep on benefiting from a price which was advantageous for us in the east, in Quebec and in the Maritimes. That was in the national interest, Mr. Speaker, and we had to provide a Canadian market for Alberta oil in order that the operation could become profitable.
What would now seem to be the problem is the fact that the Canadian government has duties and responsibilities toward all Canadians and it cannot escape them without attracting well deserved criticism.
Therefore it had to take some precautions in the face of such a serious situation and this is the purpose of the bill before us. Moreover, the government should set up a long term energy policy as indicated Thursday afternoon by the Prime Minister to the great satisfaction of all Canadians.
However the establishment of such an overall Canadian energy policy compared to the former one which was partial should not be set up for the second time while ignoring the priority interests of the provinces and mainly of Quebec in this field. The appropriate negotiations will take place between the federal government and the provinces. I hope that all avenues will be explored to ensure adequate supply to the eastern provinces while allowing industrial expansion on their territory.
It is wise to consider two particular points. For the safety of our supplies we must build a pipeline for the transportation of western oil. It is desirable, if possible, that this pipeline be totally located on Canadian soil and be reversible. Here is why: There is currently a crisis, a tension, a war and parleys in the Middle East. Discoveries are made throughout the world, new oil resources are found. A very important one was announced recently in northern Great Britain.
Obviously, the Arabs will be interested in participating in the oil market and in selling their oil at the highest cost possible but they will face competition. The prices will probably settle at a much more normal level than the current prices and will be probably higher than before. But this would enable Canadians if we are still in a position to import from offshore, to save our resources for future generations. Even if we have to ensure safe supplies to all Canadians from Halifax to Vancouver, we have no right to sacrifice at the same time the interests of future generations.
While it is possible and economically feasible to adopt a Canadian energy policy, particularly for oil, to ensure a Canadian market capable of supporting the efficient de-
8534

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
velopment of the Canadian oil industry and the Athabaska sands, we must at the same time consider seriously the possibility of keeping our market open to crude oil imports, so that we might benefit from the situation when prices are lower while being sparing of whatever Canadian resources we have.
That is the attitude we must adopt as responsible political men. We must not be shortsighted and say: "We must be self-sufficient, as soon as possible," all other possibilities open to us of getting our supplies at reasonable cost, with reasonable guarantees, from sources other than Canadian.
That is why the bill as introduced, as well as the statement the Prime Minister read to the House yesterday, please me greatly. As a matter of fact, in his speech, the right hon. Prime Minister, as reported on page 8478 of Hansard, says precisely, and I quote:
In moving towards its objective, the government will also wish to maintain a reliable capacity for some continuing export of oil to the United States .. .
-on the one hand-
. .. and a market in Canada for reliable foreign suppliers of oil to
us.
I believe one should insist on that last part of the Prime Minister's statement so as to allow for the most objective negotiations possible with the Canadian provinces, with the province of Quebec, with the Maritime provinces that invested money and are entitled, if possible, to rely as they have done until now on supplies from the Arab countries, from Venezuela or from any source outside Canada in the coming years.
I would have liked to deal a little longer with the problem as a whole, but there is a detail in the bill that concerns me in a special way and obviously concerns the Quebec people. In Quebec, we are self-sufficient as far as electric energy is concerned. We are more than self-sufficient, we export that energy and have been exporting it for many years; Quebec's hydroelectric system is connected to that of the neighbouring province, Ontario, and billions of kilowatts are delivered by us every year to that province. That same system is connected to the American northeast system. Thus, there is a sort of arrangement and exchange between the systems of those three parts of this continent. The province of Quebec has always been an important source of hydroelectric energy and we have been able, as far as possible, to place it at the disposal of our neighbours the United States and our sister province of Ontario. Of course, we shall continue to do so as far as possible. The province of Quebec still has a large hydroelectric potential to develop; this is already being done and the province is considering even greater projects. I think that as Canadians it is in our interest to encourage the province to make those developments because we will all benefit from it.
But I would like to sound a note of warning to all provinces: the federal government should not take advantage of the situation to assume a right which it does not need. This applies to Alberta as well as to the province of Quebec. I am pleased to find restrictions in the legislation before us, particularly the one year limit, because other-
[Mr. Lessard.l
wise I would not accept it as a Quebecker. Some of my colleagues are in the same position. As members representing various areas of Canada we all are in the same position. Then we should not agree to place it under federal control unless there is a completely new understanding and distribution of powers and responsibilities between both government levels.
So I make that reservation on that basis and I think we should be careful regarding what we intend to do because it might have very serious effects in the years to come. Having made that reservation, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that in the last few weeks the government of Quebec did not seem to have any real policy.
It was thought that Quebec was not aware of the problems it would encounter. Maybe the Quebec leaders did not want to make any big statement which would frighten the population by pointing out the seriousness of the situation, but if you study the statements made during the last week, and particularly if you discuss with certain Quebec politicians, you will realize that these responsible people have nevertheless assembled highly valuable information on the energy situation in general, and in Quebec in particular, and on the choices facing the province.
Some very fundamental questions are being asked by our friends, the Quebec members. A policy has been developed. Yesterday, we outlined the new energy policy. These are the principles established yesterday. There are still many things to do. Such principles have to be analyzed and machinery has to be set up if they are to work out. It is not sufficient to lay down principles. .Mechanisms are needed and have to function under the best possible agreement.
In concluding, I therefore urge all my colleagues to deal with this problem with an open mind, to repress the feelings which we may all have at times when such important issues are at stake. I can assure the House that as a Quebec member, just as much as my colleagues from Alberta who are representing the interests of that province, I am concerned with that problem and I would not want my province to suffer from a federal ruling any more, I think, than our Alberta colleagues would. On the other hand, I am sure that our colleagues from Alberta, like us from Quebec, wish that with good co-operation from provincial governments the best energy policy possible be set up, with regard to the present situation which is urgent, but especially, with regard to Canada's medium and short term needs. Since Providence has endowed Canada with a very advantageous situation in the energy field, if we manage to agree and to set up an objective policy which would be good for all Canadians, we will succeed, Mr. Speaker, in creating here a fantastic economic development. When we consider the difficulties of the European countries, those of our southern neighbour, those of Japan, and when we consider also Canada's long term energy potential, if, through co-operation, we succeed in establishing a policy for a rational development of our energy resources, we will be able to give Canada an important industrial expansion since energy is essential to industrial development. It so happens that Canada is the only country which now has these abundant energy resources, qualified specialists, a population eager to work and responsible governments. Thus, Mr. Speaker, I am
December 7, 1973

sure that, together, we are going to find solutions along those lines.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually participate in debates respecting oil policy and oil development in this country, but I do not feel embarrassed or bashful about entering this debate. It seems that from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) down, there are people who rank in the amateur category with respect to the development of an oil policy for this country. I would indicate to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and others in the House this afternoon that not to participate in this debate would be a great disservice to the people I represent in Prince Edward Island, as well as to all those who live in Quebec and the rest of eastern Canada. Quite frankly, if there is any single aspect of the government's policy to date that disturbs me, it has to do with the almost total neglect of the situation that exists in eastern Canada in respect of the need for petroleum. 1 am not only disturbed, but perplexed.


