1973-12-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact a Canadian citizen, Thomas Delair Serjeant, while flying from Tanzania to Cape Town, South Africa was forced to land by Tanzanian officials, and subsequently imprisoned for more than two months before any action was taken against him, and in view of the fact Mr. Serjeant suffered considerable mental and physical frustration as well as financial loss, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this government instruct the Canadian High Commission in Tanzania to undertake immediately a full investigation concerning this matter, and upon completion of its report table it before the House; I further move that this government instruct the Tanzania government to pay compensation in full to Mr. Serjeant for mental and physical hardships suffered as well as the financial losses incurred during his imprisonment.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BY CABINET MEMBERS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request permission of the House to move the following motion which would be seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That it is the opinion of this House that the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet in the interests of curtailing fuel consumption should use wherever possible regular scheduled airlines when travelling on official government business rather than government owned aircraft, and it is also the opinion of this House that the Prime Minister discontinue the use of government owned aircraft for travelling to and from Liberal Party gatherings at
public expense and that the Liberal Party of Canada should be billed for the cost of all such trips made by the Prime Minister since October 30, 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimity. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTOMOTIVE AGREEMENT- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity is the revelation today of trade figures under the Canada-United States automotive agreement which show that Canada now has a $182 million deficit so far this year. The motion I am going to propose has the consent of the Official Opposition and I am sure it expresses the views of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might indicate what the motion is rather than argue in support of the motion, since the practice does not permit him to do so.


John Edward Broadbent: I just say that, Mr. Speaker, to remind the minister's cabinet colleagues because he is not here. I would move the following motion:
This House expresses the view that the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement should be changed by including in it a requirement that the purpose of the agreement is, among other things, to ensure over a three-year period that both Canada and the United States produce in the dollar value of automobiles and parts that percentage of the North American production which they actually consume.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

December 12, 1973
Unemployment Insurance
[ Translation]


SUGGESTION THAT QUEBEC BE PERMITTED TO BUY OIL FROM ARAB COUNTRIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important and pressing matter.
In view of the present oil shortage, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this government seriously consider the possibility of allowing the Quebec government, if it so wishes, to negotiate with Saudi Arabia and any other oil producing country to ensure that Quebec people will have sufficient oil supplies at reasonable prices.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent; the motion cannot be put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the mounting criticism and concern being registered about the effectiveness, cost and role of unemployment insurance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the House recommend that the whole question of unemployment insurance be subjected to an inquiry or at least be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order that it examine the existing act, regulations and cost with a view to bringing about amendments and report thereafter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to request on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), pursuant to Standing Order 60(2), that an order of the day for the consideration of a ways and means motion be designated for tomorrow.


ALCOHOLISM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact there are in Canada 750,000 persons suffering from alcohol addiction, in light of the fact the annual cost of hospitalizing cases related to alcohol abuse amounts to $1 billion, in light of the federal revenue from alcoholic beverages being $426 million a year in excise duties alone, exclusive of federal and provincial sales taxes, and in light of the federal government now spending only $335,235 a year on programs combatting alcoholism, although the LeDain Report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me the hon. member is making a speech and presenting argument in support of a motion. That is irregular. I appeal to all hon. members who have motions to present from day to day under Standing Order 43 to ensure that these motions are motions and not speeches or arguments in support of a proposed motion which requires unanimous consent. I am sure the hon. member will want to take that under advisement and indicate what the motion will be.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I will come directly to the motion. The previous information was by way of a preamble explaining the requirement. The motion is as follows:
Be it resolved that this House recommends that the government give a higher priority to programs aimed at reducing alcohol addiction.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough East. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.
December 12, 1973


OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976 STATEMENT ON OLYMPIC COIN PROGRAM
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, of all mankind's collective endeavours, few offer such concrete expression of the universal brotherhood of the peoples of the world as the Olympic games. In providing the only arena where all nations, classes, colours and creeds can come together on an equal footing in fierce but friendly competition, the Olympic ideal is thus at once the great forum of international co-operation and of individual development.
Over the past few decades, however, an inevitable upward spiralling of costs has accompanied the physical expansion of the games themselves. The unfortunate result is that the staging of the Olympics is becoming increasingly the prerogative of large and wealthy nations which can absorb the costs of the event without placing an undue burden on the taxpayer. Needless to say, such restriction because of financing runs contrary to the basic Olympic tradition of equality of opportunity for all. This is why Canada's initiative in the field of financing the games of the twenty-first Olympiad in Montreal is of such crucial importance to the survival of the entire concept. Nations across the world will be keeping a close watch on the developments in this country between now and the summer of 1976.
In this context, therefore, I am particularly happy today to submit to the House a report on the progress of our Olympic coin program which, as hon. members know, is designed to provide revenues to meet the major portion of the costs of the staging of the twenty-first Olympiad in Montreal and Kingston.
[ Translation]
Since Bill C-196 was passed by this House July 27 this year work has been going forward steadily to establish the production, marketing and distribution systems for our Olympic coins both in Canada and throughout the world.
I am at present engaged in a series of personal visits to key centres across the country, with the dual purpose of disseminating information about the Olympic Coin Program and of assessing initial reaction from opinion-leaders, the media and the public in general. In this latter area, I am very happy to be able to report that enthusiasm everywhere appears to be running high and all indications are that our Olympic Coin Program will be an immense success. As a matter of fact we may have difficulties in keeping up with demand. It is against this background that I can now inform this House that the 1976 Olympic Coin Program was officially launched at noon today with the presentation to His Excellency the Governor General of the first set of coins to be released.
That this self-imposed deadline has been met, despite scepticism and many difficulties, is a tribute to the dedication of all those involved in getting the program under way.
I would ask hon. members to join with me in offering the Olympic coin team our hearty congratulations. I would like to mention the name of Mr. Austin Page, Managing Director of the Olympic Coin Program. Mr. Page was recruited from private industry where he was a senior
Olympic Coin Program
partner in a leading Canadian management consulting firm. Assisting him are Andre Morin, Director of Marketing for Europe and a former Vice-President of a large Quebec-based manufacturing firm; Christie Arnold, Director of Marketing for the United States and Mexico, a senior civil servant with wide experience in international trade; Mr. Henk Hoppener, Director of Marketing for the Pacific regions, a corporate planning consultant from private industry.

The coins on sale today represent the forerunners of some 60 million to be minted between now and the close of the games in 1976. The entire operation involves international marketing and distribution on a scale never before envisaged by this country. The coins are to be made available in all of the countries sending Olympic athletes to Canada, some 130 in all.
[ Translation]
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to another very important related aspect-spin-off benefits to Canada.
As the momentum of the entire Olympic Coin Program grows, it becomes increasingly evident that it will generate a whole host of additional advantages, destined to have a considerable long-term impact on this country.
The immediate benefits arise from the stimulation of activities related to the direct production, packaging, distribution, communications and similar operations over the next three years.
The longer term benefits involve an enormous wealth of experience in international marketing which Canada will accumulate in connection with the program.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, the intangible but very important aspect of the enhancing of Canada's image abroad. In the eyes of the other nations, our Olympic Coin Program represents an imaginative innovation, attesting to Canadian resourcefulness and pointing the way for others to follow. This is something of which, I am sure you will agree, we can be justifiably proud.
In the light of all this, Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House to join in offering unanimous support for Canada's 1976 Olympic Coin Program.
I might add that hon. members will have an opportunity to offer concrete evidence of this support. When they return to their offices, they will find order forms enabling them to acquire a complete set of coins from the first issue which is on sale today. I urge them to be the first to take advantage of this opportunity to show their own confidence in the future of the Olympic spirit across the world and in this country's role in helping to keep it alive.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the minister's statement, I join with him in offering the Olympic coin team the heartiest congratulations for their achievements so far in getting this program under way. I want to assure the minister that I will be filling out my Olympic coin application upon return to my office.
8660

December 12, 1973
Olympic Coin Program
Congratulations are due to the Olympic coin team for its efforts to date, particularly when one considers the government's constant delays and the surrounding confusion and secrecy which the government has permitted in the entire Olympic program from as far back as 1969 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first extended Canada's acceptance of the idea of hosting the 1976 Olympics in this country. Had the Prime Minister realized from the beginning that his signature on that letter of acceptance was a financial commitment, there can be no question that we would not have been subjected to the difficulties and contradictions which subsequently arose not only during the debate on Bill C-196 but also prior to and since the passage of the bill.
Because of the government's tactics and inaction, the Canadian public is still confused as to the financing of these games. Had the Prime Minister and the government come out in the open at an early stage as well, we might have had the opportunity to decentralize the Olympic games. This gives me an opportunity to repeat what I said in the House as far back as January of this year. On January 16, 1973,1 said in this House:
We all know that today's magnitude of the games could become a costly proposition and thus, most probably, a problem with far reaching consequences. I suggest that the government. .. has been most obvious in trying to evade this issue, and therefore I should like to make some suggestions regarding this matter through this House.
Realizing the possibilities of incurring high costs, we must look for some options or alternatives. The Olympic games in recent years have become much too large and complicated, both in regard to facilities and the number of participants, to be held in any one city. They are no longer the games consisting of a small scattering of individual athletes ...
I believe that Montreal is the city best able to cope with the multitude of problems that would be faced by staging the games in Canada. However, because of the costs and added possible benefits to our country, we should consider partially decentralizing the games somewhat along the lines of the Munich Olympics, which in fact took place in as many as seven different cities, one as far away as 550 miles from Munich.
It is too bad that because of the government's lack of action and interest in this matter there will not be any coast to coast physical facilities in the wake of the Olympic games in 1976. I am convinced that future Olympic games will incorporate the idea of decentralization in the host country, and by so doing curb exorbitant expenditures and eliminate the high risks of financing the games through such programs as the ones we are now facing. I might add that the risk does exist, particularly when we notice that at this late date the minister still states that a face value of $450 million of coins will be needed to net a profit to the Olympic organization of $250 million.
Since Bill C-196 was passed this July, the inflationary problems that we are currently facing will certainly have an effect on the originally planned seigniorage, which ultimately will effect CO JO. It is because of this party's amendments to the bill that the House will have an opportunity to study the program and to make any necessary adjustments between now and 1976 to further protect not only CO JO but the taxpayer.
There are still many unanswered questions regarding the Olympics as a whole, such as the proposed expenditures by the CBC, the proposed expenditures by CMHC, additional security, immigration costs, and many others.

While we admit to our complete support for the Olympic games and for the benefits that will accrue to Canada and Canadians-and, as the minister said, they will be many- we also do not hesitate to point out our intention to remain watchdogs for the taxpayer and I shall be the first to attack any unnecessary expenditure of public funds.
I shall also, on the other hand, attack at every opportunity those individuals or groups of individuals such as the NDP who would seek to discredit the Olympic movement for the sake of personal or party gain by appealing to bigotry and envy and by trying to play one section of this country against another. The Olympics, Mr. Speaker, belong to Canada. They will reflect Canada to the world and will bring to Canada a sense of pride and unity.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by thanking the minister for making copies of his statement available to opposition parties some time before he presented it in the House. I feel this is very important because it gives us an opportunity to put our arguments in order, even if we have to re-order some of them, as the hon. member did who spoke just before me.
I suggest that although the minister spoke about the Olympic ideal, which he did in suitably reverential, if not counterfeit tones, he should be reminded that the original Olympics were not confined to athletics only but included poets, rhapsodists-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Musicians.


Mark Willson Rose: -yes, musicians and other exciting people. I therefore urge the minister and those people who are responsible for this presentation, such as CO JO, to make certain that Canadian cultural aspects in their broadest sense are properly presented and made manifest at the 1976 Montreal Olympics.
I also remind the minister that, although at this moment we are considering $250 million for what has been described as a carnival of sweat, the Montreal Symphony Orchestra is begging all over North America for money to ensure its survival. I hope, therefore, that some of the seigniorage from this program will spin off for the benefit of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: I and the members of my party welcome the statement made by the Postmaster General Mr. Ouellet launching the Canadian Olympic Coinage Program. I say this despite the fact that my party fought vigorously against this method of financing, both in committee and in the House of Commons. We fought the scheme not because our party is anti-sport or-I say this incidentally since it was brought up-bigotedly anti-French; we fought the scheme because we believed that the method of financing the Olympics through coins and lotteries, while perhaps appealing to two basic human instincts, hoarding and gambling, was not satisfactory. We felt the idea was worth fighting because we could not see how the sales target could be met, and it followed that any shortfall in the sales of these coins would have to be met by those Canadians who are among the most economically deprived in our country, Canadians living in the province of Quebec.
December 12, 1973

Through a deal involving complicity, I might say, concerning amendments concocted by the government and the Official Opposition over one weekend, committee hearings on the bill were hurriedly closed without any opportunity being provided for the committee to examine any witnesses other than those two hon. gentlemen, the Postmaster General, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). Because of that deal in which the Tories were found in bed with the Liberals, the committee hearings were concluded with undue haste and the bill was reported back to the House.
Our misgivings about the Olympic financing proposals were outlined in detail at that time. I do not believe they need repeating on this occasion. We believed then and still believe that $250 million spread across the country for fitness and amateur sport to build rinks, swimming pools, coaching facilities and track and field outlets would have had far more spin-off effect than putting millions in one spot. In terms of four years, Canada could not only have expected to be host to a world athletic extravaganza but Canadian athletes would have had a genuine opportunity to win a suitable number of events for a change.
That argument is now behind us. Our party lost the fight on the Olympic bill, although the NDP track record on other energetic policies has improved considerably lately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: We lost out on the Olympic bill. We do not intend to cry about that today. On July 26 I concluded my third reading remarks by saying:
I would love to have been in cabinet and overheard the discussions on this bill. I hope the optimists will be accurate and the pessimists will be wrong. If we are going to have the Olympics, we want them to be a success.
Having said those words on July 26, I can say no less today. We, of course, want to be assured that, should there be a shortfall in the $250 million coinage expectation, the federal government will not, I repeat not, accept further responsibility beyond the $100 million already committed for security, housing and broadcasting.
There is little more that can appropriately be said at this time, except to extend our unequivocal best wishes to the minister and his promotional staff.
[ Translation]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that from the beginning when Montreal authorities took the first steps regarding the Olympic Games and coins, the Social Crediters in the House have given all their support to the proposals of His Honour the mayor of Montreal and His Excellency Mr. Rousseau, who are at the origin of the Olympic Coins Program for the 1976 Games.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the members who supported Bill C-196 and also the minister, who has just said that hon. members will be able to give concrete support to this program. I would like him to note that for the 16 employees on my staff I will order Olympic coins for the coming Christmas season.
Order Paper Questions
However, Mr. Speaker, there are always contradictory details in the projects submitted to us, contradictory not for us but for the minister. When he said, for instance, that the Olympic Coins Program will increase revenues to $500 million, this means half a billion dollars of new credits, which greatly resembles the theories of the Social Credit, which the minister does not want to recognize ordinarily, but which he recognizes for the Montreal Olympic Games.
The minister also said:
I am at present engaged in a series of personal visits to key centres across the country, with the dual purpose of disseminating information about the Olympic Coin Program . . .
Next Sunday, the minister will be at Nedelec, in my riding, to deliver a political speech or distribute Olympic coins to my electors.
Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that this undertaking will be highly successful in Canada and throughout the world and are happy about it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, how many submersible vessels of all types, and by such types, have operated inside the jurisdictional purview of the government, in each calendar year since 1963 inclusive?
2.	Does the government have knowledge of the approximate locations and courses of the United States submersible vessels that might from time to time come into waters that would normally be considered under the jurisdictional purview of the government and, if so, through what other department or agency of the government than the Department of External Affairs would such information be handled and available?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. The following is a list of military submersible vessels of all types operating with Maritime forces in the years in question: 1963, 1964: 1 U.S. Submarine on loan, 2 R.N. Submarines on loan; 1965, 1966: 1 U.S. Submarine on loan, 1 'O' Class submarine; 1967: 1 U.S. Submarine on loan, 2 'O' Class submarines; 1968: 1 U.S. Submarine on loan, 3 'O' Class submarines; 1969, 1970: 1 former U.S. submarine, 3 'O' Class submarines; 1971, 1972, 1973: 1 former U.S. Submarine, 3 'O' Class submarines, 1 SDL-1.
2. In so far as U.S. Naval submersibles are concerned, this information is known to the Department of National Defence.
8662

December 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mitges (Supplementary): How much money was spent for maintenance and repairs of harbours in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and to October 1, 1973?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Ministry of Transport expenditures on maintenance and repairs of harbours in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe were: 1969, $334.	1970, $144.	1971, $1099.	1972, $323.	1973,
$767. (to October 1).


