1973-12-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table a publication entitled "Status of Women, 1973" in both the official languages, which is a review of the activities of the government to improve the position of women in Canada.
The federal government has pledged its support to the removal of discrimination and the provision of opportunity to women in all fields of Canadian life. The government is justly proud of its record to date in this field and in the leadership role it has played in this regard.
One of the most important steps taken by the government is the establishment of a network of positions whose responsibility is to advise the government on matters concerning the status of women.
At the centre of this network is the office of the Coordinator, Status of Women, located in the Privy Council Office, Social Policy Secretariat. The co-ordinator is responsible for advising me as minister responsible for the status of women and monitoring all government activities to ensure that they are in accordance with the general policy concerning the status of women. Completing the network are a number of positions in those government departments in which the programs and policies have particular importance to the status of women. The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labour has played an important part in attempting to persuade all Canadians of the importance of equal opportunity for women in the field of employment. Other departments with special positions are: the Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Manpower and Immigration, the Department of Justice, the Secretary of State Department and the Department of the Solicitor General. There are also, in several personnel divisions of departments and agencies, persons who are responsible for ensuring the equality of opportunities for women within their respective jurisdictions.
The most recent development was the creation in May, 1973, of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This council of 30 people from across the country was established to bring before the government and the public matters of interest and concern to women, and to advise the government on actions that it deems necessary to
improve the position of women in society. The council has already produced a number of reports and made their presence felt both by the government and the general public.
The Status of Women in Canada, 1973 booklet presents an up to date picture of recent legislation and administrative measures concerning questions of interest to women within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Important steps have been taken in this respect, and the government will continue its march forward until equality of opportunity is assured between women and men in Canada. We, as members of parliament and as Canadians, must continue to work toward this objective.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to some of the highlights of the report.
Canada has ratified on November 16, 1972, the International Labour Organization Convention 100 concerning equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.
The regulations under the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act were amended to include a provision that in the hiring and employment of workers to perform any work under a federal contract, the contractor will not refuse to employ and will not discriminate in any manner against any person because of that person's race, national origin, colour, religion, age, sex or marital status.
In the latter part of 1972, the government assigned the Public Service Commission responsibility for investigating complaints of alleged discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, national origin, colour or religion with respect to application or operation of the Public Service Employment Act. The commission has set up an anti-discrimination Branch to conduct such inquiries.
The government has continued its policy for nominating qualified women to the Senate, as judges, and to boards and commissions and other senior posts. Since October 30, 1972, this government has appointed, or reappointed, 73 women to various boards and agencies. This includes two judges of the Superior Court, four Citizenship Court judges, four full-time Commissioners of the Immigration Appeal Board, and the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board.
Within the Public Service, the April, 1972 Cabinet directive to deputy heads to encourage the assignment of women to higher echelon positions resulted in the establishment by the Public Service Commission's Office of Equal Opportunities for Women of an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate action and provide a mechanism for exchanging information and measuring progress. This committee is jointly chaired by senior officials from the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board.
8780

December 17, 1973
Status of Women
Guidelines developed by the Public Service Commission and the Office of Equal Opportunities for Women have been directed to all deputy ministers to assist departments in effectively developing equal opportunities for women programs.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration is appointing consultants in each regional office with specific responsibilities for Manpower services to women. This is in addition to the position already established at the department's headquarters to provide advice and functional guidance in the matter of employment problems of women.
The government has continued its financial support of women's voluntary associations. The Citizenship Branch of the Secretary of State Department has an active program of support to women's groups to promote the participation of Canadian women in activities that affect the quality of their lives. A program of support for native women has also been established within the Native Citizen's Program to increase their ability to participate more fully in all aspects of community life. As minister responsible for the status of women, funds have been allocated to me for national women's organizations to assist them in promoting the status of women. Other departments have also made funds available to women's organizations for projects coming within their mandates.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has established a National Day Care Information Centre within the Canada Assistance Plan Directorate. The centre provides information concerning all aspects of the day care field.
The Canada Assistance Plan regulations were amended to allow for expansion of financial support to day care. Previously the provisions of the plan allowed for the sharing in the cost to the provinces and municipalities of such expenses as salaries, staff training and research. With the amendments, shareable costs have been expanded to include all operation costs and, in some instances, equipment costs. Support is also being provided under the Canada Assistance Plan to family day care services, that is, day care services provided in a home environment.
The government in its "Working Paper on Social Security in Canada" has recognized the special problems of single parent families. These will be discussed with the provinces during the course of the review of the social security system undertaken by the federal and provincial governments. Within the framework of these discussions, the questions of the participation of the spouse remaining at home in the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans and of the equal treatment of women and men under the plan will be given priority attention as announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) after the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers in October.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this government is indeed serious in its efforts to promote the status of women in Canada. This booklet which I have tabled underlines how much has already been accomplished.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to tell you that the minister has outdone himself, having given me notice four days ago. I

would have hoped that the length of notice might have meant shorter speeches, but that hope is in another world.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: In four days you should have prepared a good, short speech.