Otto Emil Lang: How about nuclear energy?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister may be concerned about nuclear energy, but unless he is ready to raise such a plant in the next few weeks he is living in an atmosphere that is very far removed from the situation that exists in this country. I do not want to daydream: I want to deal with some of the realities that exist today, will exist next week and in months to come. While it is true we are here to frame laws and establish guidelines for orderly and progressive development of this country in the long term, we have a primary responsibility to deal with problems of an immediate nature that concern the citizens of Canada. Surely all of us, as politicians, must realize this.
As I said a moment ago, I am not only disturbed but perplexed that the Prime Minister of this country, who at the present time leads a substantial bloc of members who represent his home province of Quebec, could ignore the situation that exists in that province. As the hon. member who just spoke suggested, it could be that the government of Quebec has not been overly informed or aware of the problems with regard to petroleum shortages and costs that exist in that province. I am sure that in the coming weeks both the government of Quebec and the government of Canada will be increasingly aware of the extent of the impact this problem will have on Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces.
I make no apology this afternoon for spending all my time on the petroleum situation in eastern Canada. I must admit I was a little flummoxed when watching the national news last night on television. The Prime Minster's statement made here yesterday afternoon was reported as though it was the second coming. It was described in euphoric terms as being a sort of solution to all the problems we face in what has been described as an energy crisis in the past few months.
After going on for a few minutes about what the Prime Minister said, the chief newscaster, Lloyd Robertson, said in his concluding remarks that one has to admit that not very much was really clarified in the Prime Minister's
Energy Supplies Emergency Act statement and there were really more questions raised than answered. After he had made a few remarks in similar vein, one began wondering what all the excitement was about. Perhaps it was difficult for the CBC, in its wisdom, to deal with it in a more objective and dispassionate way. After all, there was a drama associated with the build-up that took place this week. There was an obvious expectation that my friends to the left might not support the government in a motion of confidence next Monday. I say "left" in a physical sense because they are moving substantially to my right and have been doing so for the past few months. They created some sense of drama over the fact they might not support the government. There was never any doubt in my mind.


Marc Lalonde: They are to the right of the Liberals.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would say that both the Liberals and the NDP are trying to get on the right of each other. Whether they can achieve that remains to be seen. There was no surprise whatsoever.


Otto Emil Lang: Why do you look so sad?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I can see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is not observant. If he had watched me yesterday afternoon, I did not look sad; in fact, I was smiling to myself after noting how cheaply the people to my left can be bought. I wondered what all the excitement was about. I thought of some analogies, but I will not use them this afternoon. It was all too obvious how easily my friends in the New Democratic Party-I think they are my friends and I hope they will continue to be my friends- would jump through the hoops that were raised for them to go through. The hoops that were raised could only be described as "now you see them, now you don't."
From the moment the Prime Minister mouthed the words "continued price freeze" and "national petroleum corporation"-and, I predict, in the days and weeks to come-we will have been increasingly in the dark or, to make a very bad pun, in the cold about what in fact the government plans to do on either of these two fronts. If my friends to the left have any illusions about this, I hope they will try to dispel them as early as possible because I do not want them to continue to dwell in this kind of ignorance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what you would do.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will get there. Be patient, my friend. One of the primary concerns, as I understand it, of the New Democratic Party has been the advocacy of a national petroleum company. I might say to bon. members in my own party that this is not some kind of flamingly radical idea; we have heard just this week of great oil discoveries in the North Sea shared in by the Coal Board of Great Britain which is a Crown corporation. The conventions of British Petroleum and other companies have obviously introduced certain supportive elements in the world of national and international oil exploration and development. Anyway, it is a touchstone for my friends in

December 7, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
the NDP so the Prime Minister included it in his speech, as we knew he would, and he said:
One of the instruments of the new national oil policy-
We shall have to find various gradations of "new", Mr. Speaker, because this is this week's new; a week ago there was a "new," and there was a "new" in September and whenever you want to start the chain of newness. But a new national oil policy is the establishment of a national petroleum company. Just to make certain the point was made and that my friends on the left heard it clearly, he explained the nature of this company. He said it would undertake exploration, it would assist and participate in the research and development work necessary-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: All for $40 million!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He went on to suggest just how serious it was by saying that he was going to spend a massive amount of money, something like $40 million-not in a year, because this is a thrifty Prime Minister, but over the next five years.


Marc Lalonde: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is unwittingly attacking the privileges of this House, and particularly the rights of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by attributing to him a statement he did not make. I refer the hon. member to the record in Hansard. I am afraid the hon. member has been listening to the CBC rather than to the Prime Minister in the House. I noticed that the CBC spent the evening making exactly the same mistake as the hon. member has been making, and as his leader almost made yesterday. The Prime Minister put it quite clearly that the $40 million in question was not for the purposes of the national oil corporation but for the purposes of research into the technology of the tar sands. Attributing this as the budget of the national oil corporation is a distortion of the Prime Minister's statement.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I think the hon. minister will agree that this is a matter or point of discussion. He may perhaps have a chance to speak to that later when he will have the floor.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I certainly share with you, sir, the hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will expound this information to us on the nature of this subject later in the debate. But just so he will not be in the dark, I have an official copy of the text used yesterday by the Prime Minister, and if the min.ster would like to come over here and consult it, he can.


An hon. Member:: Did you write the speech, Marc?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I think this is one speech he would like to be dissociated from. As I say, the magnificent sum of $40 million is to be expended by the corporation over the next five years in co-operation with the province of Alberta and private firms. Even a colleague and fellow countryman of the minister was quick to respond last night. I am sure many of us heard Mr. Kier-ans when he said this was peanuts.


Marc Lalonde: He was misled by the CBC, too.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He said it was a drop in the bucket, that it would not even be enough to administer the bureaucracy in Ottawa. I could also say it would not be much more than the monthly sum presently being taken by the government in export tax at its present level against exports of petroleum from this country. Who is this government trying to fool? The only thing of which we can be sure is that they have fooled 30 or so members to my left at least long enough to carry them through the Christmas season.