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Unemployment Insurance Commission 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?


Mr. Mark MacGuigart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	1972-73:
$142,872.00; 1973-74, to date: $388,832.08.
2. Names
1972-	73
John Doherty & Co.
1973-	74, to date Omnicom
Addresses
46 Elgin St., Ottawa
Amounts	Purposes

54,309.00 Social Insurance Number, Claimant Assistance Program and Separation Certificate Information
1110 Sherbrooke W. Montreal
227,469.08
Advertising services to inform all Canadian Citizens who have received UI benefits during 1972 of the importance of the Commission's forms T4U and

Information Canada 171 Slater St.	38,000.00 Exhibit on UIC programes
Ottawa
3. Publicity and/or information for the UIC programs or activities is carried by the individual newspapers, radio and television stations:
For 1972-73 Newspapers
For 1973-74, to date Newspapers
Radio

88.563.00	Regional and local activities, mainly public meetings.
33.363.00	Regional activities such as office openings etc.
90,000.00 To back up newspaper campaign to inform claimants of tax deductions.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	What is the total acreage of the Wiarton Airport?
2.	Has any consideration been given to increase the facilities for national and international air traffic stopovers?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
total acreage of the Wiarton Airport is 794.5.
2. To date no indication has been received by the Ministry that additional or expanded facilities are required at the Wiarton Airport. Therefore, no new or expanded facilities are presently planned for this location.


Mr. MacLean: Are all aircraft operated by the Department of National Defence of a class or kind required to be equipped with emergency locator transmitters (ELTS) by July 1, 1974, now so equipped and, if not (a) how many such aircraft are so equipped (b) on what date will the remainder be so equipped?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Since 1957 all aircraft operated by the Department of National Defence have carried emergency locator transmitters (ELTS).


Mr. McKinnon: Of the 190 CL-41 Tutor aircraft purchased by the government
(a)	how many (i) are in storage (ii) are in use (iii) have crashed
(b)	what became of the balance, if any?


James Armstrong Richardson: Of the 190 CL-41 Tutor aircaft purchased by the government: (a) (i) 59 aircraft are in storage (ii) 25 aircraft are currently being transferred into active operation from storage; (iii) 73 aircraft are in use as pilot trainers; (iv) 20 aircraft have crashed and been deleted from inventory, (b) The balance of 13 aircraft are used for technical training purposes. Twelve of these aircraft, located at Canadian Forces Base Camp Borden, are used to train aircraft technical tradesmen in their basic training for jet aircraft maintenance. One aircraft, located at Canadian Forces base, Moose Jaw, is used for on-the-job training of technical tradesmen employed on Tutor aircraft maintenance and for familiarization training or aircrew trainees.
December 12, 1973


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	In the period April 1 to October 31, 1973, how many applications for grants did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion receive from the constituency of Bellechasse?
2.	What were the names and addresses of persons, corporations or companies who made such applications?
3.	How many grants were allocated during that period?
4.	Who were the persons, corporations or companies who received such grants and in what amounts?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. From April 1 to October 31, 1973, six applications were received for industrial projects in Bellechasse constituency under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
2.	The identity of persons, corporations or companies who apply for grants cannot be revealed without breach of agreement between the department and applicant to maintain such information confidential until such time as an offer, if made, is accepted by the applicant.
3.	Six offers were accepted during the period.
4.	The names of the persons, corporations or companies who accepted offers and the amount of each offer are as
Applications
Filed	
Approved	
Withdrawn or Rejected
Order Paper Questions
follows: Abattoir Gosselin Limitee, $32,440; A. Belanger Ltee, $642,000; La Cooperative de Dorchester, $28,586; Lait-erie Etchemin Inc., $33,576; Les entreprises Desourdy Inc., $68,599; O. Fortier Limitee, $51,340. As grants are not disbursed until a new, expanded or modernized facility has reached commercial production, payments of the above grants have not necessarily been received by the concerns involved.


Mr. Wise: 1.	How many applications were filed by farmers in the constituency of Elgin for Farm Credit Corporation loans for each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 and, of these, how many were approved?
2.	What was the total amount of money loaned to (a) farmers (b) dairy farmers .(c) beef farmers (d) hog farmers (e) cash crop farmers (f) tobacco farmers in the constituency of Elgin for the years 1970, 1971 and 1972 by FCC?


Hon.. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. However, the constituency of Elgin approximates the lending area for Elgin County and the answer is as follows. 1.
1970-71	1971-72	1972-73. 38	42	61. 33	36	47. 5	6	14(a)Fiscal Year	Totals1970-71	
1,209,0001971-72	
1,058,5001972-73	
1,598,000
'Classified in accordance with the principal source of gross income,


Mr. Frank: 1.	On what terms were the recent appointment of an Assistant Commissioner for Ontario to the Canadian Grain Commission made?
2.	Is the salary of the Ontario Assistant Commissioner the same as the salary paid to the Western Assistant Grain Commissioners?
3.	What are the specific duties and responsibilities of the Ontario Assistant Commissioner?
4.	What are the qualifications of the newly appointed Ontario Assistant Commissioner?
(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(f)Dairy	Beef	Hogs	Cash Crop	Tobacco$	$	$	$	$202,800	52,100	141,500	119,000	513,700192,800	150,300	133,300	362,000	143,800427,800	161,200	229,700	409,900	234,40050 per cent or over.	known to	the farm	and business	communities.	(d) To
investigate the presence of unlicensed varieties, insect infestations, or contaminated grain in shipments from primary elevators, (e) To engage in special surveys, investigations or projects as requested by the Commission, and co-operate with the directors of the various divisions in regard to special problems arising in the grain trade or rural community.
4.	Twenty-five years experience in farming, together with nine years experience in supervision as manager of a supply company.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. By the
Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) To inspect elevator facilities in Ontario as defined in Schedule 2 of the Canada Grain Act. (b) To investigate farmers' inquiries or complaints in regard to grain sampling, grading and moving into export positions, (c) To ensure that the role and function of the Commission is


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	To how many retired servicemen are annuity payments being made as of November 15, 1973?
2.	How many will be entitled to an adjustment pension after January 1, 1973, as a result of the amendment to the Public Service Superannuation Act and particularly to that portion known as the 85 rule?

December 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: 1.	40,687.
2.	1,487.


Mr. Mather: How many Canadians have communicated to the Secretary of State for External Affairs either by letter, telegram or telephone, expressing concern about General Thieu's treatment of the political prisoners in South Viet Nam.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As of November 29, 1973 approximately 1,350 letters and telegrams had been received concerning this situation and related aspects. Further, approximately 2,000 form letters and petitions had been received with the petitions usually carrying about 10 signatures. The number of telephone calls received about detainees have been minimal.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by Ivan Head of the Prime Minister's Office (salary range: $30,000-$35,000), to New York, Washington, London, USSR, Nigeria, Zambia and Tanzania ($3,669)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 and 2.
New York: November-December, addressing Conference on Canadian-American Relations at New York University and engaging in consultations with Canadian Consul General. March, addressing Council on Foreign Relations, New York City, and engaging in consultations with Canadian Permanent Representative to the U.N. Washington: December, accompanying Prime Minister on official visit. London: August-September, attending Anglo-Canadian Coloquium and engaging in official discussions with senior officials of British government. U.S.S.R.: May, accompanying Prime Minister on official visit. Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania: January-February, engaging in official discussions with the Presidents of Tanzania and Zambia and the head of the federal military government of Nigeria.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. M. Davey of the Prime Minister's Office (salary range: $30,000-$35,000), to New York, Washington ($528)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
New York: May-June, to attend Hudson Institute Conference. Washington: December, to accompany Prime Minister on official visit.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by R. G. Robertson, Secretary of the Privy Council Office (salary range: $45,000-$50,000), to London ($169)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
London: May, to accompany the Hon. J. N. Turner, Minister of Justice, and other officials in discussions with British ministers and officials concerning possible procedures for patriation of the Canadian Constitution, such patria-tion to be dependent on agreement being reached at the Constitutional Conference subsequently held on June 14-16, 1971, in Victoria.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by M. A. Crowe, Deputy Secretary of the Privy Council Office (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to USSR, New York and Washington ($431)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
U.S.S.R.: May, to accompany the Prime Minister on official visit. New York: April, economic consultations with U.S. officials. Washington, D.C.: August, economic consultations with U.S. officials.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by O. Thur, Vice-Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to (a) Washington ($303) (b) Alicante, Spain ($520)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
Washington: May, to attend a conference on "Dimension of the Future". Alicante, Spain: June, to attend an international conference on the "Family".


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. D. Love, Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (salary range: $37,500-$45,000), to England, Switzerland ($582)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Mr. J. D. Love went to discuss regional development policies with officials in the United Kingdom and to

attend meeting of the International Labour Office Governing Body in Geneva.
2. November 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by W. J. Lavigne, Assistant Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to US, Switzerland and Germany ($1,138)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is: The amount of $1,138 involved two separate trips, one to New York, N.Y., U.S.A., $150; the other to Europe, $988. Our reply by trip is as follows: (a) New York Trip: 1. To speak at seminars for financial investors, and meet industrial prospects. 2. May, 1971.
(b) European Trip: 1. To make prospecting and appraisal trips to plants and industrial parks, together with speaking engagements and interviews with industrialists, financiers and consultants, in Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Belgium. 2. December, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by E. C. Aquilina, Assistant Deputy Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Malaysia ($465)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Mr. E. C. Aquilina went to Malaysia at the request of CIDA in connection with a proposal to set up a regional development authority for one of the Malaysian states.
2. November, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. J. Carson, Chairman of the Public Service Commission (salary range: $40,000-$45,000), to Australia, South Africa, Zambia, England and New York ($4,170)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Australia-Establishing an agreement with the Public Service Board of Australia for the interchange of Canadian and Australian public servants through the CAP pro-
Order Paper Questions
gram. Together with speaking engagements for the Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration in Canberra, Sydney and Perth. South Africa-Only an airplane stop. Zambia-Liaison discussions with the Public Service of Zambia. England-Consultation with the Permanent Head of the U. K. Public Service, Sir William Armstrong, and with the Chief Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission of the U. K., Exchange visits with the Civil Service College at Sunningdale and the College of Administrative Studies at Hendley on the Thames.
2. In January, 1972, Mr. Carson went to New York for discussions with the Assistant Under Secretary General of the UN on the proposed creation of an International Civil Service Commission. Australia, South Africa, Zambia, England, March 1972.


Mr. Howard: Was a document published under the name of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Indian Affairs Branch, entitled "Discussion Notes on the Indian Act" with Information Canada Catalogue Number R32-2871 and bearing the date 1971 and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) how many copies were distributed (c) to whom were the copies distributed (d) what was the cost of printing and distributing (e) what happened with respect to the copies which, to date, have not been distributed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes. (a) 5,000; (b) 1,155; (c) distribution was made to Indian bands, departmental officials, other government departments, and the public upon request; (d) $920.32; (e) the balance is still in stock and is kept as shelf material and distributed when requests are received.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what information was the answer to Question No. 3,129 based that the address by the Minister of Agriculture to the Halton and Halton East Liberal Association on Friday, November 2, 1973 and printed and distributed to 1,845 persons at public expense, was not a political address?
2.	What is the specific name of the person who made the decision that this was not a political address?
3.	What is the specific name of the person who made the decision that the Department of Agriculture does not intend to seek reimbursement in printing and distribution from the Liberal Party of Canada?


Eugene Whelan: 1. On
information contained therein. The public is invited.
2.	The Hon. Eugene Whelan.
3.	The Hon. Eugene Whelan.

December 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what information was the answer to Question No. 3,100 based that the address by the Minister of Agriculture to the Davenport Liberal Association on Wednesday, October 31, 1973 and printed and distributed to 1,845 persons at public expense, was not a political address?
2.	What is the specific name of the person who made the decision that this was not a political address?
3.	What is the specific name of the person who made the decision that the Department of Agriculture does not intend to seek reimbursement in printing and distribution from the Liberal Party of Canada?


Eugene Whelan: 1. On
information contained therein. The public is invited.
2.	The Hon. Eugene Whelan.
3.	The Hon. Eugene Whelan.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Which companies (a) Canadian-controlled (b) American-controlled (c) British-controlled (d) French-controlled (France) (e) German-controlled (f) Japanese-controlled (g) Russian-controlled (h) others have been granted oil exploration permits by the government to explore in (i) the Yukon Territory (ii) the Northwest Territories (iii) each of the provinces?
2.	Which department is responsible for granting oil exploration permits?
3.	Did the government always consult with the natives before granting these permits and, if not, for what reasons?
4.	To date, how many charges have been filed under the federal pollution-control laws against companies exploring in Canada's North?
5.	(a) Who were these companies (b) what was the fine in each case?
6.	Did the government, at any time, find a need to enforce the (a) Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (b) Northern Inland Waters Act (c) Territorial Lands Act and, if so, on what date and against whom?
Return tabled.



SALE OF PRINCESS STREET SLIP, KINGSTON HARBOUR

Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): 1.	Was the Princess Street slip in Kingston Harbour sold by the City of Kingston to the government and, if so (a) what was the approximate square footage of land (b) on what date did the sale take place (c) under what Order in Council was it purchased?
2.	Did the government secure permission to fill the slip and, if so (a) from whom did they request permission (b) on what date was such permission granted?
3.	Who used the slip between 1966 and 1972 and how much was paid for the use of the slip for each of those years and to whom was the money paid?
4.	Was there a transaction between the government and the firms, Dunleary Investments Limited and Murney Development Limited, with regard to the federally-owned slip and, if so, on what date did the property transfer take place and in what manner?

5.	If the property transfer did in fact take place, did the government consult with the Government of the Province of Ontario and the Kingston City Council prior to the sale and, if so, on what dates did such discussions take place?
6.	(a) What were the names of the officers, directors and shareholders of Dunleary Investments Limited and Murney Development Limited in November, 1972 (b) have there been any changes in the directorship of these companies since November 1972?
7.	What are the names of the signatories to the agreement or deed that transferred the slip in Kingston Harbour from the government to the firms of Dunleary Investments Limited and Murney Development Limited?
8.	What sales, quit-claims, leases or other transfers of property have been made of Kingston Harbour lands since the 1955 quitclaim from the City of Kingston (a) to whom were they made (b) what were the locations and sizes of the parcels (c) how much money was received for each parcel (d) what is the length of the leases (e) what were the dates of the transactions (f) who were the directors and shareholders of the companies involved (g) which transfers were made for lands that were under agreement or purchase contracts to other companies or individuals (h) who were the directors and shareholders of these secondary companies?
9.	Was the Department of Transport requested by the City of Kingston to straighten out the ownership problems in Kingston Harbour and, if so (a) on what date (b) what action has been taken since then?
Return tabled.



RECIPIENTS OF GRANTS UNDER THE PROGRAM FOR EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT, 1972-73

Mr. Rodriguez: What were the names of the recipients of grants or loans under the program for Export Market Development in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 (January 1, 1973 to end) and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts in each case?
Return tabled.