Mr. Fairweather:: I did not want to change the spontaneity of these remarks. The cause of equality and fairness for women in our society would be better served by fewer pamphlets and more evidence of action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I believe that some day we will be able to find evidence of action by the number of women in senior positions in the public service of this country. Until the minister can show us a reasonable balance in this regard, all the documents that he or anybody else produces will really not be very worth while.
Dr. Sylvia Gelber, head of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labour, in an excellent resume of the constitutional position of women has performed a special service. I hope my colleagues in the House will have a chance to look at her speech given recently at McMaster. It is extraordinary how long it has taken this predominantly male-oriented parliament to-I was going to say "come to grips" but I had better change that phrase-deal with what is a very unfair situation.
Despite our disappointment about the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Lavell case, as politicians we must recognize that the best forum for amending the Indian Act is in this parliament rather than through the courts. It is a political rather than a legal decision.
The government has asked the native peoples to help it and all of us by studying the Indian Act, giving their opinions about it and then making recommendations as to what form a new act should take. All this takes time. Despite the frustrations we may feel about what is on the face of it manifestly an unjust situation, I hope we can be content to wait for a little while longer for the advice of the native peoples on their act.
In a brief to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras)-I suppose that title will have to be changed very soon-the Western Conference on Opportunities for Women, 1973, made a couple of recommendations: To serve women, Manpower must be publicly committed to creating equal conditions of employment and equal opportunities for employment for all Canadians. To stop being an agent of discrimination, Manpower must become an agent of change, actively working for women, challenging the stereotypes of "male" and "female" work, training and placing of women in new areas, designing services to meet women's specific needs, and working with employers to change what up until now have been discriminatory attitudes and practices.
What we should seek to overcome is not only the unfairness of a system that discriminates but the tragic waste of talents and abilities of the women of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party are glad to have this progress
December 17, 1973

report from the minister responsible for implementing measures to improve the status of women. We note that the chief thrust of this report is to detail the network of positions within various government departments where women have the special responsibility of advising the government on measures concerning the status of women. Also mentioned are the Advisory Council on the Status of Women established last May and the women appointed by the government to various boards and agencies.
These developments are good and we trust that their influence will be far-reaching. Where the government has fallen far short is in its failure to provide legislation or take concrete action to deal with some of the most urgent problems affecting thousands, yes, millions, of women across Canada. Some of the top priority recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women have not yet been put into effect.
The royal commission report was tabled in September, 1970. In March, 1971, my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), moved a motion on behalf of our party in which he detailed some of these important legislative needs-the inclusion of housewives in the Canada and Quebec Pension plans, the provision of maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, the adoption of a national day care act, the initiation of a family planning program, certain amendments to the Criminal Code including the removal of abortion as an offence, and equal treatment of women in the federal public service. We now have maternity benefits, some grants to family planning organizations and the beginnings of fairer treatment for women in the public service. But the other major items are still practically untouched as far as legislation goes. The critical shortage of day care facilities is an outstanding example of how little action has been taken. And the problems faced by women are growing with this neglect.
Discrimination against women in the areas of immigration and citizenship must be removed. The much-heralded fair employment practices legislation promised under the Canada Labour Code is still to come, as are amendments to the Indian Act, with the full cooperation of the Indian people, so that injustices like that which came to light in the Lavell case may not recur.
Some matters must be dealt with provincially or jointly by federal and provincial authorities. In the first category are cases like the Murdoch where a farm wife, separated from her husband, was denied any interest in the property after 25 years of marriage. In the second category are the many cases where a runaway husband is allowed to escape scotfree, leaving his wife to bear the entire burden of the family.
The 1971 NDP motion called for a federal-provincial conference, convened by Ottawa, to consider such matters where joint responsibility arises. I repeat the call now. If federal-provincial conferences can be arranged to deal with all kinds of matters, surely we should be able to devote one to the removal of some of the more severe forms of discrimination which afflict the women of this country.
Olympic Advertising
Speaking in Toronto, in an expansive and generous mood a few nights before his marriage, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed his concern about the need to take immediate steps to improve the status of women. With enthusiasm, he said he invited all Canadians to exhibit impatience with the government's rate of progress in this respect. Never did the Prime Minister issue an invitation which was more welcome to me and to Canadian women generally. Unfortunately, to date there has been all kinds of talk but far too little action on the status of women. It is time to exhibit our impatience in no uncertain way.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we obviously would like to see all discrimination outlawed in every area and all classes of society. Consequently, we are in favour of the equality of sexes.
Legislation aiming at implementing sex equality therefore deserves all our support. However, Mr. Speaker, we should not put too much emphasis on this subject so as not to perpetuate this discrimination that we would like outlawed from a social standpoint, since the women's groups which are encouraged by the minister's statement could become an obstacle to the implementation of equality. I am not saying that these groups are bad, but that putting too much emphasis on them constitutes discrimination of the type that we wish to ban.
Mr. Speaker, we must also think of the time when we shall consider equal pay, for instance. We certainly agree with the equality principle. We do not see why there should be any discrimination on the basis of pay. We should also give more consideration to solutions like giving salaries to housewives who remain at home to educate and teach their children. If we paid sufficient salaries to housewives and mothers, they would be less tempted to go out and look for work. Mr. Speaker, everyone is more or less compelled to work. I wonder to what extent that will lead to an increase in unemployment. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we agree we should actually reach that equality which we all hope. I am sure that we will attain it when we will no longer speak about it.


OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976 METHOD OF AWARDING ADVERTISING CONTRACT- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The motion, I believe, is self-explanatory. If granted permission, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House requests the Postmaster General to make a statement to the House of Commons revealing all details and circumstances surrounding the awarding of Olympic advertising by his department to B. B. Advertising Limited, and in particular the minister advise this House whether or not Mr. Jean Bouchard's connection with that firm was or was not a factor in awarding the contract; and further, that it is the opinion of this House that all future government advertising contracts should be let by
26695-43 J

December 17, 1973
Protection of Privacy
public tender, and that the government discontinue the present system of awarding advertising contracts on the basis of ministerial prerogative and political considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which I hope will receive the unanimous consent of the House. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the current state of the North Pacific halibut fishery, and of the present and future position of Canadian fishermen in relation thereto, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for urgent consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies in both official languages of an agreement reached and a statement made this morning at a meeting of federal provincial and regional government representatives on mechanisms for transportation planning and co-ordination in the national capital region.


PROTECTION OF PRIVACY BILL
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I do not expect the House to agree unanimously to the substance of my motion, but I hope there will be unanimity to let the motion be put and voted upon so that we will know where the House stands with respect to an urgent matter. Therefore I move,

seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to introduce forthwith a motion calling for the rejection of the Senate amendment to Bill C-176.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: for leave to introduce Bill C-246, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that a child born outside Canada is a natural-born Canadian if either of his parents is a Canadian citizen. At present this privilege follows only the citizenship of the father and not the mother, and this is manifestly unfair.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Canadian Film Development Corporation 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?


Hon. J. Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation
December 17, 1973

as follows: 1. 1972-73-Publicity and information: Montreal, $253.70; Toronto, $445.00; Annual Reports, $2,855.52. 1973-74-Publicity and information: Montreal, $150.08; Toronto, $150.00; Annual Reports, $3,841.93.
2.	Annual Report 1972-73: $2,855.52; Carleton, Cowan Public Relations Limited, 892 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal. Balance: classified ads in newspapers specializing in the field of the film industry of Montreal, Toronto, etc., $698.70. Annual Report 1973-74: $3,841.93; Pierre Desmarais Inc., 6125 Cote-de-Liesse, Saint-Laurent 377, P.Q. Balance: classified ads in the magazines and newspapers specializing in the field of the film industry of Montreal and Toronto, $300.08.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Industrial Development Bank 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?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
Industrial Development Bank carries out an extensive advertising program designed to inform the small businessman of the services it makes available. During the fiscal year 1972 advertising expenses totalled $179,000 while other public information, such as advertising officers' community visits, preparation and distribution of annual reports, information booklets, etc., totalled $276,-
000.	Figures for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1973 are not yet available.
2 and 3. It has not been the practice to answer questions concerning the internal administration of the Industrial Development Bank inasmuch as the Industrial Development Bank Act places the responsibility for the management of the institution in the hands of its board of directors.


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 Industrial Development Bank 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?