Mr. Baker:: It sounds as though they have fooled the Minister of National Health and Welfare, too.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I want to take this opportunity to enlighten my friends to the left. The Prime Minister was trying to tell them how this corporation would operate in terms of developing, assisting and such things. Then he went on to say-this is why I suggest my friends on the left have been bought at a very cheap price indeed-"It is not, however, intended in any way to displace the private sector."


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What a joke.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Nor, continued the Prime Minister, was it intended to discourage investment by foreign companies, which would continue to be welcome. I am looking forward to hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) tell us how much they enjoyed that statement as part of their policy, and how much they will continue to support it.


Walter David Baker: The socialist birthright sold for a mess of potage.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: To paraphrase another statesman, never have so few been bought with so little. Nevertheless, I want to return to the essence of my speech this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there an essence?


An hon. Member:: Yes, vanilla.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is the degree to which the Prime Minister ignored in his statement the increasing problem in eastern Canada both in terms of petroleum supply and costs. As my leader put it so well again today in questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), we in the five eastern provinces, which have traditionally experienced the lowest per capita income and in many cases the highest living costs, must now suffer the highest oil heating and gasoline costs in the country. As I mentioned in my question to the minister earlier today, since September our costs have gone up in the eastern provinces by some 20 per cent or more and now stand between 35 per cent and 40 per cent higher than in parts of western Canada.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: They are going to increase your old age pensions.
December 7, 1973


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That's right. I am going to deal with that a little later on. This is the situation with which we are faced. I pressed the minister today because the Prime Minister deliberately did not say whether any action would be taken by the government to maintain a freeze on prices in eastern Canada. I asked the minister whether the government was planning any further action to deal with this very serious situation, and the minister simply replied that the government would seek to hold the price down except where the cost of offshore crude necessitated an increase.
All this means is that the government will continue to do nothing with respect to the deteriorating situation in eastern Canada. I cannot for the life of me understand how the Prime Minister, with so many members from Quebec in his own caucus, together with a sprinkling of members from the four Atlantic provinces, could deal in such a superficial and totally ineffective way with the increasing energy costs and the prospective energy shortages in eastern Canada.


Walter David Baker: Backbenchers abdicating their responsibility.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It was one thing to make remarks about the sort of half-hearted and ineffective steps which might be taken either by the Minister of National Health and Welfare or by some other mechanism which might be developed out of the federal-provincial conference in January, but it was quite another thing totally to ignore the basic question concerning the threatened interruption of supply.
We have been seeing a kind of ritual dance in the past few days on the question whether we will or we will not have a shortage of petroleum supplies in eastern Canada. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cannot seem to get his figures straight for very many days in a row. In one instance he talks of a daily shortfall of 75,000 barrels; then in a few days' time he starts talking about a shortfall of 200,000 barrels a day.
Then there is no clear picture as to the way in which the government may try to make up this shortfall. Suddenly, really almost as a surprise to the minister it would seem, we have Mr. Shaheen telling us that the new refinery at Come-By-Chance which is just coming into operation will make up a substantial portion of that shortfall. To this the minister says it is not possible, that the refinery would not be in operation, at least in those terms, for another month or so.
So who knows, Mr. Speaker, what new chapter in this drama the minister will unfold in the days to come? One thing is clear, however; the Prime Minister opened no new chapters and gave us no new information on this subject yesterday when he announced his so-called new national oil policy. If it was a new national oil policy, it was one which suddenly separated Quebec and all of eastern Canada. I find it passing strange-


An hon. Member:: That is what you did back in 1961.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of prospective speakers on the other side and I look forward to hearing them; I am sure they will be given the opportunity to speak.


Mr. Corbin:: Call home and see what your people think of it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I also go home from time to time, which is more than the hon. member opposite does. From the statement of the Prime Minister yesterday, a Prime Minister who has been a consistent avocate of a "one Canada" policy, we have a new kind of Ottawa Valley line, a new kind of "two Canada" oil policy. He spoke of an oil policy that would be controlled by some new kind of petroleum company. He said he would carry on the freeze for the rest of the winter-and you pick the date, Mr. Speaker, when winter will end. We will continue to ship our oil resources, when possible, to the Unites States. But when he comes to eastern Canada, his oil policy gets into the vaguest possible terms. He has now tagged on to the Montreal pipeline the concept of a pipeline "when it becomes necessary". When I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources today when this might be, he really was not able to say. I agree that it does not make sense-


Eymard G. Corbin: You don't make sense. Who in hell will believe you back in the Maritimes?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A great deal more people will believe me, because I talk about the situation as it is down there, compared with the hon. member and his colleagues who have ignored it altogether. However, if the hon. member wants to speak, I hope he will have the opportunity. I suspect that his party will be only too pleased to welcome his remarks, as they have in the past. When he has listened a little more, he may at least feel concerned about the problems in the Maritimes, which is more than seems to be the case now.


Eymard G. Corbin: Your time is almost up.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I want to tell my hon. friend from New Brunswick, in case he does not know, that we are facing a serious situation. I do not think I have heard him express any concern over it, but perhaps after I have told him that in his home province-


Eymard G. Corbin: You have seen action from this government.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Even your own whip laughs at that statement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if this is action with respect to eastern Canada, I would hate to see inaction. In the hon. member's home province of New Brunswick the people were paying for home heating fuel last September, 27.3 cents in Saint John and 29.6 cents in Fredericton. This month, December, in the city of Saint John they are paying 33.2 cents, an increase of 5.9 cents in about 31/2 months. That is action for you; that is performance, Mr. Speaker. In the city of Fredericton the price has gone from 29.6 cents to 35.5 cents, an increase of 5.9 cents. If that is the kind of action for which this hon. member is taking credit on behalf of the government, I hope he will

December 7, 1973
Historic Sites
make a trip home and explain and justify this action to the people he represents here in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, there are people both in his province and in mine who during this winter pay $25 to $30 a month more to heat their homes. If the hon. member regards that as good action, I hope he will stand up and defend it.