POLLUTION-NAMES OF CORPORATIONS BENEFITTING UNDER ACCELERATED CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations benefitting from the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance Program (ACCA) for pollution-control structures and equipment, in each of the fiscal years 1965-66 to 1972-73 (January 1 to end) and 1973-74 to date and, in each case, what were the costs allowed under the program for rapid write-off?
2.	What are the qualifications of the staff employed in assessing whether the equipment or structures specified in an application for cost allowance are capable of reducing, abating or eliminating a pollution problem and what standards are used in defining reduction, abatement and elimination?
3.	What inspection reports have been prepared assessing the performance of the equipment or structures in reducing, abating or eliminating a pollution problem?
4.	Where performance has been found to be unsatisfactory, what measures have been taken to ensure improvement or recover cost allowances?
Return tabled.
December 12, 1973



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: a
1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the National Research Council 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?
Return tabled.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the National Research Council on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



FIRENZA AUTOMOBILE DISPUTE WITH GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA

Mr. Atkey: 1.	Does the government intend to intervene as a friend of the court in the class action No. 3495-73 now before the Supreme Court of Ontario against General Motors of Canada on behalf of Helen Naken, Stephen Cranson, William Pearce, Robert Vandiera and all others who purchased new 1971 and 1972 Firenza automobiles?
2.	Were Firenza owners forced to rely almost solely on the Automobile Protection Association for aid in their attempt to obtain redress of their grievances from General Motors and, if so, is the government considering the permanent provision of funds to APA, which now operates under a LIP grant, to guarantee its continued existence or the provision of funds to other similar automobile consumer groups?
3.	What criteria were employed to select the seven Firenza automobiles chosen for the study by the Department of Transport, Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch of July 16, 1973?
4.	For what reason did the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch consider that seven was a sufficient sample on which to conclude that the safety of the highways was not endangered by the Firenza automobiles?
5.	Has the government considered increasing the powers and facilities of the Accidents and Defect Investigations Division of the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch of the Department of Transport to avoid a continued reliance on the defect monitoring system in the United States and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Has the Accident and Defect Investigations Division of the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch suggested that the electrical system of the Firenza is a cause of concern and, if so, does the possibility of such defect justify the safety recall of all 1971 and 1972 Firenzas?
7.	Has the Minister of Transport considered broadening the interpretation of and/or introducing amendments to the Motor
Order Paper Questions
Vehicle Safety Act to provide for the safety recall of those automobiles which display a reasonable probability of endangering the safety of Canadians on the highways?
8.	Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to propose any legislation or exercise any powers to prevent the importation of defective automobiles into Canada in the future and, if so, what steps are being or will be taken?
9.	Did an independent vehicle engineering consultant examine a sample of Firenza automobiles for the Department of Transport and find that all vehicles had deficiencies which he concluded did not constitute a grave and immediate hazard to the safe operation of the vehicles and, if so, does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to take any action concerning such performance-related defects?
10.	What action, if any, does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to take against automobile dealers who allegedly incorporated the $250 note of credit offered by General Motors to Firenza owners into their trade-in offers?
11.	Does the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend to lay charges against General Motors under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act for misleading advertising on the basis of the failure of the Firenza automobile to fulfil General Motors' advertised assurances of stout performance, sustained reliability, rugged durability and all-round GM engineering?
Return tabled.



SUSPENSION OF PART XV OF CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In how many instances has Part XV of the Canada Shipping Act been suspended pursuant to sections 663 and 665 of the Canada Shipping Act, on what dates, affecting what vessels for what length of time since January 1, 1970?
2.	What were the reasons for such exemptions granted in each instance?
Return tabled.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since last January I have had question No. 420 on the order paper. I have drawn this to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. As this is the month of December, I think it is high time that a question asked last January was answered. I appreciate that the information may be embarrassing to the government; nevertheless, it should be made available to parliament.
I am impressed by the parliamentary secretary's defence against criticism of this kind on other occasions, namely, that he and his colleagues have answered 87 per cent of the questions asked. However, we are also interested in the other 13 per cent. Impressed as we may be by their success to the extent of 87 per cent, I wonder what the government's reaction would be to anyone who paid only 87 per cent of his income tax.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's point is well taken. I expect to have the answer next week.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to certain unanswered questions on the order paper. On June 19 I asked question No. 2316 concerning the details and cost of trips made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at public expense since October 30, 1972. I can see no valid reason why approximately six months later there should still be no answer to a very legitimate question asking for information to which a member of parliament is entitled.

December 12, 1973
Oral Questions
I also refer the parliamentary secretary to questions Nos. 2598 to 2601 inclusive asking for details of public expenditures at both Harrington Lake and 24 Sussex Drive. These questions were placed on the order paper about threee and a half months ago. It seems to me the government should no longer delay in making quite clear whether or not we have in Canada our very own Key Biscayne and San Clemente.


Mr. Forrestall:: I very seldom do this, Mr. Speaker, but I rise on a similar point of order. I can understand the reluctance to answer some questions, but I wonder whether the question standing in my name, dated June 11, which has to do only with expenditures within the National Museum of Canada, could be answered before Christmas. Perhaps you could find out, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On Thursday, December 6, as reported on page 8480 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said in reference to oil prices: "The federal government will continue to levy a tax, or, after February 1, a charge, equal to the difference between our domestic price and the export price as determined by the National Energy Board." In light of the recent announcement by the Premier of Saskatchewan that beginning next year Saskatchewan will dispose of provincial oil at prices which are essentially export prices, is the minister prepared to seek an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan to resolve any possible differences which may arise between the two levels of government on this issue and, if so, is he prepared to try to reach such an agreement before the first ministers conference in January?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me the January conference provides an admirable opportunity for Saskatchewan and any other province interested in oil to discuss these important questions of taxation and pricing.


OIL-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS ON PRICING POLICY-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION AND CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES BEFORE FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Walter David Baker: Yesterday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Moose Jaw about a specific government proposal for a domestic pricing policy, the minister said: "We shall be bringing forward some alternative proposals in this regard to the

conference". Will the federal government announce these proposals now, and will the minister hold consultations with the provinces before the January conference in an attempt to achieve a consensus on options for a domestic pricing policy before the conference takes place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There may well be exchanges between officials but it seems to me, if I understand what the provinces have in mind, that the conference is concerned precisely with consultation.


Walter David Baker: Has the federal government made any specific proposals for a domestic pricing policy to the premier of Saskatchewan and, if not, will the government now make such proposals having regard to the pricing policy proposals of that government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have made no proposals to the premier of Saskatchewan. As I say, it may very well be advisable to have our officials consult in preparation for the conference, but probably the most effective way of dealing with this question would be to discuss with all ten provinces the difficult question of oil pricing in Canada.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-ACTION TO ACCELERATE PROJECT TO ENSURE COMPLETION BY 1975
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Can the
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell the House what action the government has taken to accelerate the Montreal pipeline project in order to ensure that it will be completed before the 1975 deadline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have been in consultation with the Interprovincial Pipeline Company and with the government of Quebec on the factors involved. For this purpose we have constituted a special group within the government of Canada to be led by the Deputy Minister of National Defence, Mr. Sylvain Cloutier, who will be seconded from his present post and given specific responsibility for the pipeline project.


Steve Eugene Paproski: When will the government announce definite plans in connection with this project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At a relatively early date, I would hope.


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES PRIOR TO FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from the statement by Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan-


Some hon. Members:: Sheik Blakeney!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -that if the federal government wants Saskatchewan oil to be sold in Canada at less than its international value, the government of Saskatchewan will co-operate. The premier went on to say that if Saskatchewan were prepared to do this, the federal government, in
December 12, 1973

its turn, ought to be prepared to deal with the matter of discriminatory freight rates against western Canada, the development of secondary industries and agricultural stability-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member wishes to ask a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to hold discussions with the provinces prior to the first ministers' conference in order to deal with some of these matters which are of such vital concern to the western provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated in reply to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I would expect there would be consultation between officials and it might well be desirable to consult at the ministerial level before the meeting, but it does seem to me that the most appropriate level for such discussions would be at the conference when all the provinces are there. If Saskatchewan is indeed in favour of lower prices for Canadian consumers I would hope these would be available unconditionally. In any event, as I understand our constitution, the question of trade and commerce being under federal jurisdiction, it should not be a matter of condition as to whether any commodity is offered for sale on the Canadian market or not.


Mr. Fairweather:: Blackmail!


OIL-DISPOSITION OF REVENUE FROM POSSIBLE PRICE INCREASES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In his speech to the House on December 6, as reported on page 8480, the right hon. gentleman indicated that if and when the freeze on oil prices expires it is not intended that at any time the price should go beyond what is needed to ensure the development of the Alberta oil sands and other Canadian resources. If there is any increase in the price of oil, will this money go to the provinces or is it his intention that it should go to the oil companies in the hope they may use the additional revenue for the purpose of developing the oil resources of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am
surprised that the hon. member, a member of the federal parliament, should have forgotten the third possibility, that some of it might go to the people of Canada through the federal treasury.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OIL-PRICE INCREASE BY IRAN-IMPACT ON CONSUMERS OF EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Inasmuch as Canada imports 117,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Iran, and noting that Iran
Oral Questions
has increased the price of crude to between $16 and $17 a barrel, can the minister state what is likely to be the impact of this price increase on the consumers of eastern Canada, and whether he has any relief measures in mind to recommend to cabinet?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the recent price was an oil auction price for participation oil from Iran, and the oil imported into Canada from Iran comes on long-term contracts with various Canadian refineries. I have had no indication yet that this auction price will find its way into the general price for crude oil in this country.


OIL-LEVEL TO WHICH GOVERNMENT WILL ALLOW PRICE TO RISE BEFORE TAKING ACTION TO ASSIST PEOPLE OF EASTERN CANADA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. gentleman tell the House whether he has yet determined to what level the government will permit offshore prices to rise before considering the implementation of some sort of domestic pricing policy to protect the people of eastern Canada, perhaps some sort of partial subsidy or measures of that nature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the question, but surely offshore prices are not determined by the federal government but by the producers of oil offshore.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary question and then try to complete the first round of questions by recognizing representatives of the other two parties. I will then return to the number of hon. members who wish to ask supplementary questions on this matter.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I am sorry if I did not make my question clear to the Prime Minister. I realize, of course, that offshore prices are not determined by the federal government, but I am wondering whether the Prime Minister has in mind any unacceptable level beyond which he will not permit the people of eastern Canada to be victimized by these prices? Does he have any plan that, if necessary, he will eventually introduce some sort of relief measures such as a partial subsidy or other domestic assistance?


An hon. Member:: Like removing the federal sales tax.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Again, Mr. Speaker, we may be on different wave lengths. It seems to me that the federal government can in no way determine the price-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No policy.


An hon. Member:: I could get you a bumper sticker to describe that policy.

December 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We cannot determine the price at which Venezuela decides to send the oil to us. The only remedy we or the provinces have if we do not want to pay that price is not to take the oil.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Wait till Premier Reagan hears that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.


An hon. Member:: Now we will hear from Sheik Lewis.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-INQUIRY WHEN APPLICATION WILL BE MADE AND BY WHOM- FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish that some hon. members would stop elevating me. I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources one or two questions about the pipeline. When does he expect an application to be made to the National Energy Board with regard to the extension of the pipeline, and by whom?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one thing I promise not to call the hon. gentleman is a blue-eyed Arab.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


An hon. Member:: How cosy can you get?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that an application for the pipeline will be made to the National Energy Board early in the new year. I would anticipate that the best way to achieve the construction of the pipeline would be by an extension of the Interprovincial line and therefore the application would be made by that company.


Mr. Hees:: Say it with flowers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I as a blue-eyed Canadian-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: My wife has told me I have blue eyes.


An hon. Member:: How sweet it is!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You make beautiful love together.


George Harris Hees: Oh David, you are just darling.


Mr. Crouse:: Oh, my blue-eyed baby.


Thomas Miller Bell: This is getting unparliamentary. You should go behind the curtains.


Mr. Muir:: It is getting a little nauseating.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether the financial arrangements have already been completed, whether the financing of the extension of the pipeline will be done entirely by Interprovincial or will the federal government participate, and if there is any financing by the federal government, will the federal government have any equity in that part of the pipeline?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the financing details of the pipeline are not yet determined. Indeed, that is one of the questions under intensive discussion at the moment.


POSSIBILITY OF GUARANTEE THAT ARAB OIL WILL NOT BE EXPORTED BY CANADA TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the minister of what energy we have left, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since Arab countries are willing to supply Canada with all the oil products it needs, provided those products are not exported to the U.S.A., does Canada intend to continue refusing that guarantee to the Arab countries in the face of the new reductions in Arab exports to Canada from January 1, 1974?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the House a few days ago, we made inquiries in Saudi Arabia in order to know their opinion and policy with regard to exports to the U.S.A. As yet, we have not exported Arab oil products to the United States but we will continue to export oil products coming from the other countries.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT OIL PRICE WILL NOT BE HIGHER THAN OFFSHORE CRUDE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.


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


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since the construction of a pipeline is taken for granted, in his negotiations with the Quebec government, has the minister asked for the assurance that the prices of western oil products will not be higher than those of products from abroad and if not, can he assure us that Quebec will obtain prices similar to those of imported products?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed with the Quebec government the price of imported oil and it is one of the main questions which will have to be solved before the construction of such a pipeline.
December 12, 1973


REQUEST THAT DISCUSSION OF ENERGY SUPPLIES
Mr, G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, agreeing with the minister's statement that the first ministers' conference is the proper forum for discussion of these matters which are of joint interest to both levels of government, in light of the effect of Bill C-236 and the bill founded on the ways and means motion he designated today, will he give very serious consideration to postponing further discussion of these bills until the first ministers' conference for the sake of promoting national unity and in an attempt to arrive at a reasonable settlement in a congenial atmosphere on January 23 and 24?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to Bill C-236, Mr. Speaker, we cannot fully anticipate all the events that may occur in the near future, but certainly one of the grave concerns is that there may be a sufficient interruption in the supply of oil coming to the eastern Canadian market that the customers in that market may, indeed, be prejudiced later in the winter. On that basis, rather than delay the bill I think it would be in the interests of all members from all parts of the country, perhaps even the hon. member for Peace River in particular as a member from Alberta, to make sure that some of our fellow citizens do not suffer because of events beyond our control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to say that the member for Peace River, like most people in Alberta, is far more concerned about doing something for the people of eastern Canada than is the Prime Minister who is willing to let them freeze.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am very happy that the member for Peace River is indicating that the Alberta members are interested in assuring a supply of oil to Quebec and eastern Canada. I wonder if he could assure a supply of Alberta members to Quebec on the bilingual policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE EMBARGO ON OIL EXPORTS FROM UNITED STATES TO CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of statements made in the last few days in the United States that the
Oral Questions
government of that country is prepared to impose embargoes on the export of petroleum products from the United States to Canada, and in view of the importance to our energy supply of those exports to this country, has the minister been in touch with the United States government to find out whether or not that is the intention of that government and, if so, what effect does he think it will have on the energy supplies of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it has been a matter of concern that supplies of certain refined products, particularly those going to the lower mainland of British Columbia, not be interrupted by any United States domestic policy. We will make certain that viewpoint continues to be indicated to the United States government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister regarding unemployment insurance. In light of the mounting criticism and concern about the cost and the effectiveness of the whole plan, and in view of conflicting statements by ministers on this matters, would the Prime Minister seriously consider having the whole question of the Unemployment Insurance Commission directed to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so it can delve into the act and the regulations in order to bring about suggested amendments which perhaps could make this act more acceptable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the House leader has indicated to the House of Commons, we hope we will be able to end this part of the session before Christmas and I think it would be unwise at this stage to charge the parliamentary committees with more work than is already assigned to them.


SUGGESTION THAT QUALIFYING PERIOD BE INCREASED
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has evaded that question, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that many concerned persons and experts have indicated that the qualifying period of eight weeks is too short, would the minister seriously consider bringing in legislation to increase the minimum qualifying period?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, any contemplation of legislation regarding the Unemployment Insurance Act surely must be based on a much more profound and comprehensive examination than singling out one small aspect. I point out that there was ample opportunity in the spring to deal with these matters when the supplementary estimates were before the committee on estimates, and there

December 12, 1973
Oral Questions
will be ample opportunity when the main estimates are again before the committeee. I for one will welcome that opportunity to dispel some of the myths being spread by many.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon. member for Hastings seek to rise on supplementaries and will be recognized for that purpose. Then I will see the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


REINTRODUCTION OF BILL RESPECTING ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to reintroduce Bill C-125 concerning the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act now, or in 1974?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government was stated by me on November 11, as recorded at page 7611 of Hansard. If the hon. member will read it in full, I think he will find that is the position of the government, which has not changed.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. The minister is aware of the statement made by the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister in agreement that is government policy?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this with my colleague. I think the reports are incorrect. There is no disagreement. The statement I made as recorded at page 7611 of Hansard is the policy of the government.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO RELUCTANCE TO PAY INCREASED PREMIUMS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I asked, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, his stand-in for that day whether or not, in light of the growing number of employees and employers who are reluctant to pay the excessive increase in benefit premiums, the government would undertake an inquiry into the matter. In view of the Prime Minister's answer today, I again ask that question of the minister since I have not yet received an answer.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has had an answer to that question several times, also augmented by the answer the Prime Minister gave a few moments ago.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that apparently there are 45 Chilean refugees at the Canadian Embassy in Santiago, and that the Chilean government apparently has fixed a deadline for applications for safe conduct as of yesterday, which has been met in respect of the 45, does this ruling exclude new applicants and, if so, will the Canadian government make representations to the Chilean government to extend the deadline so that the humanitarian policies announced by the Canadian government in respect of refugees may be fully implemented?
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. member that indeed 45 Chileans are in the Canadian chancery in Santiago. As for the second part of his question the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs conveyed yesterday to the charge d'affaires of Chili here in Ottawa the feelings of the Canadian government on the matter.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister assure the House that the computer systems of the Unemployment Insurance Commission pay centres have been upgraded to eliminate the errors and over-payments that have been so prevalent in the past?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the overpayments, contrary to some distorted information given by some people, were not due to computer error but were identified by control measures which discovered, for example, that some people were drawing unemployment insurance when they already had jobs and should not have been drawing benefits. That is the sort of situation that was corrected on the basis of interviews. The computer was not, as indicated by one hon. member, the guilty party. The answer to the general question is yes, the computers are performing just as well as the people who put the information into them.
December 12, 1973


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of statements made by the minister that Granville Island, Vancouver, will be designated for public use, and in view of the fact that some industrial leases on this island have over 20 years to run, will the minister explain to the House why this property has already been transferred to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, since there will be no mortgages and no housing involved, and would he further explain why the former president of the British Columbia Liberal Association has been hired already as project manager at a salary of $25,000 per year?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps that question could be placed on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that in Toronto and elsewhere throughout the country employers say they cannot get workers, how does the minister explain the tremendous number of people who claim they cannot get work and who are receiving benefits which will cost the country well over $2 billion this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree with the Chair that a question asked in those terms is debate and invites argument. Certainly, a question asked in such terms cannot be accepted from the point of view of procedure.


MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS IN JANUARY, 1974- INQUIRY AS TO TELEVISING AND ACCESS FOR PUBLIC
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he inform the House and the country whether or not the first ministers' meeting in January will be open to the public and perhaps even televised on the French and English channels all across Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would hope so, but I cannot make any decision without consultation with and agreement by the provinces.
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the right hon. Prime Minister's office carrying on that consultation now to ascertain the wishes of the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At this stage I am just beginning to receive replies from the provinces on the dates that I propose, on the subject matter for the agenda and on the form of the conference. When I am in a position to gather all these replies, perhaps I will then be able to assist the hon. member by replying to his question.
[ Translation]


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but one of his colleagues is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago the right hon. Prime Minister made a remark which tarnished Alberta members of parliament as bigots on the bilingual issue. I have deliberately let a few moments go by in order to cool my emotions on hearing that remark which was an outrageous slander on members of parliament from Alberta who are second to none in their desire for true national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would resume his seat for a moment. I think I must remind the hon. member that he has risen on a question of privilege and he himself mentioned that it relates to a statement made earlier.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Yes, two minutes earlier.


J. Michael Forrestall: What is wrong with letting your temper cool off when something like that riles you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I said, I would invite the hon. member to resume his seat for a moment while I caution him that a question of privilege should be raised at the moment when there is occasion or reason to bring it forward. I am sure the hon. member has that in mind.


Douglas Roche: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to think about the matter for a moment or two and allow my temper to cool. My question of privilege, which I repeat to you, is that the Prime Minister is trying to isolate Alberta as the villain in the energy crisis in order to cover up his own lack of policy and programming in securing energy supplies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Roche: Finally, I am hesitant to dignify the slander on Albertans that we have suffered by a question of privilege, but we are not going to sit quietly in this chamber and be called bigots by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 12, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it will be up to you and the House to decide whether there was indeed any slander, but I must indicate to the gentleman opposite that my reference did not in any way indicate that he or his colleagues from Alberta are bigots. What I did indicate was that in their value judgments it is more important to Quebec to have acceptance by Canada of the bilingual policy than to have a gallon of oil from Alberta. I would hope the hon. member would support that along with all his colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for St. John's West. Before the Chair recognized the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on a question of privilege, the hon. member for Compton had the floor.

[ Translation]


MANPOWER
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Would he advise the House whether local initiatives projects will be maintained and, if so, whether additional funds will be made available? Otherwise, will the LIP policy be abolished?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the Local Initiatives Program is, of course, current now. Money is being allocated and projects approved. If I have missed the point of the hon. member's question, I apologize. Most certainly it is alive, well and living in Canada and it is being vigorously pursued at the present time.


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


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, have the hon. minister and the government reviewed the LIP formula which they have established over the past few years? Does it meet real needs? Is it warranted? If so, why are as many as 90 per cent of the projects turned down?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Things are becoming somewhat confused.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was going to suggest to the hon. member for Compton that the question might be placed on the order paper in both French and English in view of the difficulty with the translation service.


FISHERIES
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. It concerns the statement made by him on November 9 in which he announced a program of assistance for Newfoundland fishermen who suffered losses because of ice conditions last spring. In view of the fact this program discriminates against many hundreds of Newfoundland fishermen in that those who do not live within the defined areas will not receive assistance although they suffered the same type of losses under the same conditions, would the minister give an undertaking to have this program extended so that all fishermen who have suffered losses because of the ice conditions in Newfoundland will be compensated?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give the hon. member that assurance. However, I can also tell him that, prior to the announcement of areas in which the benefits will be paid an analysis was made of the catch of the fishermen. The hon. member will be glad to know that in Newfoundland as a whole the value of the catch was up by 20 per cent.


Walter C. Carter: I am aware of the formula used by the minister and his officials in arriving at this decision, but in view of the fact the formula discriminates against inshore fishermen, will the minister reconsider and extend the program to these people?


John (Jack) Davis: Our financial support is aimed primarily at inshore fishermen.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ian MacLachlan Arrol: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he is studying the relationship between the high job vacancy rate and the increasingly high unemployment insurance benefits and, if so, when might we expect the results of such investigation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this problem is under constant examination. I have announced before the miscellaneous estimates committee the several steps which we are taking. I might say that the unemployment insurance claim board is diminishing in relation to the diminishing
December 12, 1973

unemployment. If the hon. member would care to examine the statistics, he would find they support what I have just said.


ACTION TO FIND JOBS FOR UNEMPLOYED
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the whole of the country does not just circle around big "TO"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He does not know his geography.


Robert Muir: -would the minister make special arrangements to see that the Manpower Offices in many other parts of the country, where many people are unemployed and where unemployment is drastically high, will do their utmost to find jobs for people who cannot find jobs? Would he also entertain the idea of bringing before the cabinet more plans and efforts to provide industry in those areas where there are no jobs and people are desperately and seriously trying to find jobs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question I think I did indicate, again in my statement, before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee our plans to convert all the CMC's to job information centres by early 1975. As to the second part of the question or representation, I have total confidence in my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and in the many other programs that are trying to do exactly what the hon. member wishes to see accomplished.


AVERAGE BENEFIT AND PERIOD OF PAYMENT
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the suggestion that unemployment insurance is in some way contributing to the inability of employers to obtain workers-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -has the minister any statistics as to the average income per hour of the unemployed and the number of weeks they are on unemployment insurance?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as is well known, the average weekly pay from unemployment insurance benefit is $68, and the average person is on unemployment benefits for between 17 and 18 weeks. I do not think there is any doubt by virtue of that average, with the top ceiling of $107 per week only involving about 13 per cent of the claimants, that the money is going to the people in the lower income bracket.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and the hon. member for St. John's East, and perhaps then call orders of the day.


LEVEL OF BENEFITS COMPARED WITH MINIMUM WAGE AND WELFARE PAYMENTS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether he has statistics to confirm that the minimum wage level, welfare payments and unemployment insurance benefits are all about on the same level and that level is the poverty line?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would be very interested in examining the details of that question. Right now I do not have readily available in my mind statistics that would support or deny the hon. member's suggestion.


POST OFFICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he can tell the House whether any post offices across the country are holding up December family allowance cheques because the envelopes also contain references to the new Family Allowance Act which has not yet passed through the full parliamentary process, and can he tell the House when these cheques will be released by the post offices?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, post office employees deliver mail as soon as it is received. I can assure the hon. member that it is not the custom of the Post Office Department to delay intentionally mail delivery.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that I know of one post office in the country where family allowance cheques have been held up for three days on the instructions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare-I am talking about St. John's, Newfoundland-may I ask how long these cheques will be held by this post office, and can he tell the House when in fact the cheques will be delivered?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire on this case, but I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of the hon. member's remarks.

December 12, 1973
Oral Questions


CANADIAN DEFICIT UNDER CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-STEPS TO ACHIEVE EQUALITY
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce may I direct this question to his parliamentary secretary. Can he advise the House of the reason for the nine month $181 million deficit under the Canada-United States auto pact, and what steps the government is taking to establish equality and equity under that agreement, as is stated in the agreement?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the shift in trade balance is attributed in large measure to the large demand for North American type vehicles in Canada compared with the United States. We examine these figures regularly, and if changes are to be made in policy or anything else we will make them.


Mr. O'Connor:: Further to that non-answer, Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise when the long delayed talks between United States and Canadian officials on the auto pact are going to get back on the track and when some positive steps will be taken?


Herb Breau: I will transmit the question to the minister.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary.
During the report on Ethiopia on "Format 60" last night, it was announced that unfortunately the federal government has decided to reduce aid to third world countries. May I ask why it has decided to adopt such a policy?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, this report on TV and in other media is absolutely false. If one federal body has been the subject of special attention from the government, it is indeed CIDA which has benefited from an annual increase of about 17 per cent in its budget for the past four years and which will get a substantial increase next year.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I wish to direct a question to the

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Have the baby bonus cheques that were to go out on December 10 been cleared by his department?


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say whether they have been cleared through the department or not. I can say it has been traditional that they go out on the 10th or 11th, and we will do everything in our power to see that they go out as soon as possible.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Why are they being held up?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to be able to answer that question, but I will see that an answer is given at the first opportunity. An investigation will be conducted.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with page IV of the Order of Business and Notices Paper for today where notice is given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of introduction of a bill entitled "an act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada", also involving a ways and means motion.
My point of order is that there may be a typographical error in this notice. I hope it is that rather than a misrepresentation on the part of the minister. I read the following from the accompanying recommendation:
-there shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to defined provinces for a prescribed period, a proportion of 50 per cent of the revenues to such provinces calculated in the manner set out in the measure.
The minister has said over and over again, not only at the committee level but also in the House, that 100 per cent of that tax would be returned to the provinces that produce the resource. Either we have a typographical error where it says that only 50 per cent will go back to the producing provinces or this is one of those cases where the minister once again has deceived the House and the people of Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would again point out to the hon. gentleman, as indeed I have pointed out many times, that I indicated we would return to the provinces the royalties that they otherwise would have had and the federal government would then invest the balance of the tax in the producing provinces. Therefore these federal funds would go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and be appropriated for investment in the producing provinces.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Like the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) I was allowing my temper to cool, and was not aware that the rules required that a question of privilege be raised immediately. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration earlier made reference to the fact that the problem was not with the computers but with the people feeding the computers. I cannot accept that. I can prove categorically that the computers did not work at any time last winter and the people were not responsible.
December 12, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the business set down for consideration today. Because of a longstanding arrangement made with the External Affairs Committee I am to appear before that committee this afternoon to discuss the Law of the Sea, and as a consequence I have asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to move Bill C-236 on my behalf when it comes up for a vote.


Thomas Miller Bell: We will keep it going until you get back.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or marked disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, last night when I began speaking on this subject I was attempting to review some of the measures taken or proposed by the government in light of the apprehended crisis-or, should I say, apprehended insurrection-in the oil industry. What moves has the government made in face of that situation? There have been some efforts made to convince the people of Canada that the government should initiate some apparently conservative measures. Those measures have met no doubt with some success, although in light of the lack of credibility which the minister and the government have on this issue it is likely that those voluntary measures will not have as much effect as might be desired. In any event, the benefits of such conservation measures will be in the short run.
We have, after all, in Canada an increasing population and we have the tradition of increased disposable income in the hands of every Canadian. With increases in the population and increases in the gross national product, obviously the same amount of energy will supply the people of Canada this year as supplied them last year. Next year the situation will be much more aggravated to the extent that known reserves of oil are only sufficient to last the world for the next 20 years. I suggest that the government needs to go a great deal further than offering to the people of Canada some suggestions on means of
Energy Supplies Emergency Act conserving energy, if we are to have any long-term solutions.
One of the things that the government initiated is a price freeze-a freeze which is not a freeze. I mentioned earlier that there was no freeze in eastern Canada: there is no freeze for the consumers of the Atlantic provinces, where I come from, either in heating oil or gasoline. In fact, what we are faced with as a result of this freezing policy of the government is a two-price system in Canada. We have two Canadas again-one with adequate and cheap energy, and one without. The one without is that other Canada, the one from which I come, east of the Ottawa Valley line. Apparently that eventually is in keeping with the Prime Minister's attitude which he confirmed just a few moments ago, that not only are prices in eastern Canada going to be frozen, but if we cannot afford to pay the price of oil, we do not have to buy it. That comes very close to paraphrasing the motto which we read on the bumper stickers of cars from some parts of western Canada and is not the type of thing we would expect from a statesman of this country.
Last night I spoke about the alleged price advantages that had applied hitherto in eastern Canada. Since then I have obtained a few statistics from Statistics Canada although I am cautioned that their reliability is not certain. However, I think they are sufficiently in keeping with my recollection of prices that I should put them on the record. The price of grade one gasoline, that would be premium gasoline, in Halifax in October, 1960, was 50.9 cents. In Toronto at the same time it was 44.9 cents. In October, 1965, in Halifax it was 51.4 cents and in Toronto it was 49.4 cents. In October in 1970, in Halifax, it was 56.1 cents and in Toronto it was 56.2 cents. That is the only date I have on which the price of gasoline west of the Ottawa Valley line exceeded the price east of the Ottawa Valley line. In October, 1973, in Halifax it was 66 cents and in Toronto it was 64 cents. Furnace oil follows a little different pattern: for some inexplicable reason it was slightly cheaper in the Halifax area. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of those statistics, that it was not as cheap as has been suggested in this House and not so cheap as to prompt the argument which has been raised so many times that Atlantic Canada has been profiting from cheap offshore oil. At one stage, for a short time, the price of heating fuels in Halifax was almost three cents cheaper than in Toronto. Now the trend has been reversed, just as it was reversed prior to 1965. The one period which was different was 1970.
What else has the government done by way of enunciating policy or taking decisions that would justify this current request for arbitrary and sweeping powers? They have had a reconversion to the view that a Montreal pipeline is needed. That is a step in the right direction, but that conclusion was not reached until this alleged crisis arose. It seems that Canada has lost out on the opportunity to construct a Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Nobody in the industry now believes there is any possibility of salvaging this project because an indecisive, vacillating government with no energy policy except that provided by the NDP did not have the courage to move.


An hon. Member:: Do you have a policy?

