1973-12-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report in both official languages of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Langlois.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek permission to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continuing refusal of the government to take any steps to provide railway cars for lumber and lumber products, although it deems it worth while to ask for legislative authority to act in the area of oil products by authorizing the movement of railway cars, as set out in Clause 25 of Bill C-236. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport forthwith to introduce legislation that will establish an office or official with the authority to order railway cars, motive power or other railway equipment to be allotted, distributed, used or moved as required-
That is an extract from the bill.
-for the purpose of ensuring that lumber and lumber products are able to be transported by rail.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the continuing deterioration in Canada's postal service as evidenced by the great numbers of complaints pouring in from all parts of Canada, the failure of the assured mail delivery service, and the resort to gimmicks such as plastic tie bags rather than fundamental solutions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That this House authorize the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, to inquire into the above-mentioned matters with a view to restoring Canada's postal service to its former high standard of efficiency.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the government has brought forward legislation to force the railways to allocate cars for the movement of oil, I seek to move the following motion relating to grain, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport forthwith to introduce legislation that will establish an office or official with the authority to order railway cars, motive power or other railway equipment to be allotted, distributed, used or moved as required for the purpose of ensuring that sufficient grain is in place to meet our export commitments to our international customers.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Sgreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
8428

December 5, 1973
Shipment of British Columbia Lumber POST OFFICE


PAYMENTS TO RURAL MAIL CARRIERS AND SUB-POST OFFICE CONTRACTORS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I believe my motion will have the concurrence of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That this House urge the Postmaster General to announce immediately his new policy of payments to rural mail carriers and sub-post office contractors.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


TRANSPORT
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I seek authority to move another motion under Standing Order 43 relating to the same subject matter as my first motion, railway cars. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House condemns the Minister of Transport for his continuing refusal to take steps to provide railway cars for lumber products in British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has expressed views from time to time regarding the propriety of a motion such as this. Under the guise of a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 the hon. member is really proposing what is tantamount to a censure motion or a non-confidence motion. I doubt that the Standing Order ought to be used for this purpose, for the reason that the practice of the House does not make it possible for a minister to reply or for debate to take place. Having cautioned hon. members on this basis, I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent for this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS ACT
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: for leave to introduce Bill C-237, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Identification of Criminals Act to provide that the results of the identification process be destroyed upon the discharge or acquittal of the accused. As the statute presently stands, the results of the identification can become part of police records and can be used by the constabulary as they see fit and published and distributed generally among the police forces throughout Canada.
The amendment is to bring the statute into line with the time-honoured tradition of the Canadian criminal process that a person is not deemed to be guilty until proven guilty.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Godin: What were the names and addresses of (a) lawyers and lawyers offices (b) notaries and notaries offices in Quebec City and the constituencies of Portneuf and Montmorency who worked for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation during 1972, and what amount was paid to each?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: (a) and (b): For loans approved in 1972 in the municipal counties of Montmorency No. 1, Montmorency No. 2, Portneuf and Quebec, the following notaries or notaries' offices were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for legal work in connection with CMHC direct loans: Benoit Boulanger, Sillery, Quebec; Jean Cantin, Quebec, Quebec; Henri Chretien, Charles-bourg West, Quebec; Raymond Deraspe, Quebec; Henri Fortin, Quebec, Quebec; Gilles Giroux, Quebec, Quebec; Louis Grenier, Beauport, Quebec; Antoine Hamel, Lorette, Quebec; Claude Martel, Quebec, Quebec; Claude Quirion, Quebec, Quebec; Maurice Taschereau, Quebec, Quebec; Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers or notaries. The following lawyers were retained in 1972 to handle actions where
December 5, 1973

arrears on loans had developed in these municipal counties: Fees Paid Bernardin Blanchet, nil; Ross Goodwin, $913; Andre Monast, $783; Robert De Blois, $430; Gaston Desjardins, nil; Pierre Choquette, $700; Guy Des Rivieres, $845. Where actions are settled prior to trial the costs are paid by the borrower. Where actions proceed to trial, the fees for legal work paid by CMHC are shown above.


Mr. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain): 1.	What law firms in Hamilton, Ontario drew CMHC mortgages in (a) insured (b) uninsured loans in 1972 and the first six months of 1973?
2.	How much did each of these firms receive in legal fees from the government for handling these mortgages in 1972 and in the first six months of 1973?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. For CMHC loans approved in Hamilton Metropolitan area in 1972 and the first six months of 1973, the following lawyers were retained to process mortgage documentation: (a) There were no loans approved under Section 58 during the period in question, (b) Uninsured loans under Section 15: Edward F. Cain, Hamilton; Alan Marshal, Hamilton; Edward G. Rolfe, Burlington.
2.	Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these lawyers or notaries.



LEGAL FIRMS ENGAGED BY CMHC IN THE DISTRICT


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What law firms in Delta, Richmond and Burnaby drew CMHC mortgages in (a) insured (b) uninsured loans in 1971, 1972 and the first six months of 1973?
2.	How much did each of these firms receive in legal fees from the government for handling these mortgages in 1971, 1972 and the first six months of 1973?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. The following law firms were retained to process the mortgage documentation for direct loans approved under the NHA in the District Municipalities of Delta, Richmond and Burnaby in 1971, 1972 and the first six months of 1973: (a) loans approved under Section 58: Hean Wylie & Co., Burnaby, British Columbia; (b) loans approved under Section 15: Campney and Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia; Doig, Guthrie and Bailey, Burnaby, British Columbia; James H. Edwards, Burnaby, British Columbia; W. Charles Johnstone, Richmond, British Columbia; LaCroix, Stewart, Siddall & Taylor, Burnaby, British Columbia; C. J. McGuire, Ladner, British Columbia; W. H. Mulholland, Richmond, British Columbia; Shore and Helsing, Vancouver, British Columbia.
2. Legal fees in connection with CMHC direct loans are paid by the borrowers and CMHC, therefore, has no record of the amounts paid to these law firms.
Order Paper Questions



PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

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


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.



TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROGRAM

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of organizations, other than universities, receiving transportation research grants from the Transportation Development Agency Program in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: It is
presumed that all elements of the inquiry refer to the Grants and Contributions portion of the Transportation Development Agency program. 1. No grant or contribution expenditures were made by the Transportation Development Agency during fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 or 1971-72. Responsibility for administration of the university grants and fellowship program was transferred to the agency from the Canadian Transport Commission during fiscal year 1971-72. All of the grant and contribution expenditures made by the agency during fiscal years 197273 and 1973-74 were in support of the university grants and fellowship program.
2.	The objectives of the university grants program is to encourage the development of broad interdisciplinary transport-related research and teaching programs and to support research into specific aspects of transportation. The fellowship program permits qualified candidates to undertake studies and research in transportation and transport related fields at Canadian universities in order to increase the number of people with educational and research experience in transportation and to provide opportunities for conducting research in areas of significance related to Canadian transportation problems.
3.	An evaluation of the effectiveness of the grants and fellowships program is currently under way and it is expected that the report will be completed by the end of January 1974.
26695-21 i

December 5, 1973
Order Paper Questions



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THE ANISHINAHBEG MAN-O-MIN CO-OPERATIVE, KENORA, ONTARIO

Mr. Reid: Has the government made any (a) grants (b) loan guarantees (c) loans to the Anlshinahbeg Man-O-Min Co-operative of Kenora, Ontario in the past three years and, if so, what were the amounts, by year, in each of the above categories?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Grants, loan guarantees and loans were provided in 1972 and 1973 in connection with the harvesting, processing and marketing of wild rice crops. However, it is not departmental policy to disclose financial arrangements made in borrowing from the Indian Economic Development Fund.



CFB GAGETOWN CLEANING CONTRACT STJ2-5528A

Mr. Howie: 1.	Were changes made in the term of security deposit requirements before the closing of tenders for cleaning contract STJ2-5528A at CFB Gagetown in March 1973 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Excluding Saturday and Sunday, how many days prior to closing were these changes notified to each of the tenderers and how was this notification made?
3.	Was the time for closing of tenders extended and, if not, for what reason?
4.	For what reason was the lowest and next lowest tender not accepted and what were the amounts and names of these and the successful tender?
5.	Was a representative of Custodian Services Limited, Mr. Vincent Fox, denied information as to the time and place of opening of tenders so he or a representative could attend and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Yes. As the requirement was of substantial value the department required to have a security deposit or bid bond submitted at the same time as the tender.
2.	Telegrams were despatched four working days prior to closing date of the tenders.
3.	No. It was decided that there was sufficient and reasonable time for all tenderers to respond. No requests were received from any of the potential bidders to extend the tender closing date.
4.	The lowest and next lowest submissions were not accepted because they did not conform to the requirements of the Invitation to Tender. Better Building Maintenance Limited, $19,490. per month; Custodian Services Ltd., $21,431. per month; Jet Janitor Services Limited, $22,600. per month, (Successful Tenderer);
5.	No. Mr. Fox was invited to attend an opening of tenders and to witness the procedures employed through the minister's letter to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), on the same subject, dated May 31, 1973. This invitation was again extended to Mr. Howie in September 1973 through the DSS Regional Director of Supply, Atlantic Region.



PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD

Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. Finkelman, Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board (salary range: $40,000-$45,000), to New York, Fresno, Tel Aviv and London ($2,746)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: For the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
1. 2.
New York, New York	To speak at the International Symposium on Public Employment Labour Relations.	May/71
Fresno, California	To attend the 20th annual conference of the Association of Labour Mediation Agencies and the June/71
National Association of State Labour Relations Agencies. (This was a joint conference).
Tel Aviv, Israel	To speak at the International Conference on Trends in Industrial and Labour Relations.
London, England*	To meet with:
Officials of the Industrial Court,
the Commission on Industrial Relations,
the Civil Service Department,
the Staff Association of the Civil Service.
January/72 January/72
*A stopover while returning to Canada from Tel Aviv, Israel.



PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD IN 1971-72

Mr. Knight: I. In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by G. E. Gauthier, Vice-Chairman of the Public Service
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]
Staff Relations Board (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to Washington and New York ($336)?
2. In what month of the year was this trip made?


John Mercer Reid: For the Public Service Staff Relations Board:
December 5, 1973

Order Paper Questions
2.
New York, New York
To attend the International Symposium on Public Employment LabJlir Relations.
May/71
Washington, D.C.
To speak at a conference on State and Local Government Labour Relations.
November/71



PURPOSES OF TRIPS MADE BY MASTER OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MINT IN 1971-72

Mr. Knight: 1. In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by G. W. Hunter, Master of the Royal Canadian Mint (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to (a) Brazil, Guyana, Trinidad, Bahamas ($1,786) (b) Jamaica, Bahamas ($681) (c) Washington ($357) (d)
London, Paris ($873) (e) Dayton ($300) (f) London ($679) (g) London ($1,445)?
2. In what months of the year were these trips made?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Royal Canadian Mint is concerned: 1 and 2.
(a) Brazil, Guyana, Trinidad, Bahamas ($1,786)	Purpose of trip	Date
	Discussions and negotiations with officials of the Banco Central of Brazil and Brazilian Mint, resulting in an export contract for the Royal Canadian Mint for 168 million cupro-nickel blanks valued at $2 million.	March, 1971
	Discussions with senior officials of the Central Banks of Guyana, Trinidad, and Bahamas-all of which (except Guyana) resulted in successful export contracts for the Royal Canadian Mint.	
(b) Jamaica, Bahamas ($681)	Discussions with Chairman of the Bahamas Monetary Authority and the Governor of the Central Bank of Jamaica-both of which resulted in successful numismatic export contracts for the Royal Canadian Mint.	June, 1971(c) Washington ($357)	To attend American Numismatic Association Convention, and for meetings with the Director and Head Office Officials of the U.S. Mint.	August, 1971(d) London, England ($873)	To visit Bradbury Wilkinson Limited re world agency for export coinage contracts for the Royal Canadian Mint.	January, 1972(e) Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A. ($300)	To meet with World Coin Editorial Board and officials of Paramount Coin International re procedures for approval of "proof" coins.	March, 1972(f) London, England Llantrisant, Wales ($679)	To attend Conference of European Mint Directors and to visit the new Royal Mint at Llantrisant.	April, 1972(g) London, England Birmingham ($1,445)	To visit plants of manufacturers of coinage presses for the new Canadian Mint in Winnipeg, and to complete negotiations for purchase thereof.	November, 1972



PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY DEPUTY MASTER OF ROYAL CANADIAN MINT IN 1971-72

Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by E. F. Brown, Deputy Master of the Royal Canadian Mint (salary range: $26,000-$30,000), to London ($676)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so fa. as the Royal Canadian Mint is concerned: 1. To attend, as Technical Advisor, the Conference of European Mint Directors and to visit the new Royal Mint
at Llantrisant, Wales, and the Netherlands Mint at Utrecht.
2. April 1972.



PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY DEPUTY MINISTER OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO LONDON AND PARIS, 1971-72

Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. S. Hodgson, Deputy Minister of Veterans Affairs (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to London, Paris ($376)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?

December 5, 1973
Orders tor Returns


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. To accompany the minister on visits to Canadian war cemeteries in France and to the District Office in London, England.
2. November.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What date was (Trefann Court, Toronto) Trefann Homes Corporation incorporated?
2.	What are the names of the directors and officers of the corporation in question?
3.	What are the names of any solicitors and law firms who have acted for this corporation to date for any purpose?
4.	In the negotiations for a loan or loans from CMHC, what are the total amounts of mortgage moneys that have been applied for?
5.	Have any moneys to date been advanced to Trefann Homes Corporation for any purpose?
Return tabled.



SPEEDING CONVICTIONS AGAINST VESSELS OPERATING IN THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER BETWEEN PRESCOTT, ONTARIO AND LAKE ONTARIO

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the last navigation year for which figures are available, how many large vessels, excluding pleasure vessels, operating in the St. Lawrence River between Prescott, Ontario and Lake Ontario were dealt with by Canadian authorities as follows (a) warned about speeding (b) had charges laid against them for speeding (c) were convicted and fined for speeding?
2.	What were the names of the vessels convicted of speeding, at what speed were they charged, what was the location of the offence, what was the penalty levied and, in each case, what was the nationality of the vessel and the name of the shipping company and shipping agent involved?
Return tabled.



DAIRY EXPORTS TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY COUNTRIES, 1970-72

Mr. Schellenberger: What was the amount of exports, in dollars, to each of the European Economic Community countries for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 for each of (a) skim milk (b) whole milk (c) butter (d) cheese?
Return tabled.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Question No. 3307 standing in my name is about reconciliation of the United States-Canada trade figures. The answer was in yesterday's New York Times and today's Globe and Mail. I would be very grateful if the Privy Council office could move with equal dispatch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion No. 259.



CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT OF PEI RESPECTING BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 259-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Minister of Transport and other responsible Ministers and the Government of Prince Edward Island respecting the Borden-Tormen-tine ferry service subsequent to the date of the latest national railway strike.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the release of any exchanges between the Ministry of Transport, the Prime Minister's office and the government of Prince Edward Island on the Borden-Tormentine ferry service cannot be made in light of the decision of the government of Prince Edward Island to take legal action against the government of Canada on the matter of federal constitutional obligations. It would appear that this might prejudice any proceedings before a court of justice. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like the motion to be put.


John Mercer Reid: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the other notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope he can hear me. Is he prepared to revert to motions to make a statement to the House along the lines of the declaration he made in a special briefing to the press this morning with regard to petroleum supplies?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there were widespread requests this morning, so I responded in general to the
December 5, 1973

press. I am quite prepared to answer questions. We will, of course, be debating the question of supplies later this day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister tell the House whether the 200,000 barrels a day figure he gave as the possible shortfall in the supply of petroleum for Canada took into account the amount that might reasonably be made up from the movement of Canadian crude into Quebec and the Atlantic provinces by sea or by transportation across land? I think the figures he has given us are a possible
50.000	barrels a day by sea and between 40,000 and 60,000 barrels a day by land. Did the 200,000 barrel shortfall make any allowance for that movement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The 200,000 barrel figure was the anticipated interruption from international sources. Naturally, we would try to make good, as we have attempted to do, on the supply side by the methods suggested by the hon. gentleman. The 200,000 barrel figure had reference to interruptions of supplies reaching the eastern Canadian market from overseas.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So it is possible that the movement of western Canadian crude might offset the shortfall from overseas by about 100,000 barrels a day. When the minister estimated a 200,000 barrel shortfall from overseas, did he take into account the projected petroleum product that might be available from the operation of the Come-By-Chance refinery which is supposed to have a capacity of
100.000	barrels a day, or was his assumption based on the worst expectation at all likely and nothing was taken into account from Come-By-Chance on the basis that nothing could be counted on from a refinery that was not yet in operation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am advised that the judgment of the advisory committee was that the Come-By-Chance refinery would not be in a position, at least early in the first quarter of 1974, to assist the Canadian market and for that reason the committee discounted the ability of that refinery to assist the Canadian market with product supplies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, if in fact arrangements are possible to move 100,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude by sea and/or by land, and if the Come-By-Chance refinery goes into operation at the end of this month as its management predicts it will, producing approximately
100.000	barrels a day, these two sources might offset a large part of the shortfall which the minister considers possible from overseas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If those two eventualities came about, the exposure of Canadians would be very much reduced. I would agree.


Mr. Bell:: In other words, no crisis.


OIL SUPPLIES-REQUEST THAT OIL COMPANY HEADS APPEAR BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE TO INFORM MEMBERS ABOUT SITUATION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: In view of the many uncertainties surrounding the energy situation at the moment, would the minister give consideration
Oral Questions
to inviting immediately the heads of the principal oil companies in Canada to appear before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works so that members of the House might better inform themselves about the actual situation that exists today and be able to decide to what extent, if at all, an oil crisis does exist in the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not, of course, give instructions to the committee but I would be delighted, should the committee be interested in that suggestion, if it would issue such invitations.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Give them terms of reference.


CONSIDERATION OF IMPORTED OIL REQUIRED BY COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY IN ESTIMATING POSSIBLE SHORTFALL-GUARANTEE OF SUPPLIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On November 13, as reported at page 7732 of Hansard, in answer to a question of mine about the availability of petroleum products from the refinery at Come-By-Chance, the minister said that "if it does go into operation this winter it will be covered by the export control regime we now have in effect with regard to refined products." I want to ask the minister whether, in estimating a shortfall of 200,000 barrels a day, he took into consideration at that time the imported oil which the Come-By-Chance refinery would need? I ask this particularly in view of the fact that it is supplied by the British Petroleum Trading Company whose primary suppliers are the Arab emirates, Iran and Nigeria. Can the minister tell the House first of all whether that was included in the shortfall, and second, has he any guarantee of supplies of raw material for the refinery at Come-By-Chance?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was assumed that the refinery might be in a position to import some feedstock, at least for its own operations, which if it did not go into operation might be part of the general Canadian pool of crude oil. But the assumption made was that the imports could not be continuous so as to assure a supply of 100,000 barrels a day until the refinery got into operation. As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the advice of the committee is that, given the difficulties generally of starting up and the difficulties encountered at this refinery in particular, it was not anticipated that it would at an early date be able to supply the Canadian market with a full range of products.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When does the minister anticipate the refinery will be operating at full capacity, and if it is operating at full capacity how much does this reduce the shortfall which the minister anticipated at 200,000 barrels a day?

December 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I gather that at the moment the refinery is not being completed because of a strike situation. It is a matter of judgment as to when the starting up difficulties of a refinery can be overcome, but the opinion of my officials was that it is unlikely to be in full operation before, at the very earliest, the end of the first quarter. I know Mr. Shaheen is rather more optimistic and I suppose his success in life has been based on his optimism rather than otherwise, but this is the informed judgment of the industry.


INQUIRY AS TO MEETINGS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT MEMBERS AND SHAHEEN INTERESTS PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF POSSIBLE OIL SUPPLY SHORTFALL
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister by way of supplementary whether, when he made his statement in the House on November 26 regarding the
200,000	barrels a day shortfall, he or other members of the government had had meetings with the Shaheen people prior thereto and, if so, when did these meetings take place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands may I say the shortfall would be reduced to the extent that the refinery could be brought into full operation. The difficulty at that point would, of course, be that during the period of the freeze-up in the St. Lawrence it would be difficult to deliver the product to Montreal where the particular shortfall arises.
In reply to the question put by the hon. member for St. John's East, and I apologize to him, the Shaheen company, Newfoundland Refining, is represented on the technical advisory committee to which I have made reference, and its official has been participating in those discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East for a further supplementary and then I will try with the assistance of the House to complete the first round of questioning. Following that, we might return to further supplementaries, including the hon. member for Edmonton East.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the minister tell the House whether he or any other minister of the government held meetings with the Shaheen company prior to his statement on November 26? I am not thinking of any meetings that may have taken place with the advisory committee but meetings at the ministerial level. Was any assurance given at that time that the Come-by-Chance refinery would be able to feed into the Canadian market?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had met with company representatives earlier in the month of November.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might try to complete the first round of questions and then we will return to hon. members who have supplementaries.


GASOLINE AND DIESEL OIL-SALES TAX REDUCTION ENABLING IMPERIAL OIL TO REDUCE WHOLESALE PRICE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, still with oil but having to do with price I should like first to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would he explain briefly to the House what magical wand his department was able to hold in its hands in order to reduce the sales tax payable by the oil corporations, which apparently made it possible for Imperial Oil to announce some slight reduction?


Hon. Robert L. Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have been able to take any step that helps the oil companies to reduce prices for Canadian consumers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In fact, however, it was a rather unspectacular administrative step which was taken.


David Lewis: I expected that.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: For many years the department has widely applied sales tax equalization measures in various industries. The effect is to make the values for tax accounting equivalent to the selling price to wholesalers in industries where manufacturers sell at various marketing levels.


An hon. Member:: That's clear.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George Harris Hees: You must have learned from Paul Martin.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the obvious supplementary would be to ask the minister to explain, but I think that would probably be a further waste of time. I am too dull to follow that. I should now like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he or anybody in the government has assured himself that the reductions Imperial Oil has announced in the wholesale price, very significantly not in the retail price, of one and two-fifths of a cent a gallon east of the Ottawa Valley and four-fifths of a cent a gallon west of the Ottawa Valley, something about which the Minister of National Revenue should not boast too hard-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


David Lewis: -reflect fully the saving which the Santa Claus National Revenue Department gave to Imperial Oil, and will he also indicate why it is limited to gasoline and diesel oil and does not apply to home heating fuel?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last part of the question, these are the only two commodities covered by the manufacturers' level sales tax. Home heating oil is not subject to federal tax. Therefore it is not a question of lowering the price on it. I would have to say that at the moment, without an audit, it would be difficult to estimate the exact impact on the price, but I would be glad to investigate that to ascertain, from the information we have available, the exact impact.
December 5, 1973


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question that I wish to ask probably because I do not know enough about the industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: You will understand a lot more on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very flattered to be applauded by my equals in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: I didn't think there were any.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are admitting there are some?


David Lewis: I do not know whether the minister knows the answer now but I should like to know why there is a difference between the reduction per gallon in eastern Canada and the reduction per gallon in western Canada? Why should that difference exist?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I cannot answer that question now but I will investigate and see if I can give a lucid reply.


COMPLAINTS ABOUT VARIATION IN GASOLINE AND FUEL OIL PRICES-SUGGESTED INQUIRY
Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Richmond wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the great number of complaints we are receiving concerning the enormous differences in prices which Canadian consumers must pay when purchasing gasoline and heating oil, which cause them to have serious doubts about the fairness of this practice by the petroleum industry, will the minister investigate this matter so that Canadian consumers may know where they stand and be advised concerning the oil crisis of this type?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is the result of an oil shortage. We would also want to be able to investigate such practices and if the hon. member can mention particular instances we shall be happy to hear him.


ALLEGED REFUSAL OF GOLDEN EAGLE CANADA LIMITED TO DELIVER FUEL OIL
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
He had promised the hon. member for Temiscamingue that he would look into cases in the lower St. Lawrence region. Can he tell the House what is the attitude of
Oral Questions
Golden Eagle Canada Limited in this matter? Is he aware that the same thing is now happening in Lotbiniere, that is Golden Eagle Canada Limited is refusing to supply to its branches the oil that they need to serve the consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have been able to confirm the existence of the situation mentioned by the hon. member of Temiscamingue. The National Energy Board has investigated and arranged a meeting of the man concerned with Golden Eagle Canada Limited. During November, the quota of this man was increased, but I must say that in view of the present shortage of supplies, similar difficulties could occur in the future. If special cases occur, we can order investigations.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF RENTING UNITED STATES TANK CARS FOR MOVEMENT-CONSULTATION WITH U.S. AUTHORITIES-ALBERTA REFINERY PRODUCTION
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he has consulted the United States railroads or the United States government with regard to the possibility of the rental of tank cars to move crude and refined products from Alberta to the Montreal market? If he has so consulted, what was the result of those consultations and, if not, is he prepared to consult with these people regarding rental and is he also prepared to put the Alberta refineries on 24-hour production?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, a survey of the transportation industry, which I have mentioned several times in the House, has been conducted by the Ministry of Transport. I would have to confirm with them whether or not they have had discussions with the United States lines in this regard. I will be glad to make that inquiry and respond to the hon. gentleman.
On the question of refinery speed-up I think this depends upon the location and whether the decision is to move crude oil into the Ontario and Montreal refineries or to move the product from western Canada. If the latter is the better solution, then we would propose that the companies should increase their throughput.


William Skoreyko: Is the minister aware that if the three refineries in Alberta were put on 24-hour production they could not possibly store the final product and that the problem lies in the transportation area alone? I should like to know what the government is planning or what the minister's department is planning with regard to this matter so we can put the refineries to maximum capacity in order that eastern Canadians will not have to suffer this winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of whether the particular product can be moved effectively by the transportation system, in effect we have a substantial transportation system, the Interprovincial pipeline, for moving crude oil to the refineries in the east. I think it is likely that any transportation proposal would be designated more specifically between the Sarnia end of the Interprovincial pipeline and the Mont-
8436

December 5, 19V3
Oral Questions
real refinery market rather than all the way across Canada.


DELIVERY OF OIL PRODUCTS FROM COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY TO MONTREAL AND QUEBEC
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask him to what extent the lack of delivery systems from the Come-by-Chance refinery has affected his decisions about products from that refinery and whether his industry advisory committee has given the minister any advice regarding delivery of products from that refinery to Montreal and Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the constraint I just mentioned was, of course, the date of the starting of the refinery but, if that should be effective with a full product line, at the present time it looks as though the two tankers of the Newfoundland Refining Company would be the best available for winter shipment. It might be possible to find other ice-classed tankers for the purpose of moving the product. But there is a constraint arising from the fact that it is difficult to move it through the ice in the winter time.


HOME HEATING OIL-REQUEST THAT SALES TAX BE REMOVED IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated that the consumers of home heating fuels in the two northern territories will suffer price increases along with other Canadians, since the Prime Minister and other members of the treasury benches have indicated that if any sales tax relief is to be experienced it will have to be at the provincial level, and since the minister is directly responsible in the area of the two northern territories, will he give the assurance that he will instruct each of his appointed commissioners in those two territories to introduce legislation to remove the sales tax which now exists on home heating fuels in both northern territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall consider the hon. member's suggestion and see if it could be applied. There are several taxes, but I know that most consumer taxes do not exist in the Northwest and Yukon Territories in respect of heating oil. I shall look into the matter and see if the situation could be improved.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville rising on a supplementary?


CRUDE PETROLEUM-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING CONTINUATION OF PRICE FREEZE AFTER JANUARY 31, 1974
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary is on pricing. I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether or not he can assure the people of this country that after the end of January there will be a price freeze on petroleum products?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in response to the hon. gentleman's leader, I cannot do this at the moment. This is one of the questions being discussed with the Alberta government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous pressure coming from Canada's biggest oil lobby, namely, the Conservative Party and Sheik Lougheed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Obviously I hit a sensitive spot, Mr. Speaker-to end the price controls on crude oil, can the minister assure the House that he will not succumb to this pressure which is highly undesirable for the people of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, when I do not co-operate with Alberta I am given hell and when I do I am given hell too. It is a difficult situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Bellechasse wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


BASIS OF OPINION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING POSSIBLE SHORTFALL IN OIL SUPPLIES
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since the House is going all the way on supplementary questions, then I shall ask mine so as to follow this practice. I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who seems full of energy.
Seriously speaking, my question is the following: a release from the Canada-Near East press service indicates that Canadian oil production is 2 million barrels a day, including 1 million barrels for domestic use, and also that Canada has obtained considerable oil supplies in Venezuela and Romania which are more than sufficient. Can the minister inform the House whether government fears of an oil shortage are based mainly on the fact that Canada has too heavy supply commitments with other countries? If so, what countries are involved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the problem at this time is that we have not adequate means of transporting oil to all Canadian markets.
December 5, 1973


INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT BY SASKATCHEWAN TO SELL CRUDE PETROLEUM AT LESS THAN ALBERTA PRICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. Yesterday the leader of the New Democratic Party chose to talk about legislation in Alberta on the price of crude petroleum. Can the minister tell us whether the Saskatchewan government and Premier Blakeney-Saskatchewan supplies a certain percentage of crude petroleum through the Interprovincial Pipeline that comes east-have agreed under any conditions or under any method to sell crude petroleum at less than the price at which Alberta petroleum is sold?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no such agreement with that province.