Eymard G. Corbin: It's not true.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The hon. member says it is not true. He does not want to believe it is true. I wish I did not have to stand here and say it is true. This is why we want to see action taken by the government that will make it not true; but so far there has not even been evidence of an awareness of, or concern about, the problem on the part of this government.
It is bad enough for the eastern provinces to face higher home heating costs, but to a greater or lesser degree the people of eastern Canada are also faced with increasing electricity costs. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, in addition to the 20 per cent or more increase in home heating fuel which took place in December, we will pay 25 to 30 per cent more for electricity, since electricity in Prince Edward Island is thermal generating. I will go into this and other facets later on, Mr. Speaker, when we return to this debate on the first of next week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps this is a good point to recognize that it is four o'clock p.m. The House will therefore proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.
The understanding of the Chair, which perhaps can be confirmed now, is that the notice of motion to be proceeded with is No. 37, in the name of the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). If I am correct in this understanding, I will proceed immediately to put it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should investigate the feasibility of a nationwide program for the preservation of historic buildings and sites of architectural merit and integrity through financial assistance to municipalities, historical societies and other non-profit organizations for the acquisition, restoration and maintenance of such buildings and sites to be occupied in a manner consistent with original public or private use, but to be open to the public at regular periods.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I move this motion urging a new approach to the preservation of historic buildings and sites. Canada has a rich heritage. It has often been said that to understand a people, to understand a country, one has to understand its history. This is also true if the people of a country as large and diverse as Canada are to understand each other.
It is difficult to understand a country's history without appreciating the actual buildings that the people of earlier generations lived in, their homes, their shops, their places of work, all of which formed part of their character and identity. The carved doors, the old wainscoting, the pine furniture, the fancy brickwork, the iron fences, the stained glass windows-all of these items found in historic buildings tell us something about our forefathers and provide us with that important feeling of continuity with the past.
Canadians know a little more about themselves when they are able to experience historic buildings and sites as part of their daily lives, either at work or in their residential neighbourhoods. For these reasons, I believe the federal government must give a higher priority to the preservation of historic buildings and sites than has been the case to date.
The new approach which I am suggesting would involve much greater participation by private individuals, municipalities, historical societies and other non-profit organizations, not only in terms of money which they might contribute but in the role they might play in the acquisition, restoration, ownership and maintenance of such buildings.
Briefly put, I believe that we should break away from the notion that only government is capable of acting as proprietary trustee for our important historic buildings and sites. Private individuals and organizations are also capable of acting as trustees of our history under certain conditions, yet the present policy of the federal government is to virtually exclude such persons or organizations from participating in federal funding while at the same time maintaining an ownership role. In other words, the general thrust of existing federal programs so far has been based on government ownership. In my view this is not sufficient because it will not permit preservation of a sufficient number of worth-while buildings. My motion today seeks to provide a program which would shift some of the preservation effort and responsibility to the private sector. Since everything today needs a title, I would call it a program for "participation in preservation".
I would not want my remarks today construed as a deprecation of some of the fine work done by the National Historic Parks and Sites Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The important restorations of such historic sites as the Fortress of Louis-burg in Cape Breton, Fort Lennox in Quebec, the Niagara Historic Frontier and Fort George in Ontario, Lower Fort Garry in Manitoba, Rocky Mountain House in Alberta, and Fort Langley in British Columbia have served not only to preserve these sites but to illustrate events in Canadian history to all those who visit these places.

But these types of projects, important as they are, claim the lion's share of the federal budget in this field. They are all grandiose, government-owned and operated projects, reflecting largely military sites or buildings which may create the mistaken impression of Canada as a bellicose nation with a history consisting largely of military events. Also, most of these sites are of significance only to the Anglophone and Francophone groups of this country. Most of the places of historical value to the heritage of the so-called "third group" Canadians have been virtually ignored.
The only site representative of the non-French or nonAnglo aspects of our history which has been considered worthy of full-scale commemoration is the Batoche Rectory in Saskatchewan, the headquarters of the Metis during the great northwest rebellion of 1885 at Duck Lake. The neglect of the contribution of such groups as the Italians, Ukrainians, Jews, Scandinavians and Germans to our heritage not only misrepresents our history but also exacerbates the sense of exclusion felt by these people.
More important, however, these types of projects claim millions of dollars in capital and operating expenses, leaving little if any financial support for smaller buildings which may not be of national historical importance yet which are worthy of preservation to a particular community or neighbourhood. Admittedly, the National Historic Sites Branch does have a limited program under which it can enter into co-operative arrangements with historical societies or municipalities. However, the branch takes on only two or three of these projects each year, and usually to the extent of paying 50 per cent of the cost of acquisition and restoration. The amount of money spent is a mere drop in the bucket compared with the money spent on national historic sites.
For example, in the last fiscal year, 1972-73, the money spent on co-operative agreements was only $87,416, which is only .59 per cent of the total capital and operating expenditures of close to $15 million on national historic sites. In the previous year the amount was only $79,000, or .63 per cent of the total expenditure. That is not to say the branch's program of co-operative arrangement is incapable of accommodating the type of program I have in mind. For example, one of the co-operative agreements involves the restoration of the Grange House in my home city of Toronto. The branch contributed $50,000 to the project owned and operated by the Art Gallery of Ontario which raised close to $600,000 from private sources to complete what is an excellent example of Toronto's early history. Federal participation of this sort happens all too rarely, only two or three times a year throughout the country, an appallingly weak effort. To fit the concept advanced in my motion, the branch's program would have to be expanded a hundredfold, and in certain cases permit participation of private individuals in return for a commitment to maintain and periodically make accessible to the public.
I could suggest any number of historic buildings that could qualify for such a program, buildings which might be irretrievably lost unless action is soon taken. Indeed, one of the excellent initiatives taken by the Historic Sites Branch in 1962 was to establish a Canadian inventory of historic building. This three-phased, ten-year program was the first comprehensive architectural history in the world
Historic Sites
created for a computerized information system. So far the plan has resulted in the recording of the exteriors of over 106,000 buildings across Canada, and the eventual goal is the full restoration of about 700 of those buildings of exceptional significance or architectural merit.
I am proud of the fact that close to 5,000 of those buildings either entered or about to be entered in the computer system are located in an area of my constituency known as the Annex. Several years ago the Annex ratepayers' association, which this year celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, organized a group of volunteers to undertake the task of photographing and recording the details of the many buildings there constructed prior to 1910 and found to be of architectural merit, and in some cases owned by a famous Canadian. Assistance was provided by the Historic Sites Branch through the supplying of proper forms and reimbursement for film. One of the buildings included in the Annex inventory was the residence on Admiral Road of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson when he was a member of the faculty at the University of Toronto. There is another residence on Walmer Road which housed the late Vincent Massey when he was the dean of Victoria College.
Another group of historic houses in the Annex is found in the Huron-Madison area. There is a particular group of nine houses, five of which were constructed prior to 1895 and the remainder before 1905, which last year were threatened with demolition, to be replaced by a high-rise apartment building. At the instigation of the Annex ratepayers' association, the Toronto city council formed a committee, to which I was named, which conducted detailed studies. This committee eventually recommended that a non-profit community corporation be formed to acquire the property now owned by the city for purposes of combined residential-commercial use >n an historic setting. The corporation is now formed and anxiously awaiting CMHC approval of mortgage funding under conditions that will permit about 25 per cent of the historic property to be put to commercial use in order to make the project economically viable. This is a clear example where a federal program of the flexible type which I have proposed would ensure the preservation of these buildings as a supplement to CMHC funding. Alternatively, the CMHC might adopt more flexible guidelines to permit its financing policies to take into account the significant historical element which is a part of this project.
Another building in the Annex worthy of preservation is St. Paul's-Avenue Road United Church, constructed in 1887. It is almost the last visual link with the nineteenth century on that part of Avenue Road, and in only three generations' time it will be older than any building north of the parliament buildings in the entire city of Toronto. The church, because of financial difficulties and a declining congregation, was almost forced to sell out to a development corporation which wanted to erect a high-rise office tower on the site. Fortunately, the officers of the church first sought the advice of the Avenue-Bay-Cotting-ham residents' association and the Annex ratepayers' association, which resulted in the formation of a joint committee and later a non-profit corporation called the St. Paul's Centre Foundation which is now seeking financial assistance in order to lease the church for 30 years for community purposes.