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Charles E. Haliburton: We have a policy, do not worry about that. That lost opportunity for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline will have very long-range ramifications. It may mean that the gas will stay on the northern slopes of the northern territories forever. After all, alternative sources of energy must be found, and unless steps are taken at the right time that petroleum will remain too expensive until it becomes outmoded.
What else has the government done? We had the nebulous promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last week that a national petroleum company will be formulated with a capitalization of $50 million. That is not an impressive figure, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister announced a proposed expenditure of $40 million for research into the development of the tar sands over the next five years. The Alberta government is already committed to developing the tar sands and Syncrude is committed in respect of production. The only real cloud on the picture was whether federal tax measures would permit the project to become viable. Over the next five years the proposed expenditure of $40 million will obviously be of some help. I suppose you might call it pocket money, in the context of the amount of money involved in the project. It is a little like carrying a toothpick to a baseball match and thinking you are going to hit the ball, or going into battle with a popgun.
In energy matters, this government should be thinking beyond traditional sources of energy. It should be looking at the needs for the next 25 years and beyond, when it appears that petroleum supplies will be rapidly running out. We should be thinking beyond nuclear sources of energy to some other types of energy being developed in other countries. But in the meantime it is essential that we have access to petroleum.
An article appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail which took my fancy, Mr. Speaker. It seemed to indicate that Canada has missed the boat on international trade in oil. The headline was "French group to build steel plant in Iraq". Apparently, under a contract between France and the government of Iraq, the French government has agreed to provide what is called technical aid in exchange for being exempted from the Arab oil embargo and, in addition, to have a two-year contract to buy oil at low prices. Where was our government when that kind of deal was going on? Where is our government when it comes to protecting our interests in international trade? We should be moving in such a direction on short-term supplies of oil. If the government can make Canada self-sufficient in energy in ten years, clearly the petroleum problem is not a long-range one, assuming the government's program to be sensible.
We are an industrialized country. We have technical expertise. We can show the producing countries how to make the most, economically, of their natural resources. We have no right to rape them and demand from them their petroleum and give nothing in return except a few Canadian or American dollars. We should anticipate their demand for quid pro quo, just as Saskatchewan and other provinces are entitled to quid pro quo. The conclusion of such a technical and trade agreement would go far toward solving petroleum and energy problems, problems which

the government has put forward as the reason for this bill which is nothing more than a grab for power and provincial natural resources.
After all, the OPEC countries are not really interested in our dollars or American dollars. They already have more than they can use. They want improved standards of living for their people, an enlarged industrial base and perhaps some measure of self-sufficiency. If we help them to achieve that goal, I believe we shall encounter no difficulty in making short-term arrangements for oil at cheap prices, as France has done. Having reviewed the context in which this bill has been presented, I ask, what is the government asking us to do? I refer to an article contained in the Halifax Herald of December 4 which reads in part:
A bill that would give the government authority to act in almost any petroleum emergency was introduced in the Commons by energy minister Donald Macdonald, who called for quick approval.
The government always asks for quick approval for something which it has delayed bringing forward. The article continues:
-the allocation board could supersede provisions in a number of federal statues and overrule other federal agencies such as the National Energy Board.
The bill is to give the board power to take charge of railcars, ships and pipelines to move petroleum supplies to areas where they are needed most. The board could press even foreign ships into service. Pipeline companies would come under the jurisdiction of the board. They could be forced to build new branch lines and other facilities deemed necessary by the board. Presumably, the board could even force pipeline companies into bankruptcy. In other areas, the legislation would allow for relaxed antipollution standards and permit modification of contracts. It provides for individual rationing of petroleum and the issuing of ration coupons, and also for the power to ration electricity. The bill gives the board great powers. What has become of private enterprise? What has become of profit and loss?
Members last night said, "Oh, oh!" when I talked of this bill as being as far reaching as any wartime measure. For example, some industries which would be directly affected and indirectly controlled involve uranium mines, mineral fuel mines, rubber industries, synthetic textile mills, carpet, mat and rug industries, petroleum refineries, petroleum and coal products, manufacturers of plastics and resins, paint and varnish, fertilizer and agricultural products. Even if we disregard the fertilizer and agricultural input, this board will control areas of Canadian industry which account for just under 20 per cent of the total Canadian gross national product. This board will be very, very powerful.
In wartime, the emergency is clear; there is no question about there being an emergency. Certain powers must be exercised by one central authority. At present there is no evidence of an emergency. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the Prime Minister have not given us any facts and figures on which to establish an emergency. They cannot even tell members in this chamber from whom they are getting this advice or who sits on the technical advisory committee. Who are the
December 12, 1973

people who tell us what sources of oil there are in Canada and what allocations need to be made?
We have encountered a situation in which prices are rising. There is an apprehended possibility >of a crude petroleum shortfall ranging from a high of 200,000 barrels a day to a low of between 10,000 and 15,000 barrels. It has become evident during the past few weeks that the 200,000 barrel shortfall is an upward limit; it is not a realistic figure or one we can anticipate realistically. The low figure seems much more reliable. Is this the type of emergency, uncertain as it is, which should move this House to give such sweeping powers to a five-man board, powers to supersede any law which might conceivably interfere with their discretionary powers? Is that sufficient reason for this House to vote confidence in the governor in council and in its five picked men who will control and, in effect, administer industries using petroleum, petrochemicals, plastics and coal? Perhaps Nova Scotia will lose its right to sell coal to the highest bidder, just as Alberta and other producing provinces will perhaps lose their right to direct the sales of petroleum.
The board would also control electricity. Perhaps development of Fundy tidal power and allocations of other forms of power would come under the board. More important, for that matter, the board would have power to override provincial constitutions and provincial interests. Mr. Speaker, this board would have power to enrich one company at the expense of another, one province at the expense of another. It would have power to override federal and provincial environmental laws and other federal statutes passed by this House. It would have power to do this under regulation passed by the governor in council.
That is not the worst of it. The legislation is open-ended; it will remain in force as long as the governor in council chooses to continue the program. Do we need this program, Mr. Speaker? Is the government entitled to ask for it at this stage of the game? My answer is no. The government is not concerned about international prices, because if it were it would have embarked upon a program of alternative sources of energy to replace petroleum, before petroleum runs out. We are looking at an expenditure of $40 million to be used in research and development of tar sands. Where is the research and development of solar energy, on hydrogen energy and other energy forms? The United States is setting aside $600 million for research and development with regard to solar energy. That is how important they think the petroleum crisis is.
This government thinks the present petroleum crisis is serious enough, true, and it wants to take short-term measures to increase supplies of forms of energy now being used. However, there are no measures before this House, and none have been suggested, for increasing the production of petroleum in Canada. The only measures put before us so far have to do with the allocation of existing oil supplies. Government planning and foresight is restricted to this winter and to making sure that Canadians have enough heat this winter. What has been said so far in this debate, I suggest, bears me out. The government's major concern is to make sure that Canadians have enough energy to heat their homes through the winter. It wants to make sure it retains the support of the
Energy Supplies Emergency Act NDP during the current heating season, if I may use a phrase used last week in a public pronouncement.
I have not heard of any programs, either in .place or anticipated, relating to uses of other forms of energy such as solar or wind energy which might be used to boost our electrical supplies. I have not heard of the development of technology for the harnessing of hydrogen energy, solar energy or a combination of solar and hydrogen energy. Canadians have a right to expect the federal government to be involved in these areas and to look to the future in order to protect us against some future energy crisis. The present crisis is one simply of rising prices. That, essentially, is the crisis we face in Canada. What will happen when the crisis becomes one of lack of supply? We will not be able to replace our supplies through the use of shortterm, ad hoc measures which we have become so used to seeing brought forward in this House.
I shall conclude by quoting extensively from an editorial which appeared in the Chronicle-Herald. In large measure it sums up the attitude which is natural to an easterner in the situation facing this House and this country and the manner in which the government has seen fit to deal with it. The editorial deals with the national oil policy brought forward last week by the Prime Minister. It reads:
Is it good "national" policy to offer firm price-freeze protection to consumers in the central and western regions but, at the same time, to hold out only "hope for the best" wishes for those in the east?
Does it help promote the cause of national unity for the government to tell the people in two-thirds of the country not to worry about price hikes any more this winter, but to offer no similar safeguard to the rest of us who live in the east where the price crisis is more severe?
Does it really mean very much to promise "early construction" of an extension to Montreal of the trans-Canada pipeline system- which travels only a fraction of the breadth of the country-at a time when there is a world shortage of pipe?
Will the proposed national energy corporation be able to do very much by way of playing its promised "significant role" in exploration for new oil-including that locked beneath the water off the east coast, and the Alberta tar falts, and the Arctic ice mass-with a penny-ante budget of only $8 million in each of the next five years?
What has emerged as Ottawa's answer to the energy crisis is a paste-up, patchwork piece of abstract with indefinite and undefined lines of approach, instead of a clear, readable, realistic blueprint to make Canada self-sufficient in energy production and delivery.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said, Bill C-236 is a gigantic intrusion into the life of Canadians. We have to recognize this for what it is. It gives the government tremendous powers of allocation, pricing and distribution. As someone said, it is the War Measures Act on economics or the War Measures Act on energy. The question we have to ask ourselves when giving a government this power is not whether somebody should have this power, because somebody already has it; it is whether we would prefer the government of Canada to have this power or to have it wielded, as in the past, by the multinational corporations of the world.

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I have some suspicion of power, but I know one thing, as do most Canadians: if we do not like what the government does, we can vote them out of office. We do not have that privilege with the multinational corporations of the world. I have no vote on the boards of Shell or Exxon. I have no say in their operations. They do not have to consult with me or please me in any way. There is no opposition to them. In the parliament of Canada, regardless of the power exercised in this bill, there are people who respond to the public will, and the public will make itself felt in this place.
I wanted to use that as a preamble and to indicate that on this side of the House we are not unaware of the kind of power it is possible to exercise under this bill. Whether the legislation is good or not is really going to be a matter of how interested the government is in exercising the legislation on behalf of the people. There can be a good bill before us with wide powers in it. Those powers can be used well, badly or not at all. It therefore becomes the responsibility of those of us who vote on the bill, and it is my intention to vote for it, to ensure the government is made aware of its responsibilities and is accountable to this House for what it does.
It has always been said in the private sector that oil is politics. Now, in the public sector, oil is politics. It will have to respond to the public will. There is an increasing need for governments to negotiate directly with governments. This bill will enable the government of Canada to negotiate directly with the government of Venezuela and make long-term agreements. Recently the government of Venezuela changed and they have a new attitude. What they are saying, and correctly so, is that oil is a depletable resource and they do not intend to continue sending it around the world until they run out and there is no future for their people. They intend to use oil as a bargaining weapon, not for political purposes or to further the foreign policy of Venezuela but to further the economic interest of their country and to ensure that when the oil runs out there will be some job-creating industry in its place.
You cannot get this kind of agreement by negotiating with the multinational oil companies. Venezuela does not wish to continue leaving its future in the hands of the multinational oil companies. It is willing to continue selling oil to Canada, but it wants to deal directly with the Canadian people. Admittedly, there are problems. The shipping is not in place; we are still heavily dependent on the multinational oil companies for shipping and transportation generally, as well as the marketing of oil. But that, too, can change.
If this bill does not do anything except make it possible for governments to deal directly with governments of other countries in order to further the mutual interests of those governments and their peoples, it will accomplish a great deal. It is worthy of support on that ground alone.
There is a great deal at stake in this entire business of energy. Obviously, there are differences of opinion as to how we should proceed. There are conflicts between the federal government and the provinces, between the provinces themselves, between private industry and the various governments and between nation and nation. This energy crisis provides Canada with a great opportunity to strengthen confederation. It also carries with it the danger

that it may weaken and strain confederation. Whether it does one or the other will depend in large measure on how we in this House respond to the energy crisis. There is a necessity to go beyond just discussing energy; we have to deal with many of the increases that have plagued this country and many of the increases that set one part of the country against another. When the government meets with the various provincial leaders I am sure that will be a subject of discussion. I hope that when the federal government goes to that meeting it will be prepared to go beyond the question of energy and look at the other matters that have to be settled in conjunction with energy. It is a great opportunity for development, and distribution of the rewards of that development to the Canadian people.
Canada is one of the most fortunate countries in the world. For a long time we thought it was the second most fortunate country in the world, the United States being the most fortunate: it had everything a little bigger than what we had. At the moment we have everything, including some things the United States does not have. If we want to take inventory or look at it in terms of raw materials, we certainly have them. If we look at it in terms of food supply, we are fortunate to have one of the most productive agricultural economies in the world.
While our industrial structure is not the greatest, it could become the greatest because we possess what is now an extremely rare commodity-energy. It may take a year or two to link this energy with places where it can most effectively be used, but this prospect, used as a bargaining base for expansion, could enable this country to develop in a way open to few other nations in the world. When I talk about development, I am not talking about unrestrained development as though development in itself was a perfectly satisfactory goal. I am talking about sensible development, controlled development, development which will provide not profits for corporations but benefits for the people of this country; opportunities for redistributing wealth to older people, people who are sick, people who need assistance and people around the world who are less fortunate than ourselves.
I do not think we should ever be tempted to say that we have the energy, we have the resources, and to heck with everyone else; everyone else can go away. The rest of the world will not go away. We have no right to make the world so envious that eventually this envy may turn to something unpleasant. We who are in a fortunate position have a responsibility to take care of ourselves and to provide a decent society for our citizens, it is true; but we also bear responsibility for assisting less fortunate people around the world.
The bill before us directly challenges the jurisdiction of the provinces in the use of energy. Under the terms of the British North America Act, the provinces own the resources within their boundaries. They own the nickel, the iron, the oil, the gas. But the minute those resources cross either provincial or international boundaries the question of jurisdiction becomes debatable. At the moment, the provinces are saying they not only own the resources but they have the right to move them anywhere they wish.
December 12, 1973

The federal government must challenge this concept. I am not saying it must immediately take provinces to court, because I hope this will not be necessary. But this concept ought to be challenged around the negotiating table and resolved, like most constitutional challenges, by agreement without necessarily sticking to the exact letter of the law. The BNA Act must surely be one of the most flexible constitutional instruments ever created. If an agreement is desired, it is always possible to reach one within the context of the act. I hope agreement will be reached around the negotiating table as a result of bargaining, the offer of quid pro quo. But if the difficulty cannot be resolved in this way, the issue is so serious to the country that the federal government must assert its authority and, if necessary, have the matter resolved in court. Bill C-236 directly sets up a situation which will result in such confrontation. I do not think resolution of this question can be deferred. It is not at all clear where the authority for this bill originates. It could be argued that since energy supplies are of critical importance to the health and well-being of our people, if not to their lives, the federal government could declare all energy sources to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces, and thus act under section 92(C). Alternatively, the bill could be brought to the House of Commons under the constitutional authority of the trade and commerce section, 91(2), or it may be, and this is probably the case, the federal government has brought it in under the emergency section. The assertion would be that an emergency situation exists in Canada and legislation is therefore possible under the section providing for action to ensure the maintenance of peace, order and good government.
Such an assertion could probably not be challenged as long as the bill was related to a specific time period. It seems to me, though, that this is an emergency which will not pass away in a few weeks' time or in a year from now. The whole issue of energy supplies and distribution is one which promises to involve this country in important decisions of far reaching consequences for many years to come, and for this reason it needs to be resolved soon to the greatest extent possible.
I shall leave it to historians to decide why the Liberal party has moved in connection with energy in a way few of us expected it to do. Many of us thought we would be concerned with an election this week instead of debating energy policy here. Looking at the situation today, it seems to me one of the reasons is that Canada was fortunate enough to have a minority government at a crucial stage in its history. Had there been a majority government, I doubt very much whether we would have seen as good an approach to the energy issue as now seems to be the case. The unhappy situation in the Middle East has certainly created difficulties for Canadians as well as for many other nations. However, it may turn out to be one of the occasions which caused Canadians to wake up to the need to do something about energy.
Looking over Canadian history, I have often been persuaded that the Canadian tendency to be affable and easy-going is a positive disadvantage at times. Canadians are seldom moved to do great things unless a crisis obliges them to take action. The Middle East situation has created a problem not only for us but for the entire world, since oil
Energy Supplies Emergency Act is now being used for diplomatic and political purposes. But in the end this may turn out to be a good thing for Canada. It may, as the expression goes, smarten us up to the need to make plans for our own future.
It is easy for members of the House to be critical of the Liberals. I know that members of my own party, and I myself, have been extremely critical of the Liberals for failing to build a pipeline to Montreal. Members of the Conservative Party have risen on numerous occasions to criticize the Liberals for not taking action in this field. I suppose one could go back to 1961 and say that the prime minister of that day lacked sufficient foresight. The point is, though, that Quebec did not want this pipeline. It would have been impossible to build a Montreal pipeline, given the attitude of the people of Quebec; there must be at least some willingness on the part of the people who reside in a province before a pipeline can be built there.
Members of my party have for years, in discussions with their colleagues in Quebec, urged upon them the need to build a pipeline. Only six or eight months ago, when we formed a special committee on energy to discuss this question with people in the provinces, I remember saying to one man in Montreal, "You may have trouble about ensuring a supply. A pipeline really should be built in Quebec." To which he replied, "I would rather trust the Arabs than Lougheed." That was the feeling at the time. We know the west has grievances. We know the people there are upset about bilingualism and some of the things they believe parliament is doing for Quebec and French Canada. But Quebec, too, has very real grievances.
It is an unfortunate fact in our history that these mutual suspicions have prevented us from doing what should have been done a long time ago, and that is to build a pipeline into Montreal. I think the time has passed for this kind of recrimination as to who thought about what first, and who warned whom about the crisis. The pipeline has to be built now: I think everybody would agree with that statement, including the people of Quebec.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his comments today during the question period tried to equate bilingualism with getting oil to Quebec. They involve different kinds of problems, and in some way this obscured his answers rather than contributed to a solution of the problem. While bilingualism is important to the people of Quebec, as they have a right to feel comfortable in their language in this country which is theirs and mine, they still need oil. One does not live by language alone. Oil is still important and we should see that we get it to them.
It may be that speculative speeches of this kind with reference to history and what history might think about us is of some value. If we consider the debate during the last couple of days, we will note it has been very difficult for speakers to be heard above some of the background music of various members. At least I am able to be heard; perhaps not listened to, but at least heard. I do appreciate not having to scream my words over the heads of all those around me. There may be some value to a speech of this kind that does not attempt to hack away at who is right and who is wrong in respect of this situation.