NATURAL GAS PRICE INCREASE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-PRIOR DISCUSSION BY MINISTER WITH PREMIER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the premier of British Columbia doubled the price of natural gas to consumers in that province and thus took advantage of those consumers who are Canadians too, did the minister have any discussions with the premier with a view to reducing the price?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did not have the pleasure of discussing it with the premier of British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: But the Prime Minister did.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did have an opportunity of discussing it with a member of that great and famous clan to which I belong. He indicated that the decision to increase the price of natural gas in British Columbia by the NDP government was a firm decision and that the increase would be 81 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another socialist sheik.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Sheik Barrett.


George Harris Hees: Let's have a word from Sheik Douglas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East followed by the hon. member for Trinity.


EASTERN CANADA OIL SUPPLIES-REQUEST FOR BREAKDOWN BY PROVINCES OF POSSIBLE SHORTFALL
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister regarding the pipeline to Montreal and the fact, which has been mentioned a number of times, that the river freezes over. Can the minister say whether or not he can identify, so that we can keep this dialogue straight in our own minds, the amount in barrels of the shortfall that will occur or could possibly occur in Quebec, the three Maritime provinces and Newfoundland? In other words, is the minister able to break this down rather than continue to lump it together
Oral Questions
so that we may better understand the necessity for adequate transportation systems?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot break it down between the provinces. As the hon. member knows, some of the provinces supply others. I think that kind of breakdown, at least in the Atlantic provinces, would not give a full account of the resources available.


POSITION OF SAUDI ARABIA ON SUPPLYING OF OIL TO CANADA-AMOUNT SHIPPED IN LAST 30 DAYS- COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY OUTPUT
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the minister be good enough to reconcile for the benefit of the House the view he related from the Saudi Arabian minister that Canada is on the middle list with the statement of Mr. J. A. Armstrong, one of Canada's most knowledgeable oil men, that as early as October 22 Saudi Arabia had advised one of the Exxon affiliates that oil would not be supplied to Canada and that this information was given to the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as a result of that information on October 22, as the hon. gentleman will recall, our ambassador to Riyadh, who actually resides in Beirut, visited Riyadh for the purpose of confirming the position of the government of Saudi Arabia on this question and was assured that Canada was not on the embargo list although shipments would not take place to the Portland pipeline. I took the opportunity of speaking to the Saudi Arabian minister, Sheik Yamani, who was in New York yesterday, and he confirmed to me again that Canada was not on the embargo list.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Wait until tomorrow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister advise the House how much oil has been shipped from Saudi Arabia to Canada in the last 30 days?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to seek information on that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It would appear that if in fact we are on the middle list, there is an asterisk and a footnote beside Canada's name saying "ship no oil".
My final supplementary is this: can the minister advise the House whether or not his advisory committee discounted the output of the Come-By-Chance refinery and the availability of that output to the eastern part of Canada by 100 per cent or by some lesser percentage for the coming season?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not have the actual percentage, but the over-all figure that I have given to the House is a rounded figure for the eventualities that the committee thought could occur in eastern Canada.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker-
26695-22!

December 5, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


OFFERING OF COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY PRODUCTION TO CANADA-POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF &quot;FORCE MAJEURE&quot; CONTRACT PROVISION-DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it regards the Come-By-Chance refinery situation. Has the government consulted with the government of the United States regarding citizen Shaheen's offer, and can the minister inform the House of the attitude of the American government to the prospect that force majeure provisions of Mr. Shaheen's contracts with the American oil companies will be exercised with the apparent approval of the Canadian government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had such discussions with the United States.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Does the minister intend to have discussions with the United States to find out the attitude of the American government on this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: It may be desirable to have such discussions.


TAR SANDS OIL-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT TO ENABLE SYNCRUDE PROJECT TO PROCEED
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he assure the House and the country that he, the Alberta government and the Syncrude people have nearly reached an agreement regarding the go-ahead for that project?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the present stage of the matter, as far as I know today, is that in view of the reaction I gave earlier, namely, that the agreement as then drawn did not meet federal taxation policy with respect to resources and mining, the province of Alberta and the Syncrude consortium, according to my understanding, have been renegotiating that contract. Both my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and myself have had certain reactions to it. I do not yet know what the reaction is of the parties to the contract.


CONSIDERATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE FROM SAINT JOHN TO MONTREAL
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the Portland pipeline difficulty and the ice in the St. Lawrence to which reference has been made in a previous question, has the government under any consideration at the moment the construction of a pipeline from Montreal to Saint John where the largest refinery in Canada and the first deepwater facility are located and, if not, why not?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of discussions with Premier Hatfield on the question of a possible deepwater port at Saint John and a pipeline connection into the St. Lawrence valley. At the moment there has been no final decision by the government.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a report stating that certain local initiatives programs will be cancelled, particularly those dealing with the care and help to the infirm, invalids and the aged in their own homes, I should like to ask the minister, as this involves the pressing social problem of the aged and infirm, whether there are any arrangements to cover such programs through the Canada Assistance Plan or otherwise with the provinces?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the program is as the hon. member has described it, I would think that this is a program that could be cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan. However, it is up to the provinces to take the initiative and recognize it as a welfare service.


MANPOWER
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the vast discrepancies in allocation of LIP grants for the various ridings, can the minister inform the House what formula was used in arriving at these amounts?
Hon, Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, that formula was tabled when the allocations were tabled and made available to members a week or two ago.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ABILITY OF WHEAT BOARD TO FULFIL SALES COMMITMENTS AND DEFERMENT OF SALES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since at the present time our export sales are down some 100 million bushels and we have very small amounts
December 5, 1973

of feed or cereal grains on hand at Thunder Bay, may I ask the minister whether the Wheat Board can fulfil its sales commitments, and can he also inform the House how many sales have had to be or are going to be deferred in the coming months?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board did make arrangements with some of its customers to take delivery at a later date than originally intended. Of course, with that change in deliveries it is expected that all commitments would be met. The supply of feed grains for eastern Canada is being watched very carefully, and the Wheat Board remains confident that the feed grains required will be moved either by lake freight or by rail.


Jack Burnett Murta: Can the minister say whether or not this means that because some grain sales will be deferred to later months the grain will be sold at a lesser price than it could be sold at the present time?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, the sale contracts that are involved are normally firm ones. The over-all picture for this year is an expectation by the Canadian Wheat Board of exports in the 700 million bushel to maximum 800 million bushel range, and it should still be possible to get within that range.


FEED GRAIN-MINISTER'S POSITION RESPECTING STATEMENT BY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ON PRICING AND SELLING POLICY
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. In light of statements by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board to the National Farmers' Union meeting in Winnipeg, which the minister chose not to attend, that he had grave misgivings about the present feed grains pricing and selling policy, may I ask the minister whether the chief commissioner said the same thing to him? Did he convey to the minister his misgivings about the policy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact words of the commissioner were not those, but of course the proposals for next year, whether one adopts the ones we outlined in August or the ones outlined by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, are extremely complex as inevitably is the case in the matter of grain. Therefore there are naturally concerns about the exact details of their operation. I am satisfied that the plans can be implemented in a way which will in the end completely reassure the commissioner of the Wheat Board and all the supporters of the Wheat Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I remind hon. members that we are quickly coming to the end of the question period. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar will be recognized for another supplementary, and then the hon. member for Annapolis Valley and the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Since the minister did not chose to answer my first question, perhaps he will answer this one. Again referring to the matter of the movement of feed grain into
Oral Questions
position, the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario has stated they are three million bushels short at Goderich. Is grain going to be moved into position in time to serve farmers in that area who want to buy feed grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I answered that in answering an earlier question by another hon. member by saying that the Wheat Board is watching the situation very closely and that, while not all the grain that is wanted may be moved by lake because of the delays which occur, there will be rail movement to make up the deficit.


FEED GRAIN-REQUEST THAT PRIORITY IN ROLLING STOCK BE GIVEN TO MOVEMENT TO EASTERN CANADA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the answer of the minister and along the lines of the questions on the shortfall in the supply of feed grains in eastern Canada, will the minister ensure that, in terms of rolling stock, priority will be given to moving feed grains into eastern Canada where the short supply is becoming very critical, with Atlantic Canada having only an eight day supply at a good many points, and not let happen what happened this week when the Wheat Board cancelled 150 cars with the CNR one day and then because of pressure finally put them back on the rails?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that the Wheat Board did no such thing. Canadian National Railways had thought it might be better to serve the Thunder Bay movement at this immediate point in time rather than leaving those cars in the movement to Nova Scotia. After consultation with the Wheat Board and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the Wheat Board arranged that Canadian National put 150 cars out of the Thunder Bay movement into the movement of grain to the east.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for the explanation and I am glad the matter was clarified. But the first part of my question was whether the minister would personally ensure, in terms of priority of rolling stock, that priority will be given to servicing and filling some of the bins that are in short supply in eastern Canada rather than the very necessary and important export trade?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are really talking about domestic trade both ways. It is a question between all rail, or rail to lakehead and boat from there, but my answer surely should have reassured hon. members that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and the Canadian Wheat Board are indeed making sure that the domestic market is being served.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You cannot assure anybody of anything; that is your trouble.

December 5, 1973
Oral Questions


SURVEY OF OIL AND GAS PATENTS IN ORDER TO REDUCE USE OF PRODUCTS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The minister having just advised the House that there is no shortage of oil in Canada and that in spite of this the consumers have had to bear the brunt of price increases in recent months, does he intend to ask his department to review the registration of patents and list those liable to reduce the consumption of heating oil and gas used by vehicles? If so, will he increase publicity intended to encourage their application, even though some inventions were turned down in the past to protect oil companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, but I shall take note of the suggestion of the hon. member.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue on a supplementary. I must point out to the House that we have reached the end of the question period. I shall still allow the hon. member to put his supplementary.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I could very well put my question to the Prime Minister since I do not think that the government oil policy is established without his knowledge.
Since the government is asking the staff and members of parliament to set an example by saving energy, we can see that in parliament, at the restaurants, ladies have to wear more clothes and the Leader of the Opposition is just about dying from the flue. Here and there, complaints are heard concerning the low temperature in the building and as far as I am concerned, my hands are always cold. So, I must come to an understanding with the minister. Is he prepared to come and keep my hands warm if we cannot get more energy?


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose that this is a suggestion which will be considered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada will hold my hand Monday night, I shall be most pleased to warm his.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Riehmond-Delta and then call orders of the day.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister explain to the House why the government has offered the people of Pickering and Ste. Scholas-tique an additional 10 per cent on the purchase of their lands to cover the cost of living and in British Columbia the government tries to tell the people that it has been included in the price?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The same principle that prevailed at Pickering will also prevail at Sea Island, and 10 per cent has been incorporated in the offer to the people of Sea Island.


John Douglas Reynolds: In the minister's reply he said that the same principle will apply. The question was, why did you offer an additional 10 per cent in Pickering but for Sea Island you tell people it is included in the price? Do they think they are stupid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Obviously, we cannot proceed unless there is unanimous consent, so that there will not be an order of the House. Orders of the day.']
Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, the Chair will deliver the following message:
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa, 5 December, 1973
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, December 5th, at 5:45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the
Governor General



Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the item of business that is to be considered today, and also in relation to the
December 5, 1973

announcement that Your Honour just read from the chair. Will it not be possible, before we proceed with Government Order No. 79, to take one minute and give third reading to the family allowances bill, ,so that it can be dealt with by the Senate this afternoon and included in the Royal Assent before five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am sure I speak for all members of my party when I say that we will give our sincere and utmost co-operation to this worth-while Christmas-like suggestion, without debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, our party has always approved of an increase in old age security pensions and family allowances because we want to improve the status of our fellow citizens. I want to assure the House, on behalf of my colleagues, of our entire co-operation so that this bill to improve conditions for Canadian children will be passed as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, they are now playing politics with the oil shortage while our children are in need of money and while our party wants to deal with serious matters by passing immediately the family allowances bill.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the House is ready to move so rapidly, perhaps I can add a few other bills, to test hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Here comes the red herring.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let us complete the parole bill; let us complete the Canada Pension Plan (Mennonites) bill; let us do the parks bill and the report stage of the residential mortgages bill, and take it all the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that we would agree to taking the report stage of the residential mortgages bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I said all the way, and not just the report stage. I was referring to third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of co-operation and in an effort to clear the decks for the showdown on Monday, we will agree to the residential mortgage bill.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, members of the Social Credit Party of Canada are here to do their job. We are ready to approve this proposal.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it must be Leader of the House's day. I must say I am just delighted. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, we need a House order now in order to give third reading to the family allowances bill, to deal with the CPP (Mennonites) bill at all stages-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to deal with all stages of residential mortgages, all stages of the Parole Act, and to give the parks bill second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to do this. There may be one or two bills, such as the residential mortgages bill, on which we shall say "On division". However, we will let them pass. We will not force a recorded vote. We will agree to the whole package.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I failed to gather what the minister is giving in return for this agreement. He gave no assurance that the family allowances bill would be dealt with immediately.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ask your leader.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not precisely sure what has been agreed to. Perhaps the President of the Privy Council might make it clear and the Chair will ascertain whether there is to be an order of the House for that purpose.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion was that we give the family allowances bill third reading today.