December 7, 1973
Historic Sites
Specifically, the sanctuary of the church boasts the best concert acoustics in Toronto, apart from Massey Hall, and could be easily converted into a first-class hall for the presentation of concerts, plays, recitals, and meetings. Other rooms of the church are ideal for workrooms, classrooms, a drop-in centre and senior citizens' facilities. The church would continue to have facilities for Sunday morning worship and an office for its minister. Again, this is the sort of building which provides a comfortable link with the past for residents of the area and the thousands who drive by it daily. This is the type of project which the federal program I am advocating should encompass. I am sure there are hundreds, even thousands, of buildings in various parts of Canada equally worthy of federal assistance to ensure their preservation.
Just the other day I received in the mail a notice that the old nineteenth century Victoria Opera House in the town of Petrolia, Ontario, where I grew up, was to be restored provided adequate financial assistance could be obtained from private and public sources. That hall had significance for me because it was the place where I entered my first public speaking contest while still in elementary school. The hall and the large building in which it was housed was an important link with the past glories of the nineteenth century which that town enjoyed, and an important part of the learning experience of every child who has grown up there since.
Lest my remarks so far appear to be overly critical of federal government inaction, let me congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) for having the good sense to establish Heritage Canada, effective last April 2. This is a type of national trust designed initially to involve Canadians in preservation through the sale of memberships at $5 a person. With an endowment of $12 million from the government, this non-profit corporation will be able to generate additional funds from private donations, bequests and membership fees in order to purchase, renovate, sell or lease historic properties of local, regional or national importance.
To a certain extent, the future plans of Heritage Canada may meet some of the objectives of the "Participation in preservation" program embodied in my motion. For example, it is my understanding that Heritage Canada does not intend to make any major purchases of historic buildings, but instead will seek other private agencies or individuals to buy and conserve such properties and then will support them in preparing the property for public use and enjoyment. If Heritage Canada does acquire real property, it may be designated "heritage property" in which case it cannot be sold or mortgaged, but only leased to a government department or agency or private organization under strict conditions. Alternatively, it may be designated merely as a worth-while building, in which case it can be sold or leased for commercial use as a restaurant, boutique, office, residence, and so on and placed under restrictive covenants to protect in perpetuity facades and significant interiors. In the last instance, whole groups of worth-while buildings, indeed whole neighbourhoods of historic significance, may be preserved.
Unfortunately, Heritage Canada is not yet in a position to act. In its August newsletter the corporation indicated

it could not assist in any purchases this year, notwithstanding the risk that some buildings or streetscapes might be irretrievably lost. Moreover, the corporation indicated that it would be obliged to decline all requests for financial help in the restoration of historic buildings in private hands. Only if the property is transferrred to an acceptable public body will Heritage Canada even be in a position to consider requests for support. There is not even any indication of what would constitute an acceptable public body. For example, would the Annex Community Corporation, which will own the nine Huron-Madison houses, or the St. Paul's Centre Foundation, which will lease the church on Avenue Road, qualify under the corporation's directive? Certainly this is far from clear. Obviously, the private individuals who own or lease historic buildings, regardless of their architectural merit and integrity, are going to be denied any assistance.
Heritage Canada may have already fallen into the same rigid philosophy that has characterized the programs of the Historic Sites Branch for so many years. This is a philosophy which says that private individuals are not competent or responsible enough to act as trustees of Canada's historic buildings. Only the government or an acceptable public body can do it. In my view, this is overly paternalistic and is destructive of many of the stated goals of Heritage Canada. Granted, there must be some public protection when government funds are applied to assist a private individual on a restoration project. This protection requires not only a preservation of the historical and architectural integrity of the building, but a check on speculators and unwarranted increases in value accruing to the private owner at public expense. However, this type of problem can be easily overcome through the proper use of restrictive convenants and zoning bylaws.
I was pleased to learn that the government of Ontario has proposed far reaching legislation to permit the province or municipalities to designate historic buildings of provincial or local importance. Moreover, an amendment to the Planning Act would permit municipalities to impose what will be known as "historic conservation district zoning", subject to prior adoption of appropriate policies as a part of the official plan of the municipality. Most important, this legislation will enable municipalities, or the province, through the Ontario Heritage Foundation to make loans or grants to owners or tenants of historic buildings which have been municipally or provincially designated.
There is no paternalism with this program. There is no fear that the private individual will abuse his position of trust as owner or trustee of part of Canada's history. Legislation of this sort is already in place in the province of Alberta, effective May 10 of this year. Legislation similar in nature has been in force in Quebec since 1963, but on a limited basis. Sooner or later some of this philosophy will find its way into the legislative corridors of power in Ottawa. The government cannot do the job alone, particularly in the cities where the pressure of demolition and redevelopment is relentless.
The federal government can leisurely make an inventory of over 100,000 buildings in three years. How many of those buildings have already been destroyed? The government can then make a more complete inventory of one-
December 7, 1973

twentieth of these buildings. How many of those buildings will still be standing? Ten years after the original inventory, the government will select less than 1 per cent of the buildings as deserving of complete restoration, if they can find them. Or will they find only a parking lot or a high-rise apartment building, or an expressway route where once stood a building they decided worthy of restoration?
In a field such as this, in a time such as ours, it is not rational for the government to adopt a "go it alone" policy. The government, the country, cannot afford to spurn offers of aid in this field so vital to our sense of national identity. We must protect and preserve these buildings. The government, now, does not have the resources to acquire and restore all buildings worthy of conservation. They need to encourage, not discourage, attempts by private individuals to act in this field.
Mr. Speaker, I commend to you, to members of this House and to the government my program for "participation in preservation."