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
This may be sort of political heresy because the Mackenzie King argument which has always been made in this country-I say this with the greatest respect to the late Mackenzie King-is that the ideal political situation is a one-party situation. I am sure that when Mr. King spoke about one party he had in mind his own party as the chosen instrument. The ideal situation was for one party to in fact have some kind of strong presence in every single province, that there should be no visible division or confrontation in politics and that whatever differences existed, they should be ironed out within the peaceful, quiet confines of the cabinet room. In other words, you do this by negotiating while holding hands, letting no one see that the interests of Manitoba are not quite the same as the interests of Nova Scotia. The idea was that we must never let this happen.
Let me refer to the result of that kind of policy and then I will come back to the present situation. The result was that nothing was done. During this process of holding hands and bargaining with each other, no one was willing to do anything lest somebody's feelings were hurt in the process. The result was that all the problems were buried for us to deal with at a later date. Nothing was solved, the problems were simply postponed; and by postponing them they became exacerbated until we had to deal with them openly and realistically.
I wonder what might have happened if the situation had prevailed in which the Liberal Party had half the seats in Alberta or, if you want to really stretch the imagination, we had two or three seats in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Max Saltsman: What would have been the consequences of that situation? The consequences might have been a very moot approach to the whole question of energy and there would have been no confrontation. The winners in this kind of situation would have been the multinational oil companies, because it would be very easy to lay the blame as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) tried to do in respect of the force majeure clauses. He tried to say that if this diversion took place, it was not because the Canadian government wanted it that way but, rather, because the multinational corporations wanted it that way.
He tried to suggest that the force majeure argument was total nonsense and that in fact the multinational corporations have so much at stake and depend so much on the good will of the Canadian people and the Canadian government that they would not dare to oppose the will of the Canadian people if the government insisted. That is the kind of scenario we might have seen. The situation might have been a lot more visible in this country and some of the angry words said in this House might never have been expressed. Had that been the case, the nation would be much worse off. This is a much better way, that is, to see things as they are and try to deal with them in realistic terms.
I have no doubt that before long, in spite of some of the words that have been said, there will probably be a cartoon in one of our national newspaper showing the blueeyed leader of my party with his arms around the blue

eyed leader of the party in Alberta. The page will have a lot of blue and a lot of lovely words.
We will resolve this difficulty. We are not going to get into a crisis that will be so severe that confederation will fail. Some of the words being said now are frank and open, and they are necessary. They have needed saying for a long time, and we are saying them. We will resolve the problem, because the feelings of the people in my party toward the people of Alberta are certainly very friendly. We have a gentleman by the name of Grant Notley who makes sure they continue to be friendly. I am sure the people of Alberta do not really dislike us nearly as much as we have been told.


Mr. Bawden:: You are one of the nicer ones, anyway.


Max Saltsman: You see, that is the beginning of the detente when a big oil-driller says; "Well, that socialist is not all bad."


Peter Colwell Bawden: I didn't say that.


Max Saltsman: I will give you another few weeks, and perhaps we will be fortunate enough to hear that as well.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I said you may not be as bad as the rest of them.


Max Saltsman: I am suggesting that because there has been a minority parliament, because of the crisis in the Middle East, because of the fact that representation around the country has been lopsided and political situations in each party are somewhat different than they might otherwise have been, we have been able to grapple with the problem of energy in this country.
Today we have heard some lethal things from members of the Conservative Party, some of which seem to have echoed from the Liberal Party, about statements supposed to have been made by the Premier of the great province of Saskatchewan. An attempt is being made to sort of equate the words of the Premier of Saskatchewan with those of the Premier of Alberta. This cannot be done because the words are not the same. There are very distinct differences between the positions of those two provinces, which I think have to be stated at this time. I think anyone who has looked at the two statements or who has followed the debate will see that there is in fact a very considerable difference.
It is obvious that the first responsibility of the premier of any province, whether it be socialist or conservative, is to the people of his province. He must try to do the best he can for them. That is not an issue and no one is questioning or challenging that role. The question is, how does the premier envisage his role in the province in connection with confederation? Does he, as we have unfortunately seen in Alberta, have a willingness on behalf of the province to treat other Canadians as though they were another group of foreigners? The question is, does the premier say that because he can get $7 a barrel in Chicago, the rest of the people in Canada must pay $7? Does he suggest that he will do the rest of the country a big favour by making sure they get first choice; or does he say, as the Premier of Saskatchewan has said, we are going to try to get the maximum amount for the oil we export out of this coun-
December 12, 1973

try. We are going to establish a corporation that will in fact buy the oil at a set price designed to provide a profit and a good return to the oil companies, but the difference between that price and the international price will go to the people of the province rather than end up as a windfall gain to the multinational corporations?
When we talk about depletion allowances, I remember a conversation I had with the Hon. Ed Schreyer, Premier of Manitoba. We discussed depletion allowances and I said that we must get rid of them. He said no, we must get rid of them for the multinational corporations because they are not entitled to them. He said the people of the province were entitled to the depletion allowances; their resources were being depleted. If there were to be depletion allowances, that is where they should go.
I wish to refer to what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has said on many occasions in speeches in the House when referring to the export tax. He has repeatedly said that the revenue from the export tax should be returned to the province in which the resource originates, so that it could be put back in the form of exploration and development in that province and not be put into the coffers of the multinational corporations so that they can decide, if they wish, to go to Texas to do their exploration work because someone has given them a better deal than we have. That is what the Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan is doing. He is saying that for years the multinational corporations have taken their profits out of Saskatchewan and have not carried on exploration in the province. It is important that this exploration be carried on, not only for the people of the province but for the rest of the country. The premier is now saying that the windfall gains will in fact be used for further development. To do otherwise would be to turn the province over to the mercy of the multinational corporations which have no mercy. They have never forgiven Saskatchewan for being the first area of North America which saw the light and decided to act in the interest of its people rather than in the interest of the establishment.
That province challenged the structure of that society, and it needed a great deal of challenge. The multinational oil companies proceeded to buck that province on every occasion. If the province wanted to get a return to which it was entitled in the form of royalties or taxation, they said they would go to Alberta because Alberta would give them a better deal. They did roughly the same thing in British Columbia, but they ran into a pretty cool cat who raised the royalty 80 per cent and said to them that if they wanted to move out then that province would take the money and do its own exploring. The day of blackmailing provinces is over, as it should be over. It may not be over in all provinces, but it should be.
I want to go further into what the Premier of Saskatchewan said. He said that he understands the need for a two-price system in Canada, and recognizes there is a responsibility to treat the people in his own country somewhat differently than by extracting the world price from them. But he is also sensibly saying to the various jurisdictions and governments that although they are willing to do this, they have some grievances which must be recognized. He points out that the oil in the province will
Energy Supplies Emergency Act not last forever and that they will need to find other jobs for their people.
I think Saskatchewan has been doing quite well in terms of prosperity. The administration of the province has been good. I understand that agriculture has been coming along quite well but that a very severe problem is faced by Saskatchewan which will be faced by other provinces. While the prosperity may be there, this means bigger and bigger farms and more and more mechanization. It means the breaking down of small towns and the lowering of the population.
What sense does it make if Saskatchewan is on its way to becoming a rich province and does not have the population to sustain the basic infrastructure that is necessary? The Premier of Saskatchewan knows this. He is saying to the rest of us in Canada that they need industrial development-they need some but they are not looking to making it in southern Ontario-to sustain their cities and towns. It is more than just prosperity or revenue; it is a way to keep the sons and daughters of Saskatchewan at home and give them some opportunities, instead of their having reluctantly to leave because the prosperity which is being created and the jobs which are being created wind up somewhere outside of Toronto. That is sensible. He is asking for an adjustment in the transportation rates. I think that argument is highly exaggerated. I think when we get down to it we may find that the grievances are greatly exaggerated although in general they are deeply felt whether or not they are greatly exaggerated.
We should be sitting down with Saskatchewan to work out a new freight rate structure that the people there would consider fair. I think this can be done at relatively small cost. I believe it would be a price that the people of this country should pay and would be willing to pay if they are saying to Saskatchewan and to Alberta that they want lower prices for the resources in those provinces and want to be treated somewhat differently than those provinces are willing to treat foreigners. In such a case those provinces have a right to say, "Well, you treat me as though I am one of your own instead of a far-off brother or sister, and let us sit down and get some of these things worked out".
It seems to me that this statement of the Premier of Saskatchewan is very different from the kind of things we have been hearing from other sources. I think this is the kind of approach which we should grasp and the federal government should immediately start to meet with the people of Saskatchewan and begin working out these problems.
Then there is the question of farm price stability. We know that the sort of increases we have had in respect of farm prices have receded slightly. Food costs less now than it did a few months ago, and we have not had the kind of attitude that prevailed at that time. At the height of the food price increases the country would gladly have said to the farmer, "We will give you stability. Now keep the price from going up and up." The minute food prices start to drop, they forget about giving the farmer the stability he needs and the stability which every workingman wants and usually gets if he belongs to a trade union. Now is the time to start talking about farm price stability. This is what the Premier of Saskatchewan is saying. He
8684

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act does not want a boom and bust economy. I think they are entitled to an answer on this matter: it is one area with which we must deal.
I wish to go for a moment into an area which I love very much but with which I am afraid I am not too familiar. Recently I had an opportunity to visit Newfoundland and to talk to the minister of mines and resources there. The other day a brief came to my desk that said, "To all Newfoundland members and to Max Saltsman". So I assume that my visit gave me some sort of honorary status in that particular ministry.
The federal government has done a very bad job in developing the resources off the east coast. I do not want to go into a recital about how little we have given the land away for, or how little we have charged for acreage rights or drilling rights. The point is that the government has not co-operated. It is not a question of whether the share should be 50-50. I do not think the people on the east coast are really arguing the jurisdictional question; they are arguing the development question. The people on the east coast see an opportunity to improve their way of life, not just based on the royalties they will get from the oil but on the time it takes to develop it.
They want their universities to be given the jobs instead of, let us say, the engineering being sent to some place in Texas. They want the computer work to be done in their province-and they have the people who can do it- instead of being shipped off to New York for analysis. If there is a need for experts, it may take a little longer to train the people on the east coast because their familiarity with oil is recent; but they have shown their ability to be trained and they want their people trained. They want the rigs built there.
That is the value of development, not the fact that you will pull oil or gas out of the ocean and ship it somewhere else. That is valuable also, but it is rather similar to what John Maynard Keynes told Roosevelt with regard to ending the depression. He told him about deficit financing, and Roosevelt was a great advocate of a balanced budget during the 1930s. They say that Keynes was on his way back to England and Roosevelt said to him, "Surely you have something to say to us. You have been in this country for some while. What can we do?" Keynes said, "You know those abandoned coal mines in West Virginia? If you want to get rid of the depression, get together a number of tin cans, put a one dollar bill in each tin can and put them down at the bottom of the mine. Then hire many people who will fill up the mine and hire many people to dig out those dollar bills. When they get to the dollar bills, your depression will be over". That is a half-funny story with a great amount of truth attached to it.
In some ways the development of oil, the actual process, the training and the creation of facilities that goes on in the course of finding the oil, may do more for the development of the maritimes than the finding of the oil itself. This is the point, one that the federal government has been ignoring: the federal government should arrange meetings with the people of Newfoundland and people of Nova Scotia in order to come to a resolution of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is nearly up, and if you will restrain yourself for one moment may I conclude by thanking hon. members for listening to what I have had to say. I often enjoy interjections which provide me with an opportunity to exchange a few well-chosen or ill-chosen words with other hon. members. But this is one occasion on which I wanted to lay out what I think is a very hopeful program and a great opportunity for not only resolving the energy crisis in Canada, but also resolving many of the other difficulties that have been hanging-fire, in the process of doing something significant for the cause of confederation.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) for what I was going to say was an attempt to spread oil on troubled waters, but that is not an appropriate phrase at present. I might say that I hope his speech set the tone for the rest of the debate, which I think most of us want to come to an end because regardless of how we arrived at our problem, I think we all agree that there must be some system of allocation during the coming winter months to make sure that the people who need the oil we have will get priority in obtaining that oil, and not simply those of us who may have some access to the black market or some form of influence and in that way obtain priority to fuel oil to which the silent majority, particularly in the east of Canada, are entitled.
In essence, the allocation board concept is nothing more than simply to make certain that the supplies, if they have to be in short supply are allocated to the people who should have that type of priority, namely, the underprivileged, the under-employed, the people who need oil for heating, ahead of those people who want gasoline for pleasure driving.
Last night I heard a very thought-provoking speech by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). Although I did not agree with very much that he said, I was impressed by the manner in which he delivered it and by the very reasonable tone which he adopted which indicated that he understands the House of Commons and has the ability to make a point without becoming personal, which is, I hope, one of the characteristics of a good parliamentarian.
I think that the hon. member for Waterloo, in making his speech on national unity, at the same time quite astutely tried to rectify some of the impressions that may have been left by the Premier of Saskatchewan in his statement last evening. This is the way it should be, because those of us who have been around for 13 years know that in 1960, 1961 and 1962 this problem of national unity had a different connotation. At that time we were concerned with the question which the hon. member for Waterloo treated so eloquently, namely, the matter of national unity.
My role has been rather unique in the sense that I am one of a handful-a very small handful-of English-speaking members from the province of Quebec. We found ourselves in those days in the rather unique and sometimes lonely position of defending the federal point of view in the Quebec caucus and/or the Quebec point of view in the federal caucus all in the same morning. This is not the easiest role in the world for a member of parlia-
December 12, 1973

ment, nor has it been mine exclusively. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) is another member of parliament who in a way has always had one foot in each of the two solitudes that McLennan wrote about so eloquently more than 30 years ago.
It seems to me that what hurts Quebec members in this debate-in fact, not necessarily only in this debate; I say this in a spirit of friendship-is the constantly repeated charge that possibly Quebec members have sold out their province. Some hon. members opposite asked me during the lunch hour why this upsets Quebec members. "After all," they said, "it is a debate and we are only making political points". However, to be charged with selling-out the province has a particular connotation for a Quebec member that may not be quite apparent to people who do not come from that province.
For so many years those of us from Quebec, particularly the French-speaking members from Quebec who have sat in the House of Commons, have been charged with precisely the same thing, that they are selling-out the province. They have been charged with that by the separatist movement in Quebec. This rankles French-speaking Canadians who, despite the taunts of the separatists, chose to run for federal office, whether they were running for the NDP, for the Creditistes-as many of them have-for the Conservatives or for the Liberals. One thing we had in common is that we had all opted for federalism rather than separatism, and we did not think we were selling-out our province by standing in the House of Commons and endorsing the federal system, despite the fact that we had to stand this kind of abuse and vilification from the separatists in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: So the connotation that we sold-out our province in those days was related to something entirely different, but not so different. Frankly and bluntly, it was related to the fact that many French-speaking members in this House opted for federalism despite the fact that working conditions in 1962 and 1963 were entirely different. This was at a time when presidents of Crown corporations might have said there was no room on their directorships for French-speaking Canadians, with the implication that they did not have the necessary intelligence or knowledge.
We knew differently, and they knew differently. It was difficult for them, despite these unintentional insults, to remain faithful to federal principles at a time when the wave in Quebec was diametrically opposed. So they have a right to feel a little proud of themselves, and not only the Liberals but the French-speaking members of the Conservatives and the Creditistes. When the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, last week said that to all intents and purposes the separatist movement is on the wane and that the French Canadian population have opted for federalism, I would point out that it was due in no small part to the participation of Quebec members in the parliament of Canada. And when they are accused, in another context, of having sold-out their province on the energy policy, they get a little angry.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Really, Mr. Speaker, what have they done? Once again they have had to go back to their province and say, "For the sake of national unity and federalism we must accept this energy policy, even if it means that we pay more for our fuel oil this winter as compared with the rest of Canada, particularly west of the Ottawa Valley line. But once again we are prepared to make this compromise because above all we are Canadians first and Quebeckers second."
Of course, it is difficult for a member to go home to a riding in Quebec or the Maritimes and say, "Look; we have really had the best of it for many years." And, Mr. Speaker, we must not take anything away from the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) whose oil policy meant the development of oil reserves in the west. Without the captive market created by that policy, with cheap oil coming into the eastern provinces and filtering back into the western provinces, the oil industry in the western provinces could not have been developed. We understand that. We also understand how in 1969 the Conservatives recommended an extension of the pipeline to Montreal on the recommendation of Mr. Nichol, a former member of this House. It was not recommended because of any energy crisis that might arise; there was a desire to broaden the market for Alberta oil because of the quotas placed by the United States on the flow of oil from Alberta into the United States. This is logical and understandable. In other words, the time had arrived for it. The oil industry in Alberta had matured to the point where it could be competitive in supplying all the fuel oil needs for all of Canada and not just a part of it.
In other words, the protection provided to the oil industry in Alberta by the Ottawa Valley line was no longer necessary and people asked why oil from Alberta should not be exposed to a larger market. I agree with that concept. That is why there was agitation in those days to extend the pipeline. It was not because of concern that Quebec and the Atlantic provinces would be short of fuel, but in order to provide a larger market for Alberta oil which was restricted from flowing into the United States by the quotas set on the number of barrels that the United States would allow to be imported.
Earlier today the hon. member for Cambridge-Waterloo spoke very eloquently and with deep emotion, as he is quite capable of doing, being one of our better members. I may say that my participation in the debate the other evening was motivated by a discussion I had with a relatively new Canadian, someone who arrived here as a landed immigrant six or seven years ago and who has since taken out his citizenship papers. He has become a very wealthy businessman, and he appreciates this country more than most of us do. He talked about the fact that his business necessitated his travelling right across Canada. He talked about the magnificent coastline of British Columbia, which resembles the coastline of Norway. He talked about the tremendous experience he felt the first time he flew over the Rockies and saw the magnificent sight of that wonderful mountainscape. He talked about seeing the wheat in the prairie provinces just before harvest. He went on to talk about the industrial
26695-37 J