Thomas Miller Bell: Without debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Without debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot give any assurance about what is to happen in the other place. I have not reached that stage yet. I suggested, in addition, that we do the report stage of the Canada Pension Plan bill, which comes with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot, and give that third reading today, without debate; that we give the parks bill second reading, without debate; that we give the Parole Act third reading, as well, without debate; and that we complete the report stage and third reading of the residential mortgages bill. I will leave for the day when that is done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, every member of this House from time to time has to assert his presence. Perhaps that is what I am doing on this occasion. The government House leader has outlined a very full program for this afternoon, in the hope that there will be complete co-operation. I say to him and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I very much regret that I cannot give that assurance, because there is a motion standing in my name which is to be considered at the report stage of the Canada Pension

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Plan bill, and I want that motion to be dealt with at length.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, unless I did not hear the minister correctly, I think he neglected to include in the last list he gave Canada Pension Plan bill No. 2. He knows that that was part of the package, and that it, too, would be given third reading without debate. I suggest to the President of the Privy Council that despite the reluctance of the hon. member for Crowfoot with regard to one of the less important bills, that he should regard the package of four or five bills as a pretty good deal. We shall go further than second reading with the National Parks bill. Indeed, all the bills could go all the way.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to reconsider the matter tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, we cannot proceed unless there is unanimous consent, so that there will not be an order of the House. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Donald Stovel Macdonald: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill on second reading, I refer the House back to the remarks I made on November 26 when I outlined some of the measures which the government and industry were undertaking to supply additional amounts of crude oil and products to eastern Canada. I discussed such things as the rapid increase of movement through the St. Lawrence Seaway, government purchases of products on world markets and the organization of transportation through the Trans Mountain pipeline system and Panama Canal.
At that time, I stated that even with these arrangements, we could not guarantee that oil, which had been lost to Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces through the production curtailments of Arab nations, could be completely replaced. I called upon the people of Canada, Canadian industries and manufacturers to enter wholeheartedly into voluntary programs to reduce the use of heating oils and motor gasolines. The response to that call

is now beginning to take effect. At the same time, I announced what the government was proposing to do to reduce its own requirements for these petroleum commodities. Those measures are now generally in use.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I announced it was the government's intention to introduce a program of mandatory allocation at the wholesale level. That has been done in the form of this bill which was given first reading Monday, December 3.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be useful to put these recent events in better historical perspective. It will be recalled that in December 1972, the National Energy Board prepared an assessment of the crude oil situation in Canada. That assessment indicated the need for caution in respect of Canadian crude oil exports. Flowing out of that report, a program of crude oil export controls was put in place beginning March 1, 1973. At the same time, the government announced that the National Energy Board would be holding public hearings to inquire into the appropriate mechanisms which might be established in the future authorization of crude oil exports. Continued developments of shortages in the United States throughout the summer prompted the government to impose export controls successively on gasoline, middle distillates, heavy fuel oil and propane. Thus, even before the occurrence of the Middle East war and the subsequent oil production curtailments by Arab nations, the government had moved and moved decisively in protecting Canadian supplies.
As I have mentioned on other occasions, with the outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East, the government very quickly established a technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand. That committee, composed of senior representatives of oil companies and of the various departments of government, has continued to meet every week. It has established a number of sub-committees composed of specialists in the various aspects of petroleum supply and distribution.
The recommendations prepared by that committee have been undergoing continuous review and refinement. The picture which emerges indicates clearly the possibility of shortages of middle distillates and heavy oils in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and to some extent in Ontario. There is also the possibility of local shortages of these products in British Columbia.
In spite of its efforts, the technical committee is unable to advise the government of the precise extent to which international crude oil deliveries to Canada will be reduced. However, the committee has recommended that the government plan for possible curtailment as great as 20 per cent for these areas which are dependent on overseas oil. The government has also been advised that the voluntary program will be unable to restrain demand to that percentage level. Industry has urged the government to put in place a mandatory allocation program as quickly as possible in order to avoid a chaotic situation and inequities that might develop if each company institutes an allocation program of its own when its own supply situation becomes serious. That, Mr. Speaker, is the intention of the bill now before the House.
The advisory committee has also suggested to the government that serious problems could begin to emerge when and if curtailments reach 20 per cent of normal
December 5, 1973

requirements. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that the bill provides for the extension of the mandatory allocation system to a full rationing program.
Before dealing with other aspects of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the government's energy policy document tabled in this House in June 1973 had a number of important things to say in respect of the security of oil supply for eastern Canada. On page 121 of that document we find, and I quote:
In the past, the security of Canada's imported petroleum supply was not considered to be a problem in then prevailing conditions of world supply. However, the magnitude and nature of world oil operations are now such that traditional patterns of oil supply no longer have the same relevance.
In this decade, the Middle East will be the key in the balance of the supply and demand pattern. If the countries in that area which have the largest potential for increasing their output do so to the extent required, then a relatively stable world oil supply situation will pertain for the 1970's. If, however, even one of the very large exporters were to restrict its production for an extended period, a politically and economically unstable world oil situation would result. It is assumed that the impact on eastern Canada of an interruption of oil supply would be proportionate to the global diminution in the world trade in oil.
The last sentence which I read indicates that the present basis of the government's planning regarding the degree of curtailment of international oil deliveries was clearly set out in June of this year. The technical advisory committee has continued to reaffirm that this is an appropriate basis for planning in Canada.
If I might continue to quote from the same page of the energy policy document, Mr. Speaker:
A fourth outbreak of major Arab-Israeli hostilities is a possibility which cannot be ignored. The effects on world oil trade of such a development or other developments affecting the oil producing states, cannot be readily determined.
The United States oil industry has reached the stage where it is unable to expand its production significantly, at least in the short run.
The decline in oil discoveries in the traditional oil-producing areas in Canada and the decline in known reserves in these areas, are unlikely to be compensated for, in the short term, by the exploitation of sources in the Mackenzie Delta, the Arctic Islands or areas off the east coast.
In calculating the impact of a supply crisis on Canada, the assumption has been adopted that the impact on eastern Canada of an overseas supply interruption would be proportionate to the global dimensions in the world trade in oil. There are, of course, circumstances in which Canada might be proportionately better off or worse off than other oil importers.
It was factors such as those contained in the quotation I have just read from the energy policy document which led the government in early September to announce an intensive study of the question of the extension of the transportation system so as to make western crude oil available to Montreal. The government has now announced that it is it's policy to see such a pipeline built in order that in future Canadian oil may be delivered on a continuing basis to Montreal and could, in an emergency, be delivered to Atlantic refiners.
There has been much discussion in recent days about the level of interruption in petroleum deliveries Canada is likely to experience. I have already indicated the difficulty, and indeed the hazard, of trying to guess that level.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act The far more important question is the level of interruption for which planning provision should be made. I have indicated the level recommended by the technical advisory committee. That level, and, indeed even a significantly higher level, would require appropriate action by the allocation board which the bill now before the House seeks to establish.
There is one aspect of this question of curtailment of overseas oil supplies which I believe requires serious thought by the House and by all Canadians. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has referred to our assistance to the United States in its present time of crisis. There are others who are our friends and who could be in dire circumstances through oil shortages in a very few weeks. Some European nations may face curtailment amounting to as much as 70 per cent or 75 per cent of their heating oil during the depth of this winter. Those countries are our friends, as the Prime Minister has said, and friends help each other in times of crisis.
During the meeting which took place with the energy ministers of all the provinces in Toronto on November 23,1 reviewed the general nature of the mandatory allocation program contained in the present bill. There was free discussion of these concepts with the provinces, both at that time and subsequently. The government has responded to a number of requests from the provinces and has made appropriate changes in the bill now before us. In this measure, the government is seeking authority to handle the present petroleum supply emergency, in any form it might take, over the coming months. No one knows the exact nature of this emergency, how deep it may go or how severe its impacts may be upon the various regions of Canada. Accordingly, the government has to be prudent by asking for sufficient authority to enable it to respond adequately and quickly as these fast moving events unfold. It is not the intention of the government to bring in controls applying to all products in all regions of Canada.
There is provision that alternative fuels and electricity can be administered by provincial authorities under appropriate agreements. In some instances use of these alternative fuels and electricity can make a positive contribution to easing the petroleum supply shortages. However, in other instances, due to limited transportation facilities, curtailment of the use of these alternate energy sources would bring little or no benefit to regions of Canada experiencing petroleum shortages. Thus it has seemed advisable to the government that these energy sources should remain under provincial control provided appropriate agreements can be worked out with the provincial governments.
In respect of petroleum products, it would be the intention of the government to have the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board establish a mandatory allocation program dealing with each product in short supply. This would only occur, of course, after the Governor-in-Council had by order stated that a national emergency existed by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbance in the petroleum markets affecting national security and the welfare and economic stability of Canada. The bill grants the allocation board power to make regulations subject to the approval of the Governor in Council

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act and covering all aspects of the trade and supply of petroleum.
The board is instructed to produce a mandatory allocation program which shall:
(a)	designate the regions of Canada in which the program is to operate, if it is not to extend to the whole of Canada
(b)	specify the petroleum products included under the program
(c)	set out the priorities of use of the controlled products, and
(d)	provide for systematic allocation of the controlled products.
Although the board is empowered to make regulations prescribing the price at which, or a range of prices within which, any controlled product may be sold, it is the intention of the government that such power would only be exercised subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and to the extent that price should not become a factor in frustrating the equitable allocation of petroleum products. As the Prime Minister said in his address to the nation, the principle here is that petroleum products in short supply should be allocated to those who need them rather than to those who can pay high prices for them.
Part II of the bill covers the concept of the rationing of controlled products. This part becomes activated when the Governor in Council orders the allocation board to extend the mandatory program because supplies of a controlled product are, or are likely to be, so short as to cause the mandatory allocation program to fail. Under part II, the board is once again given the authority to make regulations, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, covering all aspects of petroleum trade and supply to all levels including the ultimate consumer of those petroleum products. It is the hope of the government that a rationing program will not have to be instituted. Nevertheless, the government feels it must be in a position to order the allocation board to institute such a program, perhaps on very short notice.
Throughout the history of this current emergency, the government has moved in every way possible to seek the advice of industry and of provincial governments. Advice from the industry will continue under the mandatory program and, perhaps, even under the rationing program if that should come about. To this end provision is made in the bill for industry to enter into agreements, arrangements or courses of action which might involve contravention of the Combines Investigation Act. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Gray) shall be consulted in this regard but the board may, by order, exempt industry from the provisions of that act with respect to any action prescribed by the board.
Similarly, the board may find it necessary to make regulations contrary to provisions of law relating to the control of the emission of pollutants into the environment. Again, the board shall consult on these matters with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) but industry and private citizens shall be exempt from pollution control legislation if they are conforming with a valid regulation of the allocation board.

There is, too, provision in the bill for support of the legislative authority of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Transport Commission in order that petroleum products may be moved so as to relieve current or anticipated shortages. Moreover, the bill provides that the authority of the National Energy Board may be extended in respect of pipelines not carrying a controlled product. This is in order that the uncontrolled product may make a contribution to areas experiencing shortages of controlled products.
Finally, there is provision for the termination of any mandatory allocation program by the end of December, 1974 unless such a program is extended by an order of the Governor in Council. Such order for extension shall be laid before parliament not later than 15 days after it has been made or within the first 15 days after parliament resumes sitting. A notice of motion in either House, signed by ten members within ten days thereafter praying that the order be revoked, shall be debated at the first convenient opportunity. If both Houses of parliament resolve that it be revoked it shall cease to have effect, and the mandatory allocation program in respect of which the order was made shall thereupon terminate.
There is one aspect of the bill which may raise questions among hon. members. It is the addition of a measure not strictly confined to the allocation program, a proposal to create two additional members of the National Energy Board. As I have already told the House, the jurisdiction of the board has been substantially expanded during the current year; first, so as to extend its control over the export of Canadian oil from Canada and subsequently over a range of petroleum products. The work involved both in the hearings of the kind the board has been carrying on, the proposed hearings with regard to oil supplies, the proposed hearings with regard to the pricing of natural gas for export and the hearing which may take place if the Canadian Arctic gas study group makes an application for the construction of a McKenzie Valley pipeline, has greatly increased the range of tasks falling on the board. The substantial increase in the hearing time involved will throw an extra burden on board members and for this reason the government is recommending the appointment of two additional members to assist in this work.
Before closing, I think I might refer to a question which has been much debated in the House in recent days. It is whether or not the supply in Canada this winter may reasonably be expected to be in jeopardy. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as I note from his remarks reported at page 8222 of Hansard for November 28, indicated he did not believe a report coming from the technical advisory committee that there would be a shortfall in supply.


Mr. Stevens:: What committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -there would be a shortcoming in the supply of oil to the Canadian market. The hon. gentleman may not have done so, and I suppose it is a question on which reasonable men could differ. In effect, he feels that Canadians are secure for the winter and that they do not require further assistance.
December 5, 1973

This is not a view that has been shared at the provincial level. I should like to refer him, for example, to the action taken, the rather extensive action taken, by the government of the province of Ontario through publicity in the journals of the province, to action taken prior to the actual conversations between the federal government and provincial governments concerning interruption, founded upon that government's conversations with the industry. The province has said that action should be taken not only to relieve the situation regarding home heating oil in the province of Ontario, also to make any surplus available to relieve a possible shortage in the province of Quebec.
Among those who support the action taken by the federal government would be the minister of energy for the province of Ontario. I should like to read to the House the following remarks made by Mr. McKeough in the Ontario legislature, as reported at page 5576 of the debates:
We in Ontario rely on and are well served by Canadian crude oil from western Canada. We must face up to the fact, however, that some of our domestic oil supply will and should be diverted, if necessary, to other Canadians. The big oil companies are multinational, so it is only prudent to assume that a world shortage will in all probability reflect in domestic shortages on a worldwide scale. In other words, Canadians cannot expect to escape the effect of a Middle East embargo on the United States. As a consequence of all this, there is more than a possibility of a Canadian gasoline and heating oil shortage. We in Ontario must accept our share of the burden.
So much for the views of the Ontario government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Did they set up a board, too?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They do not have authority to set up a board to deal with energy on a national basis.


Mr. Lawrence:: Neither do you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a matter of opinion. As for the views of another provincial government, I refer to remarks made by the Quebec minister of transport as reported in La Presse for November 30 of this year. He indicated that he felt voluntary restrictions would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the Quebec market. I quote from his remarks in La Presse.
[ Transla tion]
Voluntary restrictions, he explained, would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting us against a possible scarcity.

So Mr. Mailloux, the Quebec minister, felt the same concern, as did the premier of New Brunswick, the Hon. Richard Hatfield, in his statement to the legislature on November 27, when he set out at some length the kind of interruption that New Brunswick felt it might experience in the course of the coming winter. He supported the measures taken by this and other governments for the purpose of voluntarily restricting the use of products of these kinds.
There are really two main areas in which the powers of the mandatory allocation board would be necessary. The first is the situation where, because of the increasing international tightness of supply, there will be a shortfall in international supplies coming on to the market in Canada, and where for over-all statistical reasons there
Energy Supplies Emergency Act may be within the eastern Canadian market a drop of supply below demand.
The other area, even if there were no tightness of supply-though I must say we are anticipating one-would be within our own market where, whatever the statistical balance of supply might be, the government would have no authority to set priorities between individual or company decisions concerning allocation of supplies. One could therefore find an imbalance in the supply of particular commodities in one region, an imbalance between various companies, where some customers would be going short while others would have no inadequacy of supply.
Under the law as it stands at the moment, there is no way government can intervene on behalf of the general public interest to set these priorities. So some kind of legislative authority like this would be required for the purpose of giving authority to the government of Canada to make such reallocation, and to do so without damaging the contractual situation or without creating any legal liability on the part of the contracting parties to any private arrangement.
The bill is really analogous to an insurance policy. As with insurance, the actual loss in the event of the occurrence assured against cannot be calculated in advance. What is required is an estimate of the risk, and the exposure that the risk will bring out. In conjunction with industry we have projected the potential loss if certain events come about, but we cannot be certain either that they will come about or even that those events not now anticipated may not occur. If any of these events do not occur, then we will all be relieved in the situation. We will have been insured, as an insured party is, by this particular bill, by the policy the government has followed, and there will have been no risk to the community.
If the event does occur, the measure that we are proposing will be available to enable the government to protect the priority needs of Canadians. On that basis I suggest it is important that the board be constituted at an early date and that it be given power to develop a mandatory allocation of supply for Canadians. It is important that the Canadian community, particularly the eastern Canadian community, have protection in this kind of legislative intervention so their interests can be guarded in the event this kind of interruption during the winter takes place.
There will undoubtedly be some questions at the committee stage regarding the detailed provisions of the bill and I shall say no more at this particular time. But the critical consideration, and I would re-emphasize it, is that Canadians by voluntary measures make efforts to reduce the exposure to which we may be subject in the coming winter because of international interruptions in supply, that these be moderated to a degree by voluntary restraint.
It would do no service to the community as a whole, and in particular it would do no service to eastern Canada, to try to suggest that there is no risk, given the interruptions we hear about every day taking place around the world, particularly as they affect our closest trading partners. Under those circumstances, I think it is important that we have the full support of the community in the program of voluntary restraint; and in anticipation that the interruptions will be even greater than the savings we can achieve through a voluntary program the government should also

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act have authority to be able to take the measures outlined in the bill in order to protect the Canadian consumer.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the minister, as have all members of the House, and I am sure the country will be listening to what he has had to say. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the members of this House, that what strikes me about the over-all approach taken by the minister is the light, almost casual touch that he gave to this request he is making to the House for these tremendous powers. I wonder why the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), when doing his bargaining this afternoon, did not ask for the bill to be passed without any debate at all. He might well have done so in view of the attitude the minister has taken.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, if the hon. gentleman is agreeable ...