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate, or discussion really, with the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey). I thank him for bringing forward this whole question and for showing concern and sensitivity for a problem which concerns us all and certainly concerns this government. The hon. member for St. Paul's obviously recognizes the immense strides that have been made by this government in preserving our heritage, more so in the last five or six years than in all its previous history. Much of it is too late, but certainly an immense start has been made.
I really do not think it is fair to say on the one hand that all this had been done, then imply that nothing has been done and suggest that unlimited government funds are available. In all fairness, they are taxpayers' funds and not government funds. I think we must keep things in some sort of perspective here. Hon. members speak about the Annex Historical Society. I think it is an absolutely admirable move on the part of the citizens of that area, as is the North York Historical Society in my constituency and the Unionville group which have done a magnificent job in preserving absolutely exquisite buildings which were built and lived in by the pioneers of that region.
I think the hon. member probably knows, in the village of Unionville, also in my constituency, about the work that is being done by the Unionville Arts Foundation, the historical society and the museum in Markham and places like that. These are local groups which should be encouraged and are being encouraged. I think they well-up from the community; but there is the question of by how much and how far one can legitimately expect the government to go. I should like to see it go as far as it is possible to go, but I think it has gone a long way.
There are a number of trade-offs. For example, we can start talking about Mr. Pearson's home. No one has greater affection for Mr. Pearson than myself, except perhaps Mrs. Pearson. The house has great appeal. But Mr. Pearson lived in many places. One Has to use one's judgment. The same is true with regard to the home of Vincent Massey.
Historic Sites
Do we do the same with the Massey home on Jarvis Street, which is now one of our better restaurants in Toronto? What about all the places where the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has lived or claims to have lived, visited or was born in? My goodness, it would take up the entire budget. I think we have to watch that.
Coming from Toronto, I could name such places as the old city hall. But which city hall should be preserved, the old one or the old-old one? The old city hall is preserved through the centennial program and it is a treasure of a building. A great preservation job has been done on it. The we have to determine what should be done with what is known as the old city hall at Queen Street. Is it worth preserving? It is typical of a certain type of architecture. In my view it is an ugly type of architecture, but perhaps it is unique and should be preserved. The new city hall will at some time be the old city hall. We have to leave some places for future generations; we cannot have a whole line of city halls along the street. The same problem exists with the Union Station in Ottawa. Ottawans have a deep attachment for it and want to preserve it.


Ronald George Atkey: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Frankly, I question this. I do not think it is a significant building. There is a sentimental attachment to it, but in its usual frugal way the government has converted it into a conference centre for the people of Canada and the international community. There is also the Union Station in Toronto which in its centre part and mezzanine is an example of copied architecture, but a really good one. It was built by an architect of that period. I do not know whether or not it was built by Lennox, as was the old city hall and other well known buildings in Toronto.
We must make a serious decision about what we should preserve and what we should not preserve. Other countries have this problem also. Boston has a particular problem in this respect in trying to keep the city working, the traffic moving and also preserving some rather important sites.
I think the motion is worth while and I compliment the hon. member for covering many points in his comments. However, I would like to refer to my notes to complete the record and to see what has been done. I think it is worth while for all hon. members and for those millions of people who read Hansard regularly from page to page to know precisely what the programs are and what has been done. I must say I speak with a special affection about my own home, which is about 150 years old-but the mortgage still is not paid. It is one of the pioneer homes in the northeast part of Toronto. The Harrison family made the bricks and the glass. They fought with Mackenzie. One of them died in the Upper Canada rebellion, and Mackenzie stayed in it. It is a good thing that we are keeping it in the Liberal tradition.
May I now revert to the policies that have been implemented. The national historic parks and sites of Canada commemorate the persons, places and events which have been declared by the minister, on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, to be of major historic or architectural significance in the development of Canada. We have tried to do these things in the context

December 7, 1973
Historic Sites
of what the federal government is trying to do and in the context of its criteria. A policy statement on the national historic sites was tabled in the House of Commons in 1968 by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Among other things, the policy elaborated the criteria for the designation of national historic sites for the benefit of parliament and the public.
To be commemorated, a site or structure must be closely associated with a person, place or event of national historical importance, or it must illustrate the cultural, social, political, economic or military patterns of history or of a prehistoric people or archaeological discovery. A building may also be declared of national significance because of its great age or because it is an outstanding example of period architecture of which there are few remaining examples.
This raises the problem of people saying that a site in their town is the one they want to preserve. But should we preserve them all? In advising the minister on the commemoration of places, persons and events of national historical importance, the board may recommend that sites, buildings and other structures of national importance be developed as national historic parks or historic sites, or that commemoration be carried out by the erection of national historic plaques or, in exceptional circumstances, of distinctive monuments. The emphasis, of course, is on national importance, and here we get down to the problem of local groups. We all have them, and there is a great deal of emotion and sentimentality engendered by them. We have the Amswell House in Thornhill, in my constituency, which gained the attention of the press in Toronto on certain days and everyone was concerned. But it was not that unique and it was not of national importance, although it would be nice to have preserved it. I think there is a limit on how far we can go.
Suggestions for the establishment of historic sites and parks come from many sources: the general public, members of parliament, historical societies and other groups, departmental staff, and members of the board themselves. Since its establishment, Parks Canada, on the recommendation of the board, has been instrumental in the creation of more than 80 historic parks and major sites and in the commemoration of some 650 persons and events of national-as opposed to local or regional-significance. Negotiations are at present being conducted with provincial governments for the acquisition of further sites which have been declared to be of major national historical significance.
The facilities of the branch to develop sites of national significance are not such that it is possible to cope directly with the restoration and maintenance of all sites designated as being of national significance and it has, therefore, been a policy of the branch to encourage other levels of government and private organizations to maintain and even restore and operate such structures for the benefit of the public. In this connection, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is empowered to make agreements with other levels of government or with nonprofit, incorporated bodies under which the department may contribute up to 50 per cent of the cost of the acquisi-