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
might and greatness of Ontario, and about the strange independence of the people in the Atlantic provinces.
He wanted to know why we did not protect our country better against assimilation. I was able to tell him that in reality we had done that. He was unaware of what we had done. I told him that because we had two official languages, and a wonderful culture in Quebec that was unique and different, these in themselves were protection against assimilation by our friendly neighbours in the United States. I told him that although we were exposed to U.S. television, magazines, radio and newspapers there was no way in which our magnificent culture would disappear, and as Toynbee once said, it would be the last, along with the Chinese people, to remain on the face of the earth. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that the French culture will ever disappear or be assimilated because of our proximity to the United States; and it should not, because that would be not only Quebec's loss but Canada's loss as well. It is one of our safeguards against assimilation by the English element in the United States.
I was able to explain to this relatively new Canadian that Canadians tend to have an inferiority complex and that we move very slowly. Other hon. members have commented on this. But it is significant that we have placed on the statute books legislation that for all time prevents our newspapers and magazine publications being sold to non-Canadians. I said that we had made it impossible for radio and television to be controlled by outside interests, and that we made it impossible for the banks, finance companies and other financial institutions to be controlled by non-Canadians. So, Mr. Speaker, slowly but surely we have protected ourselves. We have protected our Canadian identity. Now, suddenly, people in other countries are looking at Canada with a tremendous degree of envy and respect.
Just the other night there was an article in the Globe or the Montreal Star telling of Canadians who had left this country 10 or 15 years ago and who had returned for a visit. They expressed their amazement at the maturity of the country, not only at the joie de vivre of Montreal but also finally of Toronto, thanks to the new Canadians who made that once bland city more exciting.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, I do think that as politicians we tend to forget and underestimate the intelligence of the average Canadian, not only the man in the board room but the man who fishes out of a dory off the Atlantic provinces or Newfoundland, the man who goes into the coal mines in Cape Breton, the French-speaking Canadian who works in the woods, the iron worker at Blairmore, the man digging coal in the interior of Alberta, all of whom are not unaware that there is a serious problem. They seem a little more concerned about the energy problems than the normal problems we talk about daily in the House of Commons. We tend to forget that everything we consider a crisis is not a crisis 15 miles or 15 minutes away from the House of Commons. We become very disruptive and bitter in our exchanges, and periodically Canadians do pause and look at the House of Commons and wonder whether or not we are concerned about the vital things.
That is exactly what is happening in this energy issue. The people in the Atlantic provinces are concerned and

fearful about whether they will have oil at all this winter, if the winter happens to last long or if events beyond our control take place, such as escalation of war in the Middle East. That is what this allocation bill is really all about. This is also true of the people of Quebec. Then there are the people who are most unfortunate, the working poor and the underprivileged who are worried about the price of oil even if it is available. They are looking to us in Ottawa for leadership.
Whether the NDP supported our policy or not, I can say that we would not have worried about an election on the energy issue in February. There would be no better issue for a government to go to the people on and to be able to reply, "We were forced into an election on the energy crisis by a majority in the House," when Canadians would ask, "Why aren't you in parliament looking after our problem, instead of running around the country trying to get re-elected?" This election would not have been a problem even if thousands would have been disenfranchised by blizzard or snow. Whether the New Democratic Party supported our energy policy or not was immaterial, because politically speaking it would have been a great issue for the Liberal Party to say they were forced to go to the country rather than stay in the House of Commons and do what they were elected to do some months ago- that is, look after the rights and problems not only of the people of the west or of Quebec but of all Canadians.
We Canadians are not particularly concerned about the constitution; indeed, many have never read the constitution. All they know is that there is something wrong with energy at the moment, that we are short of it; and they want to know if they are going to get it this winter and if they are going to be able to pay for it. This is the fundamental question that the House is seized with. Some might ask what this has to do with national unity. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have waged one war in the last ten years in this House that was the stumblingblock to real unity in this country.
As I have said, we are different from Americans but we are not anti-American. I do not think anybody in this House would want anyone as a neighbour but the Americans, despite their problems. That does not mean to say that we want to be American, and being pro-Canadian does not necessarily mean that we are anti-American or anti-anyone. We have our own identity. We are a country that in a sense has developed the wrong direction-from west to east rather than from north to south. We have the problems of a vast country three or four thousand miles in length; we have regional differences and cultural differences. In this country transportation means as much as it does in Russia. But basically-and probably this confuses political scientists all over the world-we stay together.
There is something unique about the people who live in this country, and we want it to remain that way. Nobody wants to remain in Canada more than the people of Quebec. They have made that clear in this House and in the provincial election in a virtual referendum. They are saying, "If the price of remaining in Canada means we have to be a little more tolerant, a little more patient toward obtaining equality in the public service, equality in language, equality in job opportunities, if we have to
December 12, 1973

wait a little longer for the rest of the country to understand that what we are asking for is not special advantage but equality in the areas where we are different, we are prepared to wait if it is the price of remaining in Canada."
Mr. Speaker, what has worried me in the last week has not been the attitude of Quebec; there has not been a flare-up over separatism which Premier Bourassa has said is fairly well controlled, and I think we all agree with that. It is not even because we have been accused of selling-out our province, which is an insult which I hope is never repeated by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who is a tolerant and decent man, or his lieutenant, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who should know better. We have never sold-out our province on the question of federalism and we are not about to do it now. If we were to do that, we would be straining national unity because there is no answer to equality of fuel prices in this country without raising the price of fuel to the west. That is hardly a progressive policy and it is not one that we are asking for.
We are asking for two things, and I think the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge touched on them very eloquently. We are terrified at the growth of regionalism. It is one thing for the premier of a province to say, "This is our iron ore," if it is Quebec; "This is our potash," if it is Saskatchewan; "This is our oil," if it is Alberta; "This is ours under the constitution, but we are prepared to share it with other Canadians only if they are prepared to negotiate for what is ours". These minerals and resources are not the governments', not the premiers', but the minerals and resources of the people of Saskatchewan, the people of Alberta and the people of Quebec who are Canadians first and provincial residents second.
That has been the whole story of Canada for 100 years or more. If we had not been able to meet various crises, we would not be together today because naturally, geographically and in every other way, we should not be a country. It does not make sense economically. We get our satisfaction from the fact that we are a unique nation, a tolerant nation and one that has never had to kill in order to be a nation. These are the things that the average Canadian understands and appreciates, perhaps more than the politicians.
The threat to federalism and national unity, as I understand it, has virtually disappeared in so far as any problems are concerned about the role that French-speaking Canadians are to play in confederation. But there are new strains that should not be there-the strains caused by people who presume that they are speaking for everybody in their province when they say, "This is our energy, our mineral wealth, our iron ore and you can have a share provided you negotiate". This is the kind of talk you might get if you negotiated with the United States. But we are talking about Canadians negotiating with Canadians. If this were carried to its absurdity, we would not be a federal country; we would be a loose connection of ten different countries, some rich and some poor. This is not what we are looking for, a loose federation of ten states or countries. We are one country and we want to stay that way.
It is much more logical for the premiers of the provinces to say, "Look, we have a transportation problem and it is
Energy Supplies Emergency Act time, 100 years after confederation, that it was solved. "I can understand that. But in the next breath they say, "If you will not solve it, you will not get our oil." When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) describes that as blackmail, he is right.


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it was said. If I wanted to, I could cut that member down in about 35 seconds but I do not have the time to waste on him. If we are going to remain as a country, we do not want to remain as ten loose states very, very loosely joined together by some sentimentality. All of us have to, as they say in French, "Put a little water in the wine". The proof of this will come at the end of January when the premiers have a chance to sit down and discuss the problems common to all Canadians and to make this a better country in which to live. If that conciliatory attitude does not prevail, then we run the risk of balkanization. But Canadians in every province-the man I mentioned in Blairmore, the logger in French Canada, the industrial worker in Ontario, the fisherman in the Atlantic provinces and the enterpreneur in the Atlantic provinces-will tell their premiers, "You may stand for balkanization, but we do not. We stand for one country, and if necessary a strong central government in this particular area".
That is the threat to confederation at the moment, Mr. Speaker-people who have illusions of grandeur and do not represent the mandate under which they were elected. We on our side must not misunderstand our role either. Our role is to be the mediator between the provinces-the have provinces and the have-not provinces-so that the solution arrived at means that everybody gains. Private industry has a chance to prosper and get a decent return on its money and thus be encouraged further to develop. If it had not been encouraged in the past to develop and explore, we would not have the oil in Alberta now. There has to be a happy balance maintained between an honest return to private industry, a fair price to the Canadian people and an understanding of what federalism is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Ottawa, December 12, 1973
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Senate chamber today, December 12th, 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.
The communication is addressed to the Speaker of the House of Commons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey). The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), who spoke earlier on this bill, suggested that this bill represents a gigantic intrusion upon the rights of private business which goes far beyond just control of oil companies. It will intrude upon the rights of paint companies, plastics companies and will control, possibly, even the Mississauga hydroelectric commission which serves my constituents. It constitutes a total invasion of the rights of almost all business as it is difficult to imagine any industry or occupation in which fuel or energy, to use the word now in vogue, is not required.
Sir, the only possible ground for emergency legislation such as this would be a real and serious emergency. I feel strongly that the alleged emergency is being created as a result of lack of leadership, lack of direction, and possibly has been induced, as the hon. member for Verdun suggested, to make many Canadians feel that there is a problem in this area. It is about time the government said that we have all the oil we can possibly use in this country and that the only problem in amount concerns delivery; that we have all the nuclear energy we need-indeed, mines are being closed down-until the next century; that we have so much coal we do not know what to do with it and are shipping it boatload by boatload to Japan at prices which do not really pay. There really is no shortage whatsoever of energy in this country. There may be a problem with regard to petroleum pricing and with regard to petroleum delivery, but that does not constitute a national emergency.

Sir, I suggest that there really are not great difficulties with regard to delivery of supply either. The minister has said that perhaps we will be short by 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, at the maximum. Yet suddenly we find that Mr. Shaheen can come up with 100,000 barrels of product, that we can ship 85,000 barrels a day through the Panama Canal and that we can ship between 40,000 and 60,000 barrels per day, depending on what day's figures you use, by ship and train-


An hon. Member:: Nuts.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -to the Montreal market. It strikes me that the problem does not involve supply so much as price. Certain countries in the world are taking advantage of the Arab-Israeli war and attempting to get blackmarket prices for their product. We are big enough in Canada to handle that situation without emergency legislation which would give the minister and the governor in council, on the basis of a suspected difficulty, the right to engage in this iniquitous, gigantic interference which would involve the activities of almost all private businesses in this country.
When we grant War Measures Act-type priorities to a government we must be very careful. Earlier this year, when there was a railway strike, it took members about 48 hours to return to the House, to get down to business and solve that problem. Not long ago, when a certain country decided to embark on the DISC program, members of parliament were rushed to this place to handle that problem. We returned pretty quickly and debated that measure. We should give the government only those powers it needs to handle specific instances involving specific problems. Must we give it carte blanche power over every business in this country merely because the government says there might be an emergency? In any event, the emergency seems to relate to price, and only to price in certain parts of the country.
Speaking of prices, my party has advocated in this House an incomes policy which would attack our real difficulty, the monster inflation caused by a government that does not care. When it was suggested to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the people of eastern Canada would not want a price freeze, he suggested they could freeze.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We advocated a comprehensive policy to cover inflation. We will not get that, sir, merely by giving power to some board which happens to sit in Ottawa, which is to be made up of five nameless individuals who will have the right to dictate how private business and industry in this country shall be carried on. We shall encounter difficulties involving the auto pact. As shortages of petroleum will induce people not to buy so many cars, we shall encounter difficulties with our neighbour to the south. We ought to anticipate those difficulties. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) ought to go to the United States and head off those problems before they arise or before we are hit with United States emergency legislation or some change in the auto pact.
We might have difficulties with other trading partners. We might be concerned about dropping stock market
December 12, 1973

prices and the feeling that perhaps business conditions in the United States, our greatest trading partner, will not be too good next year. But that is no reason for establishing an emergency energy allocation board. We need leadership. We need government assurance to the effect that, yes, there are some trading problems in the world and, yes, there will be some price problems, but Canada is self-sufficient in every conceivable form of energy right now. We need government assurance that energy has a top priority for Canadians, that we are going to use that energy to develop Canada for Canadians, and Canadians will not go short. We should be told that while Canadians may have to pay a little more in price, in some cases, that price increase can be mitigated by a government which is concerned about its people's problems.
One of our problems is that we have not yet determined an all-Canada oil policy. On September 4 the Prime Minister finally suggested a pipeline to Montreal. In this House, on December 6, he again talked about that pipeline. Today and last week in this House we asked about that pipeline. We want to know how big it will be. The government has not yet even determined where the right of way will be. Have they ordered any steel? Not on your life! We heard about possible discussions with the Interprovincial Pipeline company. There has not yet been an application to the National Energy Board to build the pipeline. The most basic preliminary work has not yet been done-and these fellows to my left voted for this government because they thought they had a national oil policy.
If the refineries are going to get organized, drilling is to begin and people are starting to work, there must be some incentive. One incentive to the oil industry must be a clear declaration that within a firmly limited period of time the Canadian oil industry will have a monopoly on sales in the Canadian market, that we are going to deliver Canadian oil to Canadians and we will at least have a base market for Canadian producers. That is one thing that had better be said soon. Can a company be expected to build a pipeline to Montreal today, ship oil there, and tomorrow when the world price drops find there is no market for what comes out of that pipeline? Of course you cannot expect that. That is why there is a problem in connection with who will finance the pipeline.
Would anyone finance a pipeline to cover a problem that will last a year or two, and then let the pipe-line rust? Under all conceivable circumstances surely we must build a pipeline that will solve the Canadian market problem, and that market should be assigned to Canadians. It is time we had such a leadership decision from this government. Unless we get leadership decisions, the problem will not be solved in terms of delivery.
We can tell people in Alberta not to turn on their lights. We can tell people in Saskatchewan not to drive their cars over 50 miles an hour. We can do what the province of Saskatchewan has done, namely, keep more oil in the ground for the reason they cannot sell it as it cannot be delivered. Isn't that intelligent? That is the kind of leadership we have been getting. That is one of the serious problems Canadians are facing.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I visited my constituency on the weekend. The people there wondered about this government. I, too, wonder about them. This bill not only controls petroleum but every other source of energy that is said to be a substitute for petroleum. It controls electricity, coal and nuclear energy. We have no shortages of those sources of energy at any point in this country. I do not know of any company that is short of coal and cannot buy all it wants. I know of no hydro power commission that is short of uranium and cannot buy all it wants. Indeed, we will be selling it to Japan for the next umpteen years.
I know of no problem in connection with natural gas. The information we have is that there is plenty of capacity in the pipeline for the delivery of that product. There is a pretty fair reserve of that product, yet this government insists on saying in this legislation that these other items of fuel are also to be controlled. When there is no conceivable shortage, no price problem and no delivery problem, how can the government have the audacity, unless it has much more on its mind, to even suggest that these alternate fuels be controlled?
I want to speak for a moment about pricing. For a number of years before coming here I was involved with Scout work. I remember running a camp in Muskoka for many years. The first time we went to that camp there was a lot of firewood around. As camp cook, it was very easy to chop down a tree and cut it up for firewood right on the spot. Not much energy was involved in that. However, after several years it was necessary to bring in firewood from about a mile away. That is very much like the situation in the oil industry. We have had cheap oil for a number of years. We probably have enough relatively cheap reserves to last us for the next ten years. We could do what the New Democratic Party suggests and freeze the price at the actual cost of production from these relatively cheap sources. We could have controlled cheap prices for Canadians for probably the next eight to ten years.
However, during that period there would be no research; no money would be spent in developing the heavy oils of Alberta and Saskatchewan; no money would be spent on the tar sands; no money would be spent elsewhere. The oil companies involved would have no incentive to go out and find high-cost oil. Their prices would have been frozen so they would make a profit on their present reserves. They would lose money if they explored and developed high-priced reserves because of the freeze. We must have a policy that encourages companies to develop these high-priced possibilities.
We may well need to have a situation where staged increases are allowed in all prices of oil products providing they are used in the course of developing further reserves. It may be we will have to use the only thing that business will understand, profit-and I see nothing wrong with that word-to allow most companies the freedom of movement to start developing new sources of supply, and on that basis perhaps be able to charge a little higher price at this time to encourage them.
One of the major concerns which I have is that the bill binds Her Majesty in the right of the Crown and, I suppose, binds the provinces. I can see no other reason for that clause in the bill. One of the questions raised here