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister talked about an insurance policy, but if you take out an insurance policy you want to know in some detail what the risks are. You want to know what premium you are going to pay. This information was not given to us by this minister of the government, but I intend to go into this aspect, as will my colleagues, to some extent at a later period in our discussion.
I want to make but one other comment at this particular stage regarding what the minister said, though I will deal with other remarks of his as I continue my comments. Although I do not think he intended to do so, I think he quoted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) out of context. The Leader of the Opposition did not at any time say categorically there would not be any shortage or any problems in respect of supply in this country. What he did say, and you have to take this in context with his questions before and after this statement, was that he was not satisfied with the diverse remarks of the minister and other members of the government, and that there may be in fact very strong discrepancies in respect of these statements regarding this energy problem. It was that which compelled the Leader of the Opposition to seek a more detailed statement in discharging his responsibilities. So far the Leader of the Opposition, hon. members of this House and the country, have not received such a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Before leaving the question of insurance, and I think Your Honour may have had occasion to deal with insurance law in the days when you did not have to worry about listening to speeches on energy, let me say that when one is dealing with insurance he wants to have some knowledge as to the integrity of the broker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I would be the first to acknowledge that the members of our party have made no attempt to conceal the fact there are difficulties and problems in Canada and in the world. It would be a foolish person who would deny that fact, but these are problems which differ as to kind, as to intensity and as to geographic location. Steps are

required to be taken in respect of these problems, but we in this party have never at any time attempted to deny the necessity of taking such steps.


An hon. Member:: We have even asked for them.


Gerald William Baldwin: As my friend has said, we have asked for them during the question period and in the course of discussions in the committee as well as in the House. We must bear in mind that, as we saw last night, as we have seen today and during this week, there are day to day alterations in these rapidly moving problems both in Canada and in the world. We may well hope that international conditions will settle down, and that there may be a mellowing which will make some difference in this regard, but conditions may in fact worsen. Certainly, no one on this side has attempted to deny that fact, but this does not mean we in this party will be panicked or that we are going to be pushed into granting this authority to the government until we are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that the problems are such that they require a cure of the size the minister is asking us to approve. There are other ways of making roast beef than by burning down the cow barn, and this is one of the propositions I should like the minister to keep in mind.
We do not intend to meekly give up the rights of not only ourselves but of other people outside this House.


An hon. Member:: Of the oil companies.


Gerald William Baldwin: Hon. members in the backbenches over there do not know what they are talking about, because we represent the people of Canada. We have seen what this government does when it is granted unreasonable power and authority, and it is not our intention to tamely give to those people those things they are demanding.
I sometimes think as I look at the minister of those lines of Shakespeare:
Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed,
That he is grown so great?
I think the first thing to do is have a look at this bill which the minister skipped over very casually, simply and easily. I intend to take a little time to look at this measure. It has been before us for a very short time, although I had a few hours to consider it yesterday when I was interrupted by some event in the House of which we are all aware. I want time to look at it and discover precisely what is being asked for as well as what will be the effect if it is passed under the circumstances which exist today. I want more time to look at it to discover what powers the government will have. We will have a look also at the objectives the government seeks, and which I believe the people of Canada seek to achieve in dealing with this energy problem. I want to consider the things upon which the bill is based to see whether there are any alternatives to what is proposed by the government. I want finally to have some discussion and consideration of what we would suggest about the measure and how we should deal with it.
What does the bill do? In the first place there is no question at all that this board with the high sounding name, the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, is in fact government owned, operated and manned. There is no question at all that there is no indication of independence
December 5, 1973

on this board. This board will be subject to the direction of the Governor in Council, which means the minister, in everything it does.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member says "yes". This is what the Liberal party believes in; powers granted to the board which is out in front, but authority which this government can secretly use to obtain its way. That is what we intend to see shall not be granted unless, in fact, there is an adequate case made for doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Hon. members on the opposite side may be conditioned to meekly acquiesce to all this government seeks, but that is not our responsibility, and we are not here to say no as a matter of perversity. We are here to examine and scrutinize, and we will not let this bill pass until we have discharged our responsibility in this regard, no matter what my hon. friends may think we ought to do.
I am not going to take this time to deal with the clauses one by one, and I would probably be out of order if I did, although the minister has done so. Referring to Clauses 1 to 10, there is not the slightest doubt in the world that this board will be subject to the day to day controls, orders and directions of this government and the minister. Let us not delude ourselves on that score. There is no doubt that this is the purpose of the bill as set out in Clauses 1 to 10.
Going on from there, we find the power of delegation. It may well be that in certain circumstances, no matter what the extent of the authority granted, the right to delegate part of that authority will be exercised. The minister did not touch on that and he has not made a case for it. He may make one in the committee, I do not know. But if we are to rely on his statement in this House today we must remember that he has not by one word, one sentence or one argument suggested any reason we should give this power to the government to delegate this authority in any part of the country.
In addition to that, the minister was not silent but not very effusive as to the extent to which the mandatory allocation program can be applied to other products than petroleum products. He used the phrase "mandatory allocation program", but this phrase undoubtedly constitutes a complete, 100 per cent granting of absolute authority to the government to act in any way it wants. There is no question about that, and I do not think the minister will deny it. He can call it a mandatory allocation program, but that is much like calling lying, mendacity, or saying theft is only embezzlement. This is just a choice of words. We in this House want to discuss the extent of the authority the minister wants us to give him under this program.
Alternative fuels can be used, such as electric power.
As has been pointed out, alternative fuels consist of coal, natural gas and many other commodities. Electric power can be used. There is no doubt that this clause, taken in conjunction with the clause which provides for byproducts or derivatives of petroleum products, could cover derivatives or byproducts of alternative fuels and
Energy Supplies Emergency Act that these could be placed under the mandatory allocation program. I am not an industrialist, but I would think that if this provision is taken at its face value the number of commodities which could be covered under a mandatory allocation program of this government could run literally into the thousands, including the very important industrially produced commodities of the petrochemical industry, plastics and fertilizers. There is no indication of the limit to which, in this modern world, this government could go in delivering its ultimatum to administer its so-called mandatory allocation program.
On the question of price, I would point out to the minister and to my hon. friends to my left that some ten months ago the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), our leader and members of this party, suggested an incomes policy. Had it been put in place at that time, there would not have been any necessity for the inclusion in this bill of the question of price. I say to my friends to the left in good faith that they must accept a very large share of the responsibility for keeping this government in place, thus enabling this government to deal with the question of price. If what the government does with regard to price does not please my hon. friends, let them bear the responsibility for keeping the government here.
I thank my hon. friends for the hallelujah chorus. It is always inspiring to have such intelligent help from the back benches. The right to vary and change contracts has been mentioned by the minister. Later on I will show the extent to which this bill intrudes into provincial rights, but from time immemorial contractual obligations have fallen squarely under the civil rights clause of the constitution. This minister and this government are clearly on record as asking us to move away from a right which does not belong to us by the simple process of bringing this bill into operation. This is something which at the moment is quite unsupported by hon. gentlemen opposite and the minister.
Then, there are the import and export regulations. I shall deal with those later. I shall just mention here, so hon. members can consider it, that the inclusion of the import-export regulations in this bill brings into the open the feud which exists in the cabinet. This is a fact of some significance. As I understand it, not so long ago the cabinet was considering what step it would take in this regard. It was decided to use, for the time being, the Export and Import Permits Act. I intend to deal with that later in more detail. The matter would then have fallen under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). The very fact that this bill is here today, and the fact that these proposals appear in it, are a certain indication that the minister has won this particular battle. There are several ministers present in the House and since none of them have spoken up, I take it that what I am saying is quite correct, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I wish to deal with what I consider to be a very important and very dangerous clause, clause 15. It is what I think will be known as the blackmail clause or the bludgeon clause, and the bludgeon falls very easily into the hands of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because he is accustomed to using bludgeons. This clause provides that the board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council-and of course that means the Gov-

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
ernor in Council or the minister-negotiate with a provincial government with regard to alternative fuels or electric power for the purpose of there being regulation or allocation of supply. Then, it goes on to make the distinct threat that if no such agreement is made, then the government will find it necessary to bring in its mandatory allocation program. I believe the minister when he says that there has been some discussion with the provincial authorities. I think the minister learned his lesson a little while ago. I say to him candidly that I hope he and his officials will keep in close touch and liaison with the provincial authorities.
Problems of this kind which mature rapidly require co-operation by all levels of government with the present minister and his officials. If the minister and his officials deal with these problems on their own, they are bound to meet with difficulty not merely for them, for us, or for the government, but for the people of Canada. I deplore the language in which this clause is phrased when it includes this implicit threat to provincial authorities that they must deal with the government, that they must accept this government's proposals and disposition with regard to petroleum and other alternative fuels and electric power because if they do not this government will bring in a mandatory program. I consider that is no way to deal with other governments which, within limitations, are sovereign in that respect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal very briefly with the question of the regulations. The minister touched on this. In this Parliament we are becoming accustomed to a government which governs by regulation. I have said before, and I shall repeat again, that were it not for the British North America Act this government with the power and authority it has, with the regulatory power it has seized from this House under a number of statutes over the past few years, and with the changes with regard to the passage of supply, could stay in power for two or three years without calling parliament together. The proof of this lies in the fact that it is now three or four years since the CNR financing bill, which was discussed the other day, has been passed. Hon. members of the opposition have had valid questions to ask about that measure which have not been answered. Despite the fact that under the statute this bill needs to be passed each year, it has not been passed in three years and the government has carried on dealing with the auditors, the capitalization and so on. I say it is essential that we look at these regulations, look at the people administering them and then survey what has been done with the regulations. In this particular instance clause 16 provides:
With the approval of the Governor in Council, the Board may make such regulations as may be necessary in the opinion of the Board to carry out effectively a mandatory allocation program .. .
In other words, the government is saying to itself through the board: pass any regulation you want; there are no restrictions; there is no curtailment; there is nothing at all to constrain you in the type of regulation you pass. That is the effect of that clause. The clause goes on to set out a few particular headings, but these are only afterthoughts. The meat of the regulatory granting clause lies in what I have read, and I say it is a dangerous practice for

hon. members in the House to grant such powers to any government, even to a government composed of members of this party which will soon be occupying the treasury benches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I would still dispute and challenge for a much better cause than the minister has so far stated, the giving up to hon. gentlemen opposite of the kind of powers which they seek in this bill and this clause in particular.
As the minister said, in addition to what I have already pointed out, the effect of the Combines Investigation Act and all combines legislation can be suspended, and the environmental provisions, laws and regulations which I take to be not only of this parliament but of any of the provincial administrations can be waived and overridden. There is a biblical phrase-and I think the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) could probably give me a lead on that-that the Lord created the earth-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In six days.


Gerald William Baldwin: -in six days. I was not sure of the number of days. By that part of the clause dealing with the environment, the government is seeking to give this board of nameless, anonymous officials the right to destroy with one signature those regulations and those statutes which the provinces and the federal government have, over some opposition and with great difficulty, enacted over the years in trying to make this a better world in which to live. I think it is a dangerous precedent and I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the House will deal with this more extensively later.
There is a right of expropriation and commandeering of the four modes of transport: rail, pipelines, transportation by vessel, and road transportation. In effect, if you search closely the powers which are granted in the clauses which deal with these particular issues, there is no doubt that the almost complete right to commandeer, to expropriate and to make use of any of these facilities of transportation will be vested in this board under the direction of the government.
As to the expiry of the powers, the minister has correctly stated that the bill will expire at a fixed date, but it can be extended by a simple order in council. There is, of course, the saving clause that a negative resolution can be advanced in the House. That, I submit, is not good enough. Our previous experience in trying to get hon. members opposite to give up powers which they have taken unto themselves can be described by a good Peace River saying, namely that it is like dragging a cow out of the muskeg, and probably just about as noisy. I am very unhappy about that proposal.
Having dealt, in this casual and perfunctory way, with what is in the bill, I consider it my responsibility to point out in far more detail than the minister did, the dangers, the extent of the powers which this government is asking for by this legislation. On what basis does the government ask that this bill be passed? I think it would be of some value to hon. members in the House to examine some of the comments which have been made by the Prime Minis-
December 5, 1973

ter (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the two Bobbsey twins from Pollyanna-ville. Their comments with regard to this energy crisis have been a little different, have varied from time to time, and have not always created that sense of urgency regarding the passage of this bill intimated by tHe government.
For example, the Prime Minister said on November 22:
Our current assessment is that oil rationing at the retail level will not be necessary.
If Canadians generously support the voluntary program-and I know they will-there is every prospect that shortages can be minimized throughout this winter.
On September 20 of this year, on a television program, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said this:
In a sense, this is a passing situation in Canada because we've got new refinery construction under way which will be completed in the fall of next year, and further refinery construction will be completed in the year after.
Is that the kind of statement on which to base the far reaching and extraordinary powers for which the government is now asking us?
On October 16, 1973, the same minister, in speaking to that society of which the Prime Minister is so fond, the Royal Society of Canada, said:
Comparing the Canadian situation with that of other developed nations of the world, for example Germany and Japan, we are not on the whole in too dangerous a situation.
Compared to other nations, Canada is in a relatively fortunate position.
On October 7, not so long ago, on a television program the minister said:
Well, Canadians have been more fortunate than many other people. In terms of shortages the government has been able to take action by way of export controls to make sure that Canadian refineries will continue to have supplies of oil to turn into gasoline, into heating oil, and also to make sure that there will be supplies of gasoline and heating oil throughout the year.
This statement was made less than two months ago by the minister who has now come here to demand these extraordinary powers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was made before the war.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has already quoted from the first report which was tabled last June in which he points with pride to the fact that the report deals with the question of the war. He knew about it then, he knew about the possibility then.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I did not know about the war, did you?