tion and restoration of a building of special significance, on the understanding that the other party will contribute the balance of acquisition and restoration costs and will assume all operation and maintenance costs in perpetuity and agree to open the building to the public for a specified minimum period each year. If I understood the hon. member correctly, I do not think he was criticizing those criteria. I think, although there is a case for argument, that they are fair.
The department has entered into more than 30 such cost-sharing agreements with provincial and municipal organizations and with incorporated non-profit societies. An example of the department's involvement in cost-sharing agreements is the Halifax waterfront buildings project in which you, Mr. Speaker, would be particularly interested and which you would appreciate. I am pretty sure your home is among those sites. The project undertaken jointly by the department, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the city of Halifax and Historic Developments Limited, a Halifax firm of architectural, engineering and civic interests, will undertake the restoration of six historic buildings. Another example is the department's agreement with the Art Gallery of Toronto for the restoration and furnishing of the Grange House in that city, which I believe is the oldest brick house in Toronto, the home of the first governor of Upper Canada, John Graves Simcoe. The building is very attractive and it has been of some utilitarian value.
In addition to the department's activities in the field of historic preservation, acting either solely or in concert with other bodies, a considerable number of such projects have been carried out or are ongoing under the aegis of other federal government departments, provincial or municipal governments and by private interests. Examples are the old Bonsecour market in Montreal, which is a most attractive site, Bastion Square in Victoria, Gastown in Vancouver, and the headquarters in London, Ontario, of a major Canadian company which is still retained as a commercial building. There is the old Bank of Canada building on Toronto Street, which I believe is the head office of Argus Corporation.
An interesting project is the development on Sussex Street, in Ottawa, of one of the old convent buildings as you get down near the Mint, which is being redeveloped for the headquarters of the Department of Urban Affairs. This is a particularly special thing being done in this city and adds to the value of the restoration and preservation of the entire market. These are very special places in Canada that should be maintained. We appreciate them in Halifax, in Charlottetown, in Prince Edward Island, in Quebec City-


James Aloysius McGrath: And in St. John's, Newfoundland, the oldest city in Canada.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, particularly so. But one that we seem to forget and that is not getting enough attention is Kingston itself. That city is chock-full of buildings of particular historical and architectural value that could be preserved. In fact, I think the whole city of Kingston should be preserved. I believe that the hon. member for St. Paul's
December 7, 1973

referred to areas of historical significance that should be developed and preserved, and certainly this is one.


Ronald George Atkey: It is coming under provincial legislation.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am delighted that the province is involved and there is room for co-operation with the federal government. In the summer of 1970, Parks Canada launched a nationwide survey of Canada's old structures. Called the Canadian inventory of historic building, the project will take eight to ten years to complete. The program began with the study of building exteriors and will culminate with in-depth studies of the best structures. It is a three-phase program, and as a result we will end up for the first time with an inventory which is properly catalogued and computerized, so that if a local ratepayers' association or historical society wants to preserve a Prince Arthur house, and there are approximately 300 Prince Arthur houses across the country being used for catering establishments, from this inventory we will be able to determine which are the valuable ones to preserve.
This will be the real value of the inventory, because without it we would not know the extent of the architectural heritage we have and of which we should be so proud. This will help preserve our cultural background and soul. When combined with other programs operated by our citizenship branch, and by the Department of the Secretary of State, it will help give us a fuller appreciation of our heritage and history. It is something that is particularly appreciated by our children. The old house in which I live, Mr. Speaker, is a special joy to my children. It gives them an appreciation of certain types of things which they know to be beautiful and assume to be of historic value, things which other people might pass by.
As can be seen from much of what has been said, the federal government is carrying out a number of different complementary programs to identify and preserve sites of national importance. Many provinces and a number of municipalities are also acting to preserve sites of regional and local importance. Despite all this effort, it must be noted that historic preservation is a costly exercise. Unless a structure has been very well maintained, the costs of restoration are high and maintenance is more than normal since in both cases the work must be done to standards of historical authenticity. Not only does this involve research to establish original appearance, but it makes heavy demands on highly trained personnel such as restoration architects and conservators, currently in short supply.
I believe we could discuss this question at much greater length, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think we would be bored by it. It is something in which we all share an interest. I am particularly grateful to the hon. member for bringing this motion forward. I wish the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) were here, because in Cobourg the old opera house is of special importance. I might mention, in passing, the restoration work done on Roosevelt University, on Michigan Avenue in Chicago. It is a rather unique building which was about to be destroyed. It was one of Louis Sullivan's buildings and acoustically was one of the greatest halls in the world. Rather than tear it down, the authorities have preserved it for use as a modern university building and concert hall.
Historic Sites
The hon. member for St. Paul's, who is a lawyer from Toronto, will himself appreciate the value of Osgoode Hall, and Campbell House, named after one of the first chief justices of Ontario. The Law Society of Upper Canada, I believe, paid for its restoration and the moving of it, although I imagine there was some government assistance. Here is a very excellent example of early Georgian, in a Canadian sense, architecture being preserved and moved to the Canada Life property near Osgoode Hall for everybody to see and enjoy. Formerly it was an office building for a jobbers supplier.
These are the kinds of things that local people can do and that we can assist them to continue doing. Some of this work is being done by Heritage Canada, Heritage Ontario, Parks Canada and other such agencies. But it is worth keeping in mind that these things cannot be imposed by the federal government: they have to be done in co-operation with private groups and other levels of government. It is just not good enough to say that the federal government should supply the funds. I am not suggesting that the hon. member is saying that alone, but first there has to be an appreciation and understanding by local authorities and local groups that this work is important. However, there is a limit to these resources, Mr. Speaker. There is a trade-off, about which I spoke.
The fact that this debate is taking place today is somewhat significant. Surprisingly enough, those people who are concerned do read Hansard. Here I refer to the people in government who are concerned with this matter. It is some comfort to them to know that we appreciate their concern and their efforts. All too often they may think that they are working in a vacuum, unappreciated. Here I refer to the people in the National Museums Branch, in Heritage Canada, the National Historic Sites Branch, the NCC, the National Archives-people whose work is appreciated and valued. They do a fine job. They are largely unsung, so I think it is good for them to know that there are a lot of people who support their work and who will support any initiatives they may take or suggest.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will only speak a few minutes, because I see that the hon. member opposite has a few words to say on the matter. I will speak briefly, since I merely want to thank the mover for asking the government and I quote:
. . . the government should investigate the feasibility of a nationwide programme for the preservation of historic buildings and sites of architectural merits and integrity through financial assistance to municipalities, historical societies . ..
Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased with that motion, because in addition to asking the government to consider the opportunity of establishing a preservation program for historic sites, I have always found-and I think it is good to draw the attention of the House to this-that governments have already acted to preserve our historic sites. However, I have also always found that such action was concentrated in the larger cities: Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Halifax, etc. Some thought is always given to the possibility of restoring some historic sites in large cities, but they forget that the entire population is paying for this work.