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
goes to the whole issue about which the hon. member for Verdun spoke. It is the question: What kind of Canada do we expect? Today I was ashamed to hear the Prime Minister say something in this House of Commons about the attitude of the members from Alberta toward bilingualism. I note, Mr. Speaker, that one Alberta member formerly occupied your chair as Speaker of this House. That member is fluent in both official languages.
I would remind the Prime Minister that many members from Alberta and, indeed, from other parts of Canada who, like myself, live in areas where very little French is spoken, are making such efforts as are possible to speak and understand both languages. For the Prime Minister, a man who should know better, a man who should be concerned about the unity of this country as a national leader, to make a comment of that kind shows an insensitivity which I deeply resent. I call attention to the speech which the right hon. gentleman made in Vancouver over the weekend in which he castigated the Premier of the province of Alberta. It has been suggested the Premier of Alberta acts like a sheik. We have seen other sheiks since then in this country.
I say the province of Alberta would be much better off today had it cut back production. The price of oil is going up, and perhaps Albertans should raise theirs and do something to make the rest of us feel the pinch. But hon. members opposite know as well as I do that far from taking action of this kind, Alberta has encouraged further production, further pumping of its wells. It has encouraged the shipment of more oil than is necessary for the British Columbia market so that tankers can be filled for delivery to the east coast of Canada, all at a time when the price of oil to the province has been frozen at approximately $4 a barrel.
If the Premier of Alberta were not a Canadian, if he were really operating in the interests of the multinational corporations, his first action would be to cut back production of oil in the province to last year's levels. He would ensure that any further deliveries were paid for at the full market price. And if there were a price freeze in this country, as there seems to be-and I will say more about that later-he would refuse to sell any more oil until that freeze had been lifted. But the Premier of Alberta is a Canadian first. He is the kind of person who, by his leadership in western Canada, will do a great deal to make this country one Canada. The attitude of the federal government in seeking to be divisive, in seeking to destroy the unity of Canada, can only be described as despicable.
Some time ago it was suggested there was a price freeze in this country with regard to oil. In fact there has never been a price freeze in connection with oil. What we see is a voluntary arrangement between the leading oil refineries to keep their prices within certain realistic limits: that is all. There is no freeze. There is nothing which would prevent Imperial Oil, for instance, raising its price in Toronto tomorrow. There is no legislation which would prevent such action. There is no incomes policy or prices and incomes board which determines what the retail price should be. It is true there is a tax which is supposed, indirectly, to keep the price of crude in Canada lower than the world price, but there is no certainty that this arrange-

ment results, in fact, in lower prices for Canadian consumers.
On my way to Ottawa on Monday morning I was talking to a person from Detroit who happens to be organizing the world energy conference which is to take place in Detroit in September. I spoke to him casually about the price of gasoline. It turned out that in Ontario, in Mississauga, I am paying approximately the same price for gas as he is in Detroit. I wonder what is really happening. I suspect that in Detroit he is buying gasoline extracted from Canadian crude. I suspect, too, that he is burning gasoline in respect of which an export tax has been paid. But it seems to make no difference when it comes to what I have to pay for gasoline at my Imperial pump.
I wonder when the government is going to turn honest and apply a real price freeze at the retail level as part of a total incomes package which will, at least, attempt to halt the present rampant inflation and benefit consumers instead of clinging to a tax which, though supposed to be to the advantage of Canadians, does very little, if anything, to assist them. Advocates of the tax have suggested its purpose is to recapture windfall profits made by oil companies. We are dealing here with a most important matter. Surely, Canadians should receive the full world price for their oil; surely the price structure must be such as to enable Canadians to take advantage of the fact that they are Canadians by buying Canadian oil products at prices cheaper than world prices. This has been recognized both by the sheik from Saskatchewan and by Peter Lough-eed, the Premier of Alberta.
I, too, am disturbed, as was the hon. member for Verdun, by the suggestion that a province could use its resources to bargain for other advantages through confederation. I thought this was a bad precedent. Nevertheless, the reason for this attitude is, I suggest, the way in which the government has treated the provinces in the past, not only in the energy field but in the transportation field and on the issue of industrial development. The government does not really care about those provinces. It has simply told them what it intends to do: it has operated on a principle of confrontation.
Mr. Speaker, in a situation like that, when one person declares unilaterally that he will tax the resources of your province, the next thing that happens is that the person who has been treated in this fashion acts, or reacts, in the same fashion. It is impossible to develop a spirit of community in Canada on the basis of the concept of two lawyers engaged in a lawsuit, or of two businessmen competing with each other at an auction. This whole atmosphere of confrontation in dominion-provincial relations is one which ought not to arise and did not arise before this Prime Minister became Liberal leader. This has been the climate over the past four years and it is about time it changed because it is not doing Canada any good.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested today in a question that this bill and the matter of the tax on resources be postponed until after the January 21 to 23 conference. I think that was a sensible suggestion. This bill and the tax have set in motion taxes and legislation by the provinces which to some extent, or perhaps

completely, control these resources. So if we go ahead and pass this bill, at that conference table the Prime Minister will say to the provincial leaders," I will tell you what I am going to do. I am going to take over your resources."
That is no way to solve the problems of confederation. Heaven knows, this country, with its five separate regions and its economic differences, is hard enough to govern anyway; you certainly cannot govern it with confrontation, by tweaking noses and with no consultation. To pass this measure and the ways and means motion on the order paper, and not to have this conference, is to say, "This is what you are going to do boys. That is the way it is. We have taken over." If we do that we will have problems. Those problems will not just be in western Canada; they will be in eastern Canada, because no settlement has been made in respect of the claims by eastern Canada as to who has the right to give permits for drilling off the Atlantic shore, or who is entitled to the royalties. This whole question is compounding the problems of our nation, and we will not solve them by the Prime Minister writing to the premier and telling him what he is going to do, or by standing in this House stating policy and making tax announcements without consultation in respect of provincial resources.
I say to you, sir, and to this House that it is about time we got with it. We realize there is a lot of good will on the other side and that the premiers of the provinces which have petroleum are quite prepared to have this petroleum sold to all Canadians at one price, a price that is considerably lower than the world price.


An hon. Member:: They don't have any choice.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Where did you come from?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why don't you go back to bed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We are not going to solve these problems by confrontation. If we continue to tweak their noses, and continue to push the interests of central Canada against the resource provinces, we are not going to keep confederation together-and that is a pretty serious matter. Therefore, I suggest to this House that this bill be deferred. Let us stop the debate on it, adjourn the House and come back after that meeting. If there is urgency why can the meeting not be held a little earlier than January 21 or 23?
When we come to the question of this whole energy or supply problem and the development of a petrochemical resource industry, about which there is no problem right now, we have been told by environmentalists and everybody else that if we keep pumping out oil the way we are now, we will not have any. We have already been told that we have enough oil in the tar sands, which we have known about for 200 years, to last this country into the indefinite future. But those resources cannot be developed until we get rid of some red tape. Let me refer particularly to the Syncrude deal. The province of Alberta, together with private interests who know something about how to extract the oil from the tar sands, made an arrangement to split the profits. I know the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has said there will not be any profits and he is probably right. There probably will not be any profits until the machinery and the exploration costs are paid off.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act I understand that the oil sands company has lost $90 million so far, so there have not been any profits.
In any event, the province of Alberta and the Syncrude group have made arrangements to split the profits when there are some, instead of there being so many cents royalty per barrel. That is a pretty fair deal. But unless you get it out of the ground, put it in barrels or put it in a pipeline and make gasoline from it, it is not worth a darn. We have known about these tar sands for 200 years, but in their present state they do not represent money. You cannot put the tar sands in the bank any more than you can have money in terms of payroll taxes, sales taxes or corporation taxes to pay for some of the social legislation in respect of housing problems, crowding in cities and slums, and the rest of it, unless you get at this problem and use our resources for the betterment of Canadians. Oil in the ground does not do a thing for us any more than does the uranium in our closed-down uranium mines.
There is another matter we must consider. In respect of a petrochemical industry we must have a total industry. Here again we need leadership from the federal government. At the present time there are tariffs against our products going into the United States, and I have in mind plastics, resins and things such as garbage bags. The United States is happy to take our crude, but not too happy to take our other products unless they are subject to tariff. It is about time we had some leadership from the federal government to the extent that it should be said to the United States, "If you want our oil, you will also have to give us a pretty good deal in respect of tariffs, or indeed no tariffs at all on our petrochemical products." That is the kind of action we should have from the federal government.
We should have a federal government which understands that there are undeveloped parts of this country where people want jobs, and that those jobs can be created by using the commodity resources of this nation. With a world desperately short of oil and with a country which buys more oil from us than we in fact consume, why should we sell it as crude? Should we not be negotiating for the development of a petrochemical industry in this nation, particularly in the western provinces? It requires federal leadership to encourage the development of the oil resources of this country, but we have not heard a word from the Prime Minister as part of his oil policy in respect of that issue. I notice the time is getting on, but I should like to continue for a minute of two.


Mr. McKinley:: You have three minutes yet.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oil companies in this country are pretty mobile outfits. I was quite interested the other night to hear on the national news that a Canadian oil company is exploring for oil in Viet Nam. I know that Canadian oil companies are exploring for oil in the United States and in the North Sea. One of our problems is to develop a business climate which will encourage these Canadian oil companies to come back to Canada to explore here. But what do we get from this government?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Macdonald.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is what we get, Macdonald. We get the suggestion of an export tax that goes up and up, but
8692

December 12, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
we get no suggestion about a guaranteed market or less corporate taxes. We get uncertain policies and the concept of the government going into the oil business with a national oil company. You know, they are even going to drill. Really, what do we get out of this? I suggest we get confusion and uncertainty in the business community, particularly in the oil industry. They do not have to drill in Canada. There are great markets for oil in Europe. They can go to the South Seas and drill and take their money, their crews, their knowledge and technology out of Canada and away from us. This is no way to build Canada: it is the way to destroy it. This is the kind of policy we face with a government and an oil policy which is really an NPD policy.
I am told about all the enormous profits these large international oil companies make, so today I decided to look at the stock market because I figured that maybe that is the place to put one's money. I find in respect of that terrible company, Gulf Oil, with its rotten American president, that its stock was selling for $40.25 earlier this year and now, with this terrible emergency and with prices going up and up, it is down to $31.25. This is such an enormously big company that it pays a 70 cent dividend for a return on an investment of 2.15 per cent. The same kind of thing applies to Imperial Oil. It pays 2.14 per cent.
Sir, a lot of this stuff is verbiage that we get from this side which seems to control the other side. It is nonsense. If they are making too much money and this is the greatest place to be and to invest, I am shocked to see that their stocks have been dropping so much. I wonder how much of the stock is held by members of the New Democratic Party, because they have lots of talk but when it comes to working, producing and creating wealth in this country we do not get anything from them except national socialism. We also get the kind of legislation which has come from the government in the form of this bill. Sir, I notice it is just about the witching hour, so before I sit down I should like to read to you the kind of regulation and statute this is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. I am sure he was about to place on the record something all hon. members would like to hear, but in order to do so he would have to have the unanimous consent of the House because his time has expired. Even for one minute the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
I do not think hon. members heard me very clearly. I inquired whether there was unanimous consent, and there did not appear to be. In order to be fair to the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) I will inquire again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will assume there is consent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House. I just wish to refer the House to page 10, subclause 2 of clause 16 which provides:

A regulation under this act may be conditional or unconditional, qualified or unqualified, and may be general or restricted to a specified area or a specified controlled product, a specified supplier or wholesale customer or a specified mediate or immediate use of a controlled product.
This is the kind of thing we must prevent. This really cannot be honest, worth-while legislation.


VACANCY IN ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF BATTLE RIVER
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Harry Kuntz, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Battle River, by decease. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-236, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada and to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, we have heard in the last few minutes about jobs in Canada. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that there are a great many jobs in this country that are dependent very directly on the oil and gas industry. Many of these jobs are concentrated in the province of Alberta. However, they are not restricted to the province of Alberta. The people employed in this industry are spread out right across Canada. This includes British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. As a total sum, 275,000 people are employed directly in this industry. In addition to this direct employment, there is a ripple effect which indirectly covers a considerable multiple of this basic figure.
Just this past week I had a call from a resident of the town of Inuvik who told me he was very concerned about the policies of this government. He was concerned about employment in the Inuvik area in the Mackenzie delta. His concern was that the native people, the Indians and Eskimos of that area, were very restless because they were concerned that with the backward policies of the govern-
December 12, 1973

ment their jobs in that remote part of Canada would be adversely affected. So I say that jobs are very much a result of the oil industry and its exploration and development in this country.
Now, in respect of the comments we heard in the last few minutes concerning the prospect of filling a Montreal pipeline, really this question boils down very much to one of confidence in the country, because if we are to have oil to fill this pipeline later in this decade, and particularly in the eighties, we must have confidence on the part of the investors, we must recognize that it takes five to ten years to develop the oil reserves and that there is a very long lead time in the oil and gas business.
The question then is, what is our prospect of filling this Montreal line and indeed meeting Canadian needs over the longer period? In February of this year the National Energy Board presented to the standing committee a report entitled "The potential limitations of Canadian petroleum supplies". At that time they projected that the tar sands of Alberta would be producing 400,000 barrels a day by 1980. Last week, in answer to a question in the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, a representative of the National Energy Board pointed out that the figure would now fall some 25 per cent short of that. In fact, I should correct the figure. It was 510,000 barrels a day according to the National Energy Board last February, and now they are saying there will be a 25 per cent shortfall on that figure. This particular report also said that by 1980 there would be 293,000 barrels a day of oil flowing from the Mackenzie delta. This will increase substantially, in the order of 50,000 barrels a day each successive year. They also projected that the western provinces of Canada would be producing, at that time, 1,954,000 barrels a day.
We have already been told that the tar sands at present can be projected to fall 25 per cent short of the estimate. That was as recently as last February. The 293,000 barrels a day from the Mackenzie delta is pure fantasy. This is a very popular word these days because we are getting so much fantasy from this government. I think the minister will admit that that is fantasy. As for the production from
Royal Assent
the western provinces, which is so critical, as pointed out in the report of the National Energy Board where it is stated that that is the principal source of supplies in the foreseeable future-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: They've come for you.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable 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-224, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (No. 2) - chapter 41.
Bill C-228, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-chapter 42.
Bill C-232, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-chapter 43.
Bill C-211, an act to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof-chapter 44.
Bill C-233, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964 and the Income Tax Act-chapter 45.
Bill C-132, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons-chapter 46.
At 6.06 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 13, 1973