Gerald William Baldwin: It was certainly under contemplation at that time. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), that great Canadian who is in difficulty now because of the fact that he has not been given, as he ought to have been given, more authority in relation to this problem than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-however, this is a family feud and I do not want to become involved in it- said before the Commons committee yesterday:
It is very important that Canadians do not overreact to pessimistic scenarios based at this stage on inadequate information about the oil crisis.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I have a feeling that that statement was directed at the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: They are fighting the convention battle already.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Finance has been in the cabinet long enough to know all about inadequate information. He went on to say:
While we must be concerned . .. there is no justification at this moment for panic and pessimism.
Canada is in a much better position with regard to energy supplies than most other industrial countries.
Amen. May I refer to the Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker? I quote the Globe and Mail when I should and they quote me when they should. There is a very interesting editorial in that newspaper today anticipating this debate entitled "Warm Measures Act". I refer to it because they take a very sensible position, namely, that before we accept in total all of those exorbitant demands which this government is making, we want to be satisfied there is in fact a need for the legislative provisions contained in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: So I am glad to cite that editorial, briefly and concur with the Globe and Mail at this time, Mr. Speaker. I could go on ad infinitum-ad nauseam. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who sits in the Liberal caucus, knows very well the kind of statements he gets from ministers and that is why he uses the term "ad nauseam" in describing them. I say in a purely political sense that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister are disreputable witnesses and their testimony is discredited and suspect when they come to this House and demand that we give the government, without further scrutiny, without further challenge, without further information, the kind of powers that they are asking. I would think that if you went to trial defending a man on a murder charge with witnesses of this kind he would be found guilty of attempted suicide.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is surely inappropriate, right at this point in time, for us to pass without further challenge this particular legislation. Certainly, people want to provide for the present difficulties and they want to provide for the future. We have never opposed, and we do not oppose now, a reasonable program of allocation at the wholesale level and, if necessary, of rationing with certain limitation. However, Mr. Speaker, that is extraordinarily different from the gigantic intrusion into so many aspects of the life of the Canadian people that is being requested here. I say the burden is on the government, as it is with any legislative program and certainly, doubly so with legislation of this character, to establish the need for this legislation in all its aspects. So far they have not discharged that burden.


George Harris Hees: Thumper has tried to become C. D. Howe Mark II.

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Gerald William Baldwin: It may be very well for my friends to my left-and I know I will be criticized for saying so, but I hope in a good natured way by them-to make this move to have a measure of centralization, of authoritarianism. As I said to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) when he referred to Sheik Lougheed, he reminded me, as he talked to the ministers opposite, of Ali Baba and the 40 ministers! I know we are called the old line party, but I think the hon. gentlemen to my left, as a political party, are well into their political menopause right now!
With eloquent vindictiveness and political bombast, the hon. member for York South has been chastising us. That is his right, of course. He has the right to be wrong if he so desires, but he is probably the most highly paid talking doll in the business. If you press him almost anywhere you will hear him squeak "capital ripoff, capital ripoff".


An hon. Member:: Corporate ripoff.


Gerald William Baldwin: "Corporate ripoff". However, that is not part of this measure. I say to my hon. friends to my left in all seriousness that we have no brief for large corporations or small corporations or individuals who have no proper claim to assistance, and we will be making propositions to indicate this later. During the course of my speech I will make some proposals with regard to dealing with what might be a very serious situation because of improper conduct by the multinational corporations. I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that if it comes to a choice, as some day it may, it is my preference to keep the government as much as possible, from any unnecessary intrusion into the affairs of mankind. It is essential at times, sometimes temporarily and sometimes more than temporarily, and to that extent I am prepared to go along with it. However, as long as this parliament resists dealing in a firm way with the problems created by the improper conduct of multinational or other corporations, I much prefer to see vested in the dead hands of government the kind of powers which are asked for here and which, once granted, are not easily taken away.
Let me suggest some alternatives, Mr. Speaker. By a question I asked in the House two days ago, I have already indicated that so far as the crisis or the difficulties have been apparent, and to the extent to which we can accept, after working our way through the dense undergrowth, the various statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outlining the facts, I believe the problems which have been delineated could well have been dealt with by existing legislative programs. The Export and Import Permits Act provides for a licensing of imports or exports to which can be attached firm, specific conditions spelling out precisely what an importer or exporter can or cannot do.
Last night, for example, we had the revelation that a refinery in Newfoundland was making a proposal to the government which would likely ease the present situation. I do not know the facts, and I can only hope this was a suggestion on a voluntary basis. But let me say categorically that if the government had chosen to act, it would have utilized that legislation and could have said to the company operating the refinery, "you cannot export except subject to the conditions which we lay down". There is in existence today an export control list which

includes petroleum products. All that would have been required would have been an order in council or a direction establishing the conditions under which export licences would have been granted or altered and, it would have been compulsory for that corporation to obey the order. It is the law of the land today. I point that out because it has some effect on what I am about to propose. The people of Canada, through the government, are not today defenseless; they have reasonable opportunities in the shape of existing legislation to deal with the problems which so far have come to light, which we have examined and which have been detailed in this House.
The same thing would apply to the other multinational corporations. It would have been consistent and quite in accordance with the provisions of that legislation, in the ease of a multinational corporation in Canada which was receiving supplies of petroleum products from Venezuela under a contract, and which acquiesed in a diversion of those petroleum supplies to other countries, for the government to lay down conditions. Such a case would come within the scope of the legislation. The government could say to the companies, "These are the conditions under which you are operating and under which you are given a licence." Those conditions could be set down and insisted upon. The government could insist upon compliance with those provisions both on the part of the supply company in Canada, and on the part of the supplying company in Venezuela. If, by any chance, a simple amendment was needed to bring about such a result, that could have been done. I have only looked at the legislation casually, but I say as a lawyer that that right exists today.
The problems which we face are, first, those concerning the possibility of diversion, and those concerning refineries in Canada which should not need to export their product but utilize it in this country. I suggest to members of the House that this right exists today. If it were necessary to go a step further, the members of my party would consent to any simple amendment which might be required, just as we would have consented perfunctorily to the kind of simple legislation the minister led us to believe would be produced today, which was to deal with allocation of supplies at the wholesale level as well as other questions to which we have referred.
Let me say finally what our position is. In view of the limited facts which have been given to us, the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and other ministers, I would be extremely reluctant to approve second reading of this measure without giving it further examination. If I were to approve it, I would consider that I would not be discharging my responsibilities to the people of Peace River and to the people of Canada. I would not subscribe to this legislation in its present unpalatable form on the basis of the indifferent case which the government has attempted to bring forward. That is my position today.
Before this debate on second reading concludes, I hope the government will produce better evidence, more concrete facts, as to what are the problems. In his opening statement today, the minister said that the technical advisory board, these holy ghosts, or these deputy holy ghosts
December 5, 1973

who have not yet been identified, were unable to advise the government as to the extent of the shortage. That is what the minister said today. I might not have used his exact words, but that is the effect of what he told the House today. Those are the gentlemen who have advised the government to bring in this legislation. How, then, can we give credence to a government which asks us to pass this bill which is based on submissions of that kind from a board of this nature?
I have tried to keep this debate at a reasonable level. I have refrained from making the kinds of criticisms I should have liked to direct at hon. members opposite. Let me make this serious suggestion, however: there should be adequate discussion of this measure today, possibly tomorrow, and possibly even on Friday, although I do not know what business the government House leader proposes. Unless responsible ministers have told us by then, in the House, exactly what are the facts, this bill should not be debated further until it has been sent to the appropriate committee armed with the appropriate terms of reference. It should be before the committee for a very limited period of time and witnesses ought to be called so that we may discover what are the facts, what is the truth and what are the shortages, present or anticipated.
The members of my party and my friends to our left asked the government some questions today. Some political questions were asked, of course; nevertheless, there were some very searching, very earnest questions, designed to permit members of this House to find out what the facts are. The minister either did not know or, if he did know, he would not tell us. Under those conditions, we would be remiss in our duty if we were to pass this bill in its present form without knowing in more detail and with more certainty what are the facts. Until we know them, we must stand firm in our position.
We know that there are difficulties; we want to try to cure them. Legislation is directed at curing difficulties. When problem arise we legislate, in order to cure those problems, if at all possible. I and my colleagues want to approve measures which the government may need to cure existing problems. On the other hand, the government owes it to this House and the country to reveal with more accuracy what those problems are, and exactly how this bill will deal with them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the measure now before us, Bill C-236, asks Parliament to vest the government with very wide powers for dealing with the energy crisis facing this country. I do not propose to deal with the details of the bill. Some sections, as we may urge when the bill is in committee, ought to be amended. I will deal mainly with the principles behind the legislation.
I suppose Canada is probably the only country in the western world which does not have legislation giving it authority to allocate its energy resources to meet the needs of its people. Personally, I have always been reluctant about giving to governments sweeping powers. On the other hand, when any country, especially a cold country like Canada, faces a situation like we face today, very wide powers are necessary, provided there are adequate precautions and restraints with regard to misuse.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
My main concern at the moment is this: why did it take the government so long to introduce legislation creating an energy supplies allocation board for allocating resources according to the needs of the various regions of Canada? The government has taken a long time waking up to the fact that we are in the midst of a crisis. Warnings have been given by the oil industry, by the public and by members of opposition parties. The government was told of the situation creeping up on us, and these warnings were quite apart from warnings connected with the Arab-Israeli war. Yet the government went blindly along in its Polyanna spirit, closing its eyes to the impending situation.
When the minister made a Freudian slip in his speech and talked about the shortcoming rather than the shortfall, I thought he showed a guilty conscience and that he was cognizant of the fact that the shortfall was owing to the government's shortcomings. My criticism is not so much of this legislation as the fact that the legislation will merely provide a mechanism by which an oil policy could be implemented. An energy supplies allocation board is not, in itself, an oil policy. So far, we have not had an oil policy. After the minister's statement today, we do not know the oil policy framework within which this energy supplies allocation board will operate.
An oil policy has to set forth two things. First, it must ensure that adequate supplies of energy are made available to all the people of Canada who need them. Second, it must ensure that Canadians will not be required to pay unduly high prices for the privilege of using their own products merely because world prices are escalating for similar products from other countries. Those are the two basic things which must be included in an oil policy. We still do not know the government's oil policy. As a matter of fact, for the lifetime of nearly all of us here, the oil policy in Canada has not been established by the government. It has been established by the four multinational corporations which control 91 per cent of the oil production in Canada and 99 per cent of the oil refining in Canada.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I enjoy listening to him because he is always so delightful and non-partisan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: A great parliamentarian.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He became quite vehement about concentrating power in the hands of the government. I wish he had been equally concerned about concentrating tremendous power in the hands of the corporate elite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What kind of an oil policy has the oil industry imposed on this country? With regard to supply, they have made sure that the supply went where they wanted it to go. Just imagine, this country, one of the few countries in the world that is self-sufficient in oil and gas and which has only 2 per cent of the world's supply, has been shipping more than half its oil and gas to the United

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
States. The oil majors have used this country as a source of supply. They have sucked our reserves dry wherever they could get away with it. That is why today we are faced with the prospect of a 10 year life index for our present supplies of conventional oil.
Almost every plan that has been brought forward has the same end in view. Only a few months ago the present government, with the support of the official opposition, talked about a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to the United States at a cost of $6 billion or $8 billion to take oil south. The government is prepared to entertain applications for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to take gas from the Mackenzie delta to the United States. Some American companies have already made prepayment for that gas. They have advanced $75 million to PanArctic, in which the government has a 45 per cent equity, in order to get their hands on gas.
We export electricity. We will be shipping more and more uranium. We are exporting water power. If we are in a crisis situation now, let us not forget that the foreign-owned and foreign dominated multinational corporations have brought us to the position in which we find ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They have taken the position that the price they would get for our products and which they would charge us for the privilege of using our own products would be the highest price they could get on the world market. We have had two prices set in Canada. We have had the Chicago price, the American midwest price, or the gulf coast posted price which is based on prices in Texas and Louisiana. They set the price we pay.
It was only on September 4 when the government finally took its courage in both hands, and I congratulate them for doing it, that we sought to cushion Canadians against the disastrous rise in the world price of oil. We froze the price of Canadian crude until January 31. We put an export tax on the differential between the Canadian price and the Chicago price with the money to go for future development of oil in Canada. I have said in this House before that I would certainly favour turning all of that export tax back to the oil producing provinces on condition they use that money to develop the oil sands and oil shale so that these resources can be developed by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians and under the control of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have had an oil policy in Canada by the oil industry, for the oil industry and to enrich the oil industry. We are in a situation today where our oil reserves are being rapidly depleted. We passed the peak in 1972. In that year, our oil reserves showed a decline for the first time in our history. We probably only have 10 years left in which to busy ourselves with the task of developing other oil supplies, preferentially the oil sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
My criticism of this legislation is that, while the minister has brought forth a mechanism which is necessary to allocate what oil supplies we have, he has not yet enun-

ciated a policy to ensure that now and in the future there will be security of supply. Nor has he stated what his policy is with regard to how the government proposes to insulate the Canadian consumer against rising world prices. Let us not deceive ourselves, Mr. Speaker, into thinking that this energy situation is of short duration.
I think it was on television last night that the Conservative member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), speaking of the fact that Mr. Shaheen had said there would be 100,000 barrels a day available from the Come-By-Chance refinery in Newfoundland, told us that in these circumstances the energy crisis was over. Mr. Speaker, it is not over. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources talks of the crisis from time to time as though it were solely the result of the Arab-Israeli war and that if this war could be settled our problems would be over. Our problems would be easier, but they would not be over.
The growing demand for oil throughout the world, the fact that the United States had to increase its oil imports by 31'A per cent this year, the fact that in our own country available reserves are being used up at an alarming rate, as are our resources of natural gas, all indicate we are heading into a crisis. I would suggest that if the diminution of our oil reserves continues at its present rate, by 1978 or 1979, unless oil from the tar sands is on stream, the country will face a much more serious crisis than it faces presently. Therefore, I say the government must make two things clear: first, the principle upon which the allocation of resources is based, and, second, the price structure it intends to follow.
Let me deal with the first proposition. At the present time there is no oil shortage in Canada as a whole; we produce more oil than we can consume. Our only problem is that we do not have a delivery system to take western oil to eastern Canada and that in some areas we do not have the refining capacity to produce the middle distillates and bunker fuel we need. For this reason, there needs to be some system of allocation in order to ensure that Canadians in one area are not in a surplus situation while residents in another part of the country suffer hardship. In the legislation before us I see no criteria set out to ensure equitable distribution. I know mention is made of distributing supplies on the basis of the existing market position. But if this is done we shall drive a lot of the small independents out of business-indeed many of them have already been driven out of business.
When oil was in surplus supply in Canada, the major companies were glad to use the small independents to take surpluses off their hands and dispose of them at lower prices, provided they did not use a brand name. The independents performed a useful function from the point of view of the oil cartel. But in the last year or two when oil was becoming a scarce commodity, the small independents were slowly being starved out. I could give the House a list of small independent companies which have been forced to the wall, of independent retailers who have been forced to close their doors.
I hope that before the bill is passed we shall be able to insert a clause into the bill which will ensure that independent wholesalers, independent brokers and
December 5, 1973

independent retail outlets will be able to get their share of the oil available. Their situation should not depend on the existing market position, because in the last year or two their situation has been a most unfair one. I want to make sure that these independents get a fair deal and I hope the minister will be able to tell us when the bill is in committee what criteria will be used in the allocation of oil supplies.
The real issue on which the government has been evasive and ambivalent is that of the price structure. In this legislation, apart from clause 16(1)(L), no reference is made to price and the reference in that paragraph is a minimal one. It speaks of the power of the energy supply board to prescribe a price at which or a range of prices within which any oil product may be sold to customers in particular market areas. This does not give us any information at all as to what the price structure will be. The hon. member for Peace River, when he was speaking earlier, told those of us in the New Democratic Party that if we had only supported the Conservatives' idea of a price freeze instead of voting against some of their non-confidence motions this situation would not have arisen. Mr. Speaker, we were not confident that a 90-day price freeze would solve our difficulties. By now, the 90 days would be long past. Second, we did not believe you could freeze the price of goods imported from other countries or the price of goods produced and sold within a single province. What we did advocate, and what we are still advocating, are selective controls. And oil is one of the commodities to which we want selective controls applied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to see such controls applied to lumber, to steel, to farm machinery, to synthetic rubber, all of which are produced in this country. Those are the only kind of goods whose prices you can control. One of my hon. friends says the N.D.P. is coming round to the idea. Mr. Speaker, I moved a motion in this House ten years ago calling for a prices review board which would establish selective controls on some 30 or 40 commodities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact is the government has to make up its mind whether it is going to set the price or whether the international oil monopoly is going to set the price.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, I shall be very glad to answer it when I have finished what I have to say, but I don't want to interrupt my line of thought. I should like to continue the point I am endeavouring to make.