December 7, 1973
Historic Sites
We do not object to that, indeed, we are even happy about it, but we would like a small share of our tax money to return to our regions. We are asking the civil servants to get out once in a while of our large cities and tbur our areas, because we have marvelous historic sites often maintained by voluntary workers through the efforts of local citizens.
I shall start by drawing the government's attention to a series of centres and historic buildings. We all remember that at the time of the centennial of Confederation, the government asked all social organizations and all cities and municipalities to do something to celebrate that event. In my area we did something. On the occasion of the centennial of Confederation, we erected a building. The government gave us a small grant of about one third the worth of this monument which was meant to be a library. It was eventually turned into a museum, but we are stuck with two thirds of the debt and interests which my constituents must pay, while our requests for assistance from the federal government are left unanswered. And yet, it was mentioned on the application, at their urging, that this building would be a monument to the centennial of Confederation. Even though we still pay taxes for other monuments, we pay taxes on the interests and capital for ours.
If the federal government was prepared to help our area, it could do something to salvage those monuments. Some might blame the authorities of the time for relying too much on the government. Maybe they were overly progovernment and were let down. It would be a fine gesture on the part of the federal government to help pay for those buildings erected to Canada's glory, after all, and to try to set finance afloat, by granting a direct assistance for the maintenance of these buildings, that is the Frangois-Para-dis museum, commemorating a discoverer of my region.
I also draw the government's attention to another well-known monument, that is the Maria Chapdelaine property, that of the famous novelist Louis Hemon, of international reputation, but which was never granted federal aid. This monument was erected to commemorate founders, creators of our region, and I need not say anymore because I believe that Maria Chapdelaine is internationally known. I urge the minister and the federal authorities, if they have any money to spend, to try and help those who are now maintaining this property which needs facelifting. And I believe that this would be a good example of federal co-operation, as well as proof that they really want all parts of this country to be treated the same way. This would help eliminate regional disparities as regards historic sites because our people feel that credits that are voted and taxes that are paid for the maintenance of historic sites are always for purposes of agreements and never for our regions themselves.
I will conclude by referring to another historic monument in my region that is called the Victor Delamarre museum. I believe that the mere mention of his name will remind everyone of the strong man par excellence commemorated by the "Domaine Victor Delamarre" at Bou-chette Lake. Financial assistance has been asked of the federal government for the maintenance of this historical monument. We receive from time to time a little assistance

through local initiatives and opportunities for youth projects, but this is greatly inadequate.
If the government would, once and for all be completely impartial and consider historic sites throughout Canada, then I believe that those I mentioned deserve as much as the others. I have no grudge against Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, or any other city. I only ask the government to be fair, and since everyone pays taxes, they should be equitably distributed. If big cities are proud of their historical monuments, it must be remembered that we are all proud, and we hope to see the day when the government will listen to our voice and help local associations, cities, towns and villages to restore magnificent historical monuments. It would be to the glory not only of the province of Quebec but of the whole of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in a few of the remaining minutes I should like to commend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) on the resolution that he has placed before the House this afternoon: even though it may be the victim of the usual Friday afternoon experience, I trust he will feel satisfied that this has been a useful and worth-while debate. The hon. member himself admitted that a great deal is being done in Canada with respect to the preserving of historic buildings and sites, and the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) sought to spell that out. But it is still true that if we let our history slip away, we will not be able to recover it. I therefore think it is an excellent idea which the hon. member for St. Paul's has placed before the House and before the government, and I hope consideration will be given to it.
I should like in a moment or two to make reference to two projects in which I confess I have a personal interest, but at least I can boast that neither is in my constituency. I mention them because I think they represent the kind of projects in this general area that need to be included.
Sir, and I am thinking of you as Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your province of Nova Scotia there is a great deal of respect for old buildings and places that mark the history of that province. I am particularly interested in a building known as the old meeting-house at Barrington, Nova Scotia. It is a building that was constructed prior to 1800; in fact, back some piece into the 1700s. It is a small but very interesting old building which is now being maintained by the Cape Sable Historical Society. That particular part of Nova Scotia represents a culture and a heritage that is quite different from parts of Nova Scotia 20 or 30 miles away from it. I am familiar with it because it is the part of Canada to which my ancestors came more than 200 years ago and lived in for a long time.
I always find it most interesting to go there and I find that the members of my family, those who came after me, are fascinated by such history as is evidenced just by going into that area. I think an organization such as the Cape Sable Historical Society deserves the kind of support suggested in the motion that is before us. I put forward that building as the type of structure that is different from the monuments, and so on, that were suggested by the last speaker-and as one other branch of our history that
December 7, 1973

should be remembered. I urge that those who are doing their part in this field, as are the members of the Cape Sable Historical Society, should be supported.
The other project in which I am interested is closer to where I now live, although it is not right in my constituency. I refer to the home where my predecessor, the late J. S. Woodsworth, lived for the last number of years of his life. It was for a while the home of my colleague who is not here this afternoon, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). Before that it was the home of his father, the Reverend James Woodsworth, who was a very important person in the life of the Methodist Church in western Canada.
We at times think of the homes and birthplaces of those who reached the pinnacle and became premier, prime minister or what have you. Perhaps there are others like the late Mr. Woodsworth whose life should be remembered in this way. There is a society that is getting money together for the purchase of that home and making it a place which people can visit. This is not a commercial. Like the one in Barrington, Nova Scotia, it is a type of building which is perhaps a little different from some of those that have been mentioned.
I take this minute or two to mention these projects for their own sake because I think they are typical of many such projects throughout this country which deserve the kind of support set out in the motion of the hon. member for St. Paul's. Therefore, I commend him for this motion. Perhaps there is no reason why we always have to talk these things out on Friday afternoons. Maybe the group of friendly members who are here would agree to let this motion pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is up to his usual Friday afternoon tricks. He used about 15 minutes of the time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is a slight exaggeration. I should say he used up most of the time, or some of the time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I only had the floor for seven minutes.
Historic Sites


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That will be about seven times longer than I will have to speak. I commend the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Atkey) on this motion. I know he has a sense of history. It was indicated by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson), who lives in the Toronto suburbs, that this is because the hon. member now lives in Toronto. I suggest, with respect, it is because of the fact that he lived in Petrolia, Ontario, a very well known place with a sense of history. Every day when you go by the buildings in that community you cannot help being struck by the age of so many buildings. The people there are doing something about preserving them.
I wish private members' hour was two hours, because I could go on for another hour on this subject. I want to mention something that happened in the past which I consider to have been a disaster. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie lived in the area of Sarnia-Lambton. He was a stonemason and built the county jail, the county courthouse and the county council building prior to the turn of the century. When that building was no longer used by the county council or as a county jail and county courthouse, it was torn down. It was one example of the handiwork of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie in that area, and it was torn down.
To commemorate the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, we now have an historic plaque which was put in place by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That department was responsible for doing that. However, how much better it would have been to preserve the ancient county courthouse, jail and county chambers as a memorial to this great Canadian.
We have another building in Sarnia called Lawrence House. It is not as old as some of the buildings in Kingston and Halifax, but it should be preserved. It is my hope that citizens in the Sarnia area will mount an attack to preserve this structure. If it means setting up a non-profit corporation to do so, I hope they will take that kind of action because it is the kind of building that should be preserved.


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

Monday, December 10, 1973