Mr. Andre:: Whatever it was.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only give thoughts. I cannot guarantee that the hon. member has the receiving apparatus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have to decide whether the government, in the interest of the people of Canada, will estab-
Energy Supplies Emergency Act lish the price which the public will pay for Canadian oil or whether it will be set by the international oil industry. I would point out that the oil industry is only interested in establishing the world price or the international price for our present continental oil. It is also seeking to get its foot in the door with respect to the development of the oil sands in western Canada.
If one doubts that, one has only to see the statements of Syncrude made up of four large multinational corporations. They are asking, supported by the premier of Alberta and supported, I presume, by Conservative members in this House, first of all for special tax concessions. Despite the fact that the oil industry only pays taxes on 6 per cent of its book profits, it wants further tax incentives. Second, it wants a written guarantee that it will be free from any price controls; third, that it will be free from any export controls; and fourth, that it will be free from any export tax. If you add those four things together they spell only one thing, and that is that the oil monopoly wants to get its hands on the western oil sands and to be assured that it can ship oil without any restriction to the United States, while requiring the Canadian people either to pay the American price or go without oil.
When I talk about an oil price freeze, I am not suggesting that you can keep any price absolutely static. There has to be room for adjustments, and if the oil industry can demonstrate that its costs of production have gone up, then of course the price should be reviewed. If the increase is justified, it has to be granted. But the oil industry has not done badly, as is apparent when one looks at the profits it has made, up some 87 per cent, or if you realize that in the last 12 months there has been an increase of 95 cents a barrel, which represents a 37 per cent increase, increasing revenues by some $700 million annually. But the industry has done even more than that. It has increased the value of the oil in the ground by $9.5 billion, which is not a bad increase in the value of one's assets.
What we have to know from the government is what it proposes to do on January 31 when the price freeze which was established temporarily has ended. We have had a lot of contradictory statements. At one time the minister said outside the House that he would fix the price at the Montreal market price, which would be the international price. At other times we are told that it is going to be phased in. I notice Mr. Don Getty, minister of intergovernmental affairs of the province of Alberta, said they had reached an agreement with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and this was corroborated by the premier of Alberta. Mr. Getty said they would be prepared to phase in this increase to bring the price of Canadian crude up to the international market price, and they should start with an increase of $1.50 a barrel. An increase of $1.50 a barrel increases the revenues of the oil industry of Canada by $1,100 million a year.
I notice that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made a speech out on the Pacific coast to the Conservative convention. The Vancouver Province for Saturday, December 1 quotes him as follows:
Mr. Stanfield said the federal government should be meeting representatives of oil producing provinces with the idea of increasing prices in stages and working out an arrangement lead-

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
ing to a Canadian price ceiling somewhat below the international price.
The Canadian people are intelligent enough to know that if it costs more to produce oil, or if we have to pay higher prices for imported oil, no one can keep the price down. But in my opinion the Canadian people will not stand for this government or for any other government raising the price of oil when an increase is not needed, merely because the oil industry can get a better price somewhere else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The oil industry needs to be reminded that this oil is not their oil; it belongs to the people of this country and to the people of the province where it is produced.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: What about the oil in Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Saskatchewan is selling its oil, which as the House knows is sour oil with a large sulphur content, in the main to the United States.


Charles Joseph Clark: How did you treat the oil companies when you were there?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We were not using domestic oil at the time. We exported it. We got our domestic oil from Alberta, which is sweet oil, the kind of oil our refineries are equipped to handle.
What I think this House and the Canadian people have to recognize is that every time the price of oil goes up the Canadian economy loses money. Professor Bruce W. Wilkinson of the University of Alberta, a well known economist, has pointed out in an article in the Canadian Forum, and also in many other articles that he has written, that there is a net loss to the Canadian economy of 7.73 per cent when there is an increase in the price of oil. He has pointed out that the higher prices paid by Canadian consumers more than offset the revenues that the federal and provincial governments collect from taxes or royalties and dividends and retained earnings received by Canadian shareholders. As a matter of fact, only 14 per cent of the dividends and retained earnings derived by the oil industry stay in Canada; the other 86 per cent goes across the line. That means that if the price of oil is raised by $1.50 a barrel and revenue is increased by $1,100 million, the Canadian economy would be the net loser by $80 million.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You mean $800 million.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No, $80 million-it is 7.73 per cent. He further points out that the 95 cents a barrel increase already granted this year with respect to the oil now in place will cost the Canadian economy $450 million over the life of those oil reserves. If the price is raised by $1.50, it represents a loss of over $1 billion during the life of the oil field. The Canadian people will not get the benefit of the increased price for oil; they will pay more for their oil and the Canadian economy as a whole will be out of pocket by nearly 8 per cent of the increase.
I know all the arguments, Mr. Speaker. I have heard them from my friends to my right and I have listened to

them as briefs were presented by oil companies. They say "We need the money. We cannot make a case on the basis of increased costs, but we do need the money for future development". They say they need the money to go out and find more oil wells and bring in more oil reserves. I have listened to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) say that ad nauseam. There are two things to keep in mind. First of all, we have no guarantee they will use the money to search for oil. Mr. Joseph Yanchula, a petroleum consultant in Calgary, wrote an article in which he said that $1,000 million goes out of Alberta each year; that $300 million has gone to the Arctic and $700 million went elsewhere, but that Alberta had a net loss of $1,000 million. We must remember that we have no guarantee the extra money the companies get for oil is going into research in this country. If that is their only argument for increasing the price the government should take that extra money, put it into a fund and use that in conjunction with the provinces to develop the oil sands on the basis of public ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The other fallacy of that argument is that the oil companies do not need money to look for oil, drilling 6,000 to 8,000 feet below the surface. Our main reserve of oil for the future will be the oil sands and we know where they are. This is a mining and refining proposition, and the companies do not need the extra $1.50 per barrel in order to take over control of one of Canada's last great energy resources.
I hope the government will give serious thought in the next couple of days to what it is going to do when the present price freeze ends.


An hon. Member:: It has only two days left; 48 hours.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I know the government is being pressured by the oil industry, being pressured by the government of Alberta and being pressured by our friends in the official opposition to raise the price of crude oil at the end of January. That will mean a substantial increase in the price of gasoline and home heating fuel as well as diesel fuel. I would remind the House that the largest single consumers of diesel products in Canada are farmers and fishermen, and when you raise the price of diesel fuel you automatically raise the price of food in the supermarkets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say the government ought to think about this matter very carefully. The government has a duty to tell us within the next few days what it proposes to do about this price structure which will be put into effect when the price freeze ends.


An hon. Member:: You will support them no matter what they do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I say that the price which must be set is a price which will be fair to the oil industry.


Paul Yewchuk: And what is that?
December 5, 1973


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon. friend asks "And what is that?" It ought to be the present price subject to an adjustment that the oil industry can prove reflects increases in cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Twaits of Imperial Oil, when interviewed by the press, admitted they could not justify an increase on the basis of cost. He said they wanted the increase because it reflected the world price structure. We do not want the Canadian people living under an international monopolistic price structure; we should arrange to establish our own price structure.
I see that my time is almost up. May I close with one sentence. I say to the minister, and through him to all his colleagues including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I urge most strongly that the government make a statement within the next day or two telling us what the price structure will be when the present freeze ends, because upon {pat decision by the government will depend the attitude the NDP will take in respect of this bill and the whole energy policy of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member can only ask a question with unanimous consent as the hon. member's time has just expired. Does the House give its consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Yewchuk: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members. The hon. member who just spoke made a great to do about his support for price controls. I wonder if he could tell us why he and his leader nearly broke their necks running around the country saying that price controls would not work?


An hon. Member:: Selective price controls.


Paul Yewchuk: I think that we cannot have a member of this House talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. We want to know where he stands and whether he is or is not in favour of controls.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member will read the speeches that have been made by the leader of this party and by myself, both inside and outside the House, and I would be very glad to send him copies of radio speeches and the motions I have moved, he will see that we always were in favour of selective controls; but they would have to be permanent or stay in effect for a considerable period of time. We are not going to be led down any garden path by some phony talk about a 90-day freeze that will only postpone the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We want to be honest with the Canadian people and tell them that we cannot freeze the prices of imported goods. In respect of coffee, bauxite, citrus fruits and other things the price is set in the countries which
Energy Supplies Emergency Act produce them, but in respect of our products in Canada which cross provincial boundaries we can have selective controls. We cannot have price controls on products produced and sold within provinces, but we ought to have selective controls on those products that cross provincial boundaries. If the Conservative party believes so much in controls, it had a good many years in office when it could have put them into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Any more questions from Athabasca?


An hon. Member:: Do you want to freeze doctors' incomes too, Paul?
[ Translation]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the House is now considering Bill C-236 which provides, as a result of an alleged oil crisis, the establishment of a control agency for energy resources rather than oil.
At the beginning of the discussions the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) stated that there was a shortage of oil in Canada. Later, he tried to withdraw from his position when he maintained that there was no shortage of oil, but no means to carry oil in eastern Canada. Again today he has just confirmed that there is effectively no oil crisis in Canada, but administration problems. Why are the people still being misled since once again, on the basis of an inexistent crisis, the establishment of a control agency has just been suggested.
In our view it is necessary to establish an assessment agency. What are the requirements of the Canadian people, what are the available resources in Canada? An assessment agency could determine it clearly on a 25-year basis. Therefore, every year, after a review of figures and data, we might have the most accurate knowledge of resources, production and requirements of Canadians. On this basis of agreement, balanced by this agency, we might guarantee that products will be available for Canadians and that they will be distributed to meet their needs.
Thus, indirectly, instead of ensuring the Canadian people that their needs will be met, they simply want to control both production and distribution and, at the same time, the needs of individuals. They want to control them as they have done for a few months, strengthening restraints and giving themselves the right to tell Canadians at a given time: We have energy, but try to do without it because we have not been clever enough to develop the means to take this energy and distribute it according to requirements.
But today, this bill is designed to establish a mandatory allocation program in four regions. This program is to apply specifically to petroleum products because once more it is under the pretence of an oil crisis that they interfere in the energy capacity of Canada as a whole. The kinds of petroleum products are specified-it is suggested to set up a list of priorities-to provide for the systematic allocation of products and to see what controls are proposed by the government.

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
And, as the previous speaker said, they forget, on the other hand, to ensure Canadians a fair price or a price truly representative of the costs of that production or those so-called controls.
I say that this a case where the pretence of a crisis is used to control all energy resources. Clause 14 goes even further, and I quote:
14. (1) Where it is considered necessary to do so for the purpose of conserving the available supplies of such petroleum products as have been included in a mandatory allocation program, the Governor in Council may amend the mandatory allocation program by adding electric power thereto and establishing mandatory allocation thereof.
The bill before us is not a bill aimed at controlling petroleum energy resources, but rather all energy resources.
Clause 15 goes on to state:
-any alternative fuel-
-not the oil problem that faces us now, but alternative fuels. It goes on:
-within the meaning of section 13 or electric power will be regulated as to allocation of supply and pricing-
There again, the pretence of a crisis is used to ensure control and not an assessment or the ensurance of fair distribution at equal prices across Canada. The bill does not talk about that. When the ensurance of a distribution is sought or when it talks about ensuring some distribution, nowhere does it talk about ensuring fair, or at least equal, prices to all Canadians.
We will still have the same system as now where there is a price for western Canada and another for eastern Canada. We were told why our petroleum in the province of Quebec and the Maritimes Provinces came from outside Canada. So we were subject to international prices.
I agree that a board must be set up but it should be responsible for evaluating resources and requirements and should advise the government as to what precise steps it should take to meet the needs of Canadians. If such a study had been undertaken two or three years ago the construction of a pipeline to the east would have been initiated. On the contrary, we have wasted all this time helping the major oil companies with guaranteed revenues to the detriment of Canadians. Again today, to favour the big corporations and allow them to increase their benefits to the prejudice of Canadians, they suggest a crisis and a price increase.
Once again today, as I have suggested to the minister, what effort did the government actually make to help the people? Absolutely none! For instance our fellow citizens have been obliged to bow to the government decisions, to accept price increases, to accept restrictions, but the government forgets once more to guarantee the country maximum exploitation of its energy resources.
This afternoon, I told the minister that patents have been submitted to reduce the gas consumption of vehicles and increase the efficiency of a gallon of gas. The same thing could be done in our houses with our heating facilities. We could simply raise the pump pressure of a heating system from 100 to 150 pounds and thus automatically

decrease oil consumption by 20 per cent. Why is it not mentioned by the minister? Why is the minister not suggesting precisely that by using those patents we improve the return of our resources? Why has the minister, other ministers or the government not ordered its research personnel to study these patents and accept some of them for the benefit of the individual, and not, as in the past, to consider dangerous certain patents, only to assure companies, especially oil companies, maximum consumption of their products? And now, while we are supposedly facing a shortage which in fact does not exist, instead of acting for the good of the whole population, the people are asked to tighten their belt and, moreover, to help big corporations.
The bill provides the government with means to keep on lying to the people, fooling them, limiting individual liberties at all times by saying that we are facing another crisis, another mess. This legislation will then be used to stifle the citizen and to impose the desired restrictions. The present situation will prevail but in a much more legal way. The two price system, one for the East and one for the West, will be maintained throughout Canada.
More restrictions can be imposed on some parts of the country for the benefit of other parts. We can go on with our regional disparity policy.
The bill as a whole is further proof that the government is much more interested in obtaining money for its electoral funds through the large corporations than in meeting the needs of the population.
If we want to control, as we are now doing, the need for products and their distribution, I think that we could go much further in imposing these unfortunate controls and suggest something like the NDP members were suggesting a while ago, that is controlling everything by selection. The Liberals may find this funny, but they are progressively going towards such selective controls.
No consideration is given to protecting the individuals through all this. The aim is always to protect the large corporations to the disadvantage of individual interests. What I hope is that during the discussions in committee it will be possible to review this bill in full details in order to integrate amendments which will put an end to these attacks upon the individuals and to this protection of the large corporations.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, allow me first to argue briefly against the views expressed by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette).
First, he started with the premise that there was no oil crisis. Mr. Speaker, I wonder where he has been for the last couple of months, whether he is aware of the Middle East crisis and whether he is really serious when he suggests that obviously, as far as he is concerned at least, there is no crisis.
He says that he lacks information on the oil situation in Canada. Yet, we know that in February, March, April, May and June this year, the Committee on National Resources and Public Works has been sitting. We have made a study of all this information. We have questioned
December 5, 1973

officials and experts concerning our supplies and national resources.
The Social Crediters were of course absent from these meetings, Mr. Speaker, and if there exists a lack of information within their party it is because they did not take part in the discussions of the committee which was considering this problem.
Moreover, I advise the hon. member for Charlevoix to ponder the information found in the energy policy for Canada. The first stage is the analysis of this point which he appeared to support and which is incorporated in the bill under review. The hon. member suggested that this would increase the division between the various areas of Canada. I suggest to him, with all due respect, that if he should review the bill, he would realize that we are aiming at unity. As regards the allocation of supplies we do not want to encourage regional disparity but prevent that some be favoured at the expense of others.
That is one of the aims of the bill.
[ English]
Mr. Speaker, I was also interested to hear what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said. Of course, I was not aware of the fact that we were supposed to carry out a clause by clause study of this piece of legislation. I was under the impression that we were supposed to discuss and analyse the principle of this bill. Evidently, the hon. member for Peace River has quite skillfully taken the tack which has been previously taken by the party of which he is a member, namely, that of avoiding discussion on the principle of the legislation because discussions on principle may lead to discussions on policy and we might soon become aware of the complete absence of any policy of that party with regard to energy. The hon. member stated that he has no facts upon which to come to a decision with reference to this bill.
First of all, he did not indicate whether or not he supports the principle of the bill. All he said was that he is ignorant. That much is evident from the speech that he made. It appears that the hon. member, like the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette), has been absent from the country during the past two and a half months. Indeed, I understand that Peace River is an area of Canada which is perhaps not as favoured with good means of communication as are other areas, but he must have been aware of the Middle East crisis; he must have known of the war between Israel and the Arab States; he must know of the shortage of energy in the form of petroleum in Canada and of the international shortage of energy.
Indeed, he must know that the European Economic Council is in dire straits as a result of the shortage of energy. A consultation has been taking place between France, which seems to have no shortfall of petroleum products, and Holland which has been placed on the Arab embargo list. Evidently, the hon. member for Peace River has not read the news relating to the serious situation in the United States where certain pundits have foreseen an unemployment level of up to 12 per cent. Neither is he aware of the difficulties of the president of that country with regard to his energy advisers, Mr. Love having resigned the day before yesterday.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Undoubtedly, he must be aware of these facts because he must have been advised by some researchers of the presence of force majeure clauses in most of the supply contracts. He cannot plead ignorance of that matter, and he must be aware of the repeated replies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when the latter stated that force majeure clauses might result in a shortfall of some 200,000 barrels a day. Again, he must also be aware of the fact that we in Canada are vulnerable. There has been a difference of opinion today between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the president of Imperial Oil as to whether Canada has been placed on the Arab embargo list.
He must be aware also of the fact that we will become vulnerable if we are placed on the embargo list. Surely, then he must recognize that since Canada imported 900,000 barrels a day of petroleum from offshore sources during 1973, if indeed there is an embargo which affects Canada, and if that embargo is added to the one facing the United States or if we are affected by the force majeure clauses contained in the supply contracts, we may be facing a serious shortage this winter. I am surprised that the hon. member has no information, because during the question period in the past three weeks the minister has been ready and available to provide information. Picayune questions of picayune importance have been directed to his attention, such as the reference to the force majeure clause. These questions are asked not because the opposition is interested in what it means but simply in order to score political points. Again, the same situation applies to the constitution of a technical advisory committee, which is not a policy advisory committee, relating to supply of petroleum. Mr. Speaker, these are the picayune matters which are directed to the attention of the minister and which, to my mind, explain the absence of knowledge of the hon. member for Peace River and I am sure, after listening to the speeches and contributions of members of the Tory party, of all its members.
The hon. member also suggests that the government ought not to have introduced this particular bill. We are very much aware that on Monday there will be a motion of non-confidence presented by the opposition. I would hope that this bill could receive third reading before Monday. I am sincerely hopeful of that, because this government is responsible for the maintenance of order and good government in Canada, whether or not there is a parliament sitting. It may well be that as a result of the next vote we will be defeated and this parliament might have to be dissolved.
I see the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) shaking his head. He is agreeing, as any irresponsible member of parliament would agree, that it would be a good thing for this country not to have a parliament sitting during a period of crisis, a crisis the like of which we have not seen for some time. Surely, the hon. member realizes that we could be without a parliament to pass effective legislation relating to these problems that we might be facing for a period of four or five months, not just any four or five months but those four or five months when the crisis would be at its height. That is the time when in Canada we would indeed be feeling the utmost

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act effect of an absence of energy and petroleum. The government has a responsibility to introduce this bill at this time in order to forestall the difficulties.
Mr. Speaker, in order to indicate that there has been a strenuous objection to the strength of this bill, I might point to section 11, which evidently the hon. member for Peace River had not read,-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Stick to the principle.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) says that I am not dealing with the principle. Yes, I am, but I cannot leave on the record statements that are made without foundation by a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I have to reply to the groundless statements, and one of them is that the bill is too powerful. I suggest that if it is too powerful, and the minister is attempting to assume powers that are usually exercised by the provinces, the constitution protects the Canadian people through the division of powers which indicate that only in a state of emergency can the powers which are proposed be exercised. That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that section 11 states exactly that. The passage of this bill does not mean that the board is created; this bill does not take effect until the Governor in Council determines there is a situation of emergency which requires that the provisions of the bill come into play. Section 11 reads:
When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security-
He can apply the provisions of this particular statute. The constitution is very clear and section 91 of the British North America Act relating to order and good government is very clear. These particular provisions could not be brought into play unless and until there is an emergency. So much for the hon. member's objection with reference to the powers that are to be exercised, Mr. Speaker.
I might also indicate that there was a strong objection- or at least I thought it was but we never know whether the hon. member for Peace River is taking a partisan view or being serious about a matter he is advancing-to sections 14 and 15 of the bill dealing with the control over electricity and discussions with the provinces. He suggested these sections cannot be applied under the constitutional position I have just indicated. Surely, in a time of crisis no one would seriously advance the proposition that the government of Canada, in order to benefit the whole of Canada, would not have a right in the event that there were one or two recalcitrant provinces, to take those measures to bring them into line and to administer that source of energy which may be completely within their boundaries. Surely, that is the aim of the bill, but it is a powerful measure that is not to be taken unless there is an emergency.
It may be that after next week we will have an energy situation which would require measures to be taken, and we might not have a parliament to take them as a result of an opposition motion. The government, therefore, has an obligation to protect the welfare of the Canadian people by presenting legislation of this nature.
Because of the time available to me, Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with those objections that I find most impor-

tant. There is the objection relating to the destruction of popular safeguards which have been enacted into law. The hon. member was referring to environmental situations and the Combines Act. Perhaps he had not paid too much attention to the matter, but he forgot to mention that there are provisions in the bill relating to consultation with the ministers responsible prior to any of the regulations being passed which affect some of the present provisions of the law. I should like to cite clause 24(2) with regard to environmental considerations which reads:
Before making a regulation under this section, the Board shall consult with the Minister of the Environment regarding the relaxation of any provisions of law relating to the control of emission of pollutants into the environment.
Surely, those provisions are there to protect the Canadian people, just as the environmental statutes are there to protect the Canadian people. But there may be situations where these particular laws will have to be bent in order to provide a greater good, that of the health and welfare of the nation. The same applies to the Combines Investigation Act, the Transportation Act and the National Energy Board Act. I suggest that is only reasonable, and I do not find anything objectionable in these provisions.
There was also an objection to the duration of the bill. Clause 35 explicitly indicates that this shall be no longer than November of 1974, when these measures shall simply expire. If we want to extend the effect of these measures, we will have to come before this House and debate whether an emergency condition continues which would justify the continuation of the provisions of the bill.
The hon. member also objected to the intrusion of the provisions of this bill on the rights of the Canadian people. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the only persons against whom the intrusion would be directed would be those multinational corporations which control 92 per cent and 99 per cent of our production and refining capacities respectively. When I hear reference to this question of intrusion, I cannot recall any questions from members of the loyal opposition when the quotas of certain private individuals in Canada were being curtailed as a result of a shortfall of oil production or refined products. I do not remember any sort of concern then, so I am wondering whether the accusations coming from the party to the left of the Loyal Opposition that they are indeed a lobby for the big oil companies, have not some truth in them. They are only defending an intrusion against those people involved in the petroleum industry.
Finally, the last point I wish to make in the few minutes available to me is this: the hon. member indicated that there is existing legislation on the statute books which will permit the government to do exactly what it wants. I am surprised at the extent of the information available to the hon. member. Nevertheless, he did not state specific examples, so far as I could ascertain. He merely indicated that he has looked casually over the whole field of available legislation. Indeed, his may have been a casual view, a casual examination, indicative of the attitude his party has taken on matters affecting energy within this nation. That party indeed is very casual in its procedures with regard to analysis. I find that objectionable, and I suggest
December 5, 1973

that those members are not acting responsibly as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments left before we shall be called to go to the other chamber I wish to begin my remarks concerning Bill C-236. The Liberal member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), who just preceded me, said that there is a crisis in the country the like of which we have not seen for some time. I wish the hon. member would take counsel with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), as those ministers in the last week to ten days have been assuring us that we are over-reacting to the energy crisis and, to use a phrase similar to that used, that we are deluding ourselves into some type of recession.
One reason why the Liberal government is using this argument in connection with the energy crisis is this: ministers want to hide the fact that they know that governmental policies are bringing this country to bad times. One barometer is the falling stock exchange, which in Canada fell to a new low for the current period.


An hon. Member:: How about New York?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: New York went down as well. Nevertheless, in percentage terms, our rate of fall has been more rapid than that of the New York exchange.
The hon. member for Nipissing suggested that certain of our comments concerning the composition of the technical advisory committee which was set up by the government to advise the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) were "picky". I refer members of the House to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said before the committee. He said that the government's decision to go ahead and seek a mandatory allocation measure was founded on the advice received from the technical advisory committee. The very bill before us today is the mandatory allocation bill to which the minister referred. I suggest that referring to our questioning concerning the composition and activities of that committee as being "picky" is tantamount to misleading this House.
Having had the opportunity to examine the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, we are not at all satisfied that those ministers know what they are doing and that the government is in a position to bring in meaningful legislation, even if it is necessary. Let there be no doubt on one point: we feel that the bill in its present form is unacceptable. It must be modified before it can receive the approval of our party in this House.
It has been suggested that we should not at this stage deal with the bill clause by clause. One need not deal with it clause by clause to show how alarming it is. Read the title of the bill. If most hon. members are not alarmed by the title, I suggest they do not fully understand what the government is seeking in asking for such discretion as is outlined in the bill. On the front page of the bill we see that it is "An Act to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or
Energy Supplies Emergency Act market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada-".
I intend to elaborate on what would be the net result for the government if this bill were passed in its present form.
Judging from the reaction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as evidenced before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, I would say he is putting this nation into the hands of the private international oil corporations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: By asking for passage of this bill he would make us, virtually, a pawn in the hands of the international corporations. I say that because that minister has put on the record of this House a statement to the effect that we have to accept a world shortfall. When the minister was asked in committee who had said so, he, in effect, said that the international private corporations said so. That position constitutes a complete abdication of power on the part of the government.
I have referred to the minister's statement on previous occasions. I think I ought to read it again into the record, as, apparently, many ministers and other members of the House seem to forget what the minister actually said on November 26. As recorded at page 8138 of Hansard for that date, the minister said:
Canada will have to share, not only in the direct cutback from Arab sources but in the general world shortfall.
We asked the minister about that statement in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, to learn who says we have to accept a world shortfall. In this connection it has been suggested that two questions must be considered. First, there are certain private contracts in existence which may or may not be honoured, largely at the discretion of those private corporations. The second suggestion of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was that, in any event, if we are to be good international citizens, we must accept a world shortfall.
I suggest that that attitude fits in with the attitude behind the presentation of an allocation bill such as this which confers such far reaching powers. Once international oil corporations realize the extent of the powers available to the minister, they can set whatever terms they like and the government will have to live by them.
Actually, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs appeared before the committee, I was astounded to hear him say that not only did he not have any jurisdiction for interfering with these private corporations but that, in any event, it was a private matter and that he did not think he ought to interfere any way. I suggest the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, also adopted that tone when testifying before the committee. That is the background we must bear in mind when debating this bill.
It is anything but clear as to whether the government has facts before it which would justify the measure it is requesting this House to pass. Second, it is anything but clear as to whether the government itself is apprised of the correct facts, not only in Canada, but world wide, regarding this situation. Really, it has no oil policy or policy to deal with a shortage.
8460

December 5, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
There has been some discussion concerning the technical advisory committee. I believe it is important that we inquire as to who sits on that committee, what meetings have been held, whether minutes have been kept and in what way they made representations and recommendations to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before he made some of his statements. Let me give an example.
It is suggested there may be a 200,000 barrels per day shortfall in oil imports to Canada. When we asked the minister who so advised him, he stated that the first time he saw that figure was in a draft of a statement he gave to this House on November 26 and from which I have already quoted. We asked him whether that meant the day he gave the statement was the first time he had been made aware of the possible 200,000 barrels per day shortfall. His answer was no, it had been in earlier drafts. When asked when this was, he could not remember. When we asked who gave the information upon which the 200,000 barrel estimate was based, he replied it was the technical advisory committee. I think it was just yesterday he was asked if he could name the individuals who sit on the committee. He said he could not remember.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance o£ this honourable house in the chamber of the honouralbe the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
and being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-183, an act to amend the Cooperative Credit Associations Act-chapter 37.
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code-chapter 38.
Bill C-189, an act to amend the Customs Act-chapter 39.
Bill C-222, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-chapter 40.
At 6.06 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 6, 1973