John Napier Turner: 1, 2 and 3.
It has not been the practice to answer questions concerning the internal administration of the Industrial Develop-
Order Paper Questions
ment Bank inasmuch as the I.D.B. Act places the responsibility for the management of the institution in the hands of its board of directors.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What are Air Canada's costs for the plastic headsets used for inflight movies and stereo?
2.	What are the monthly costs to Air Canada for providing the movies and stereo?
3.	What are the receipts to Air Canada monthly from the renting of the headsets?
4.	How much liquor, beer, ale, liqueurs and wine of all varieties were purchased by Air Canada in (a) 1971 (b) 1972?
5.	What were the receipts from the sale of liquor, beer, ale, liqueurs and wine of all varieties by Air Canada during (a) 1971 (b) 1972?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Contractual arrangements with suppliers are proprietary information.
2.	Monthly cost averages $24,500.
3.	Monthly receipts average $23,000.
4 and 5. Receipts from bar sales are recorded as a net figure, that is, the difference between revenue from bar sales and the cost of liquor, beer, ales, liqueurs, wine and cigarettes sold. For the year 1971, the net revenue on this account was $880,000, and in 1972, $560,000. These net revenue figures do not take into account the related expenses of other bar supplies such as soft drink mixes, glasses, etc., and also handling costs in preparation of supplies for flights, expense of Customs Agents for In Bond Liquor Preparation Rooms, and proportional labour cost of Flight Attendants to serve bar. When these added expenses are taken into consideration, the bar service does no more than pay for itself.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Emergency Gold-Mining Assistance Act (EGMA), in the calendar year 1973 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	What was the date of the latest evaluative study of the program conducted by the department?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1.
Amount
Committed
Name of Corporation	and Paid

Dickensen Mines Ltd	 18,251.36
Hallnor Mines Ltd	 14,214.80
Madsen Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd	 39,280.65
McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd	 92,814.78
Cominco Ltd.-Con Mine	 61,529.26
Cominco Ltd.-Rycon Mine	 16,570.04
Giant Yellowknife Mines Ltd	 21,213.37

December 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Amount
Committed
Name of Corporation	and Paid

Lolor Mines Ltd	 6,873.45
Supercrest Mines Ltd	 10,311.53
Total	 $281,059.24
These payments were holdbacks from previous years' claims.
2.	The objectives of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act are to maintain dependent gold mining communities and allow these communities to adjust gradually to diminishing economic support.
3.	April, 1973.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Which vessels of Maritime Command have a surface capability north of 60 degrees north latitude and for what periods of the year in each instance?
2.	With respect to the answer to Question No. 2,336, what ships of Maritime Command have been used north of 60 degrees north latitude?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Operational ships of Maritime Command, of destroyer size or larger, have a surface capability to operate north of 60 degrees north latitude during that part of the year, usually August and September, when Canadian Arctic waters are relatively ice free.
2.	In recent years, the following ships of the current fleet have operated north of 60N: August six-September fourteen, 73, HMCS Protecteur, August one-August twenty-five, 72, HMCS Protecteur, HMCS Yukon, HMCS Fraser, HMCS St. Laurent, August twelve-September three, 71, HMCS Preserver, HMCS Margaree, HMCS Assiniboine; August one-August sixteen, 70, HMCS Annapolis, HMCS Skeena, HMCS Protecteur (Submarine HMCS Ojibwa)', October one-October nine, 61, HMCS Restigouche, HMCS St. Croix. Other operations north of 60N involved ships no longer with the fleet.


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Did any official of the Department of National Health and Welfare who is attached to the Department of Transport's Civil Aviation Division circulate to selected medical doctors across Canada for comment and study a treatise entitled: "Electrocardiography for Air Crew as proposed by Dr. E. Patrick" and, if so, what was the purpose of the foregoing action?
2.	Is a copy of the treatise available to the public?
3.	Does the Minister consider as being adequate the present medical tests given to pilots to ascertain their physical fitness for flight insofar as heart, arterial or circulatory diseases are concerned?
4.	What further physical tests or medical requirements are being considered for introduction to ascertain the medical fitness for Canadian pilots?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) Yes, if the question refers to a recent
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).)
feasibility study carried out by Dr. E. Patrick entitled: "Aircrew Screening to Exclude Coronary Artery Disease", (b) This study was commissioned by the department to ascertain whether economies could be affected in the future by applying computer technology to the 6,000 electrocardiographic records screened and cross-checked annually by the Civil Aviation Medicine Service. In circulating this study to medical specialists concerned with the use of computer science, it was clearly stated on the first page that the opinions expressed were those of the author and must not be interpreted as Health and Welfare or Ministry of Transport policy or practice.
2.	Since this study is an author's draft referring to complex epidemiological and technological techniques, it was not made available to the general public, but is accessible to those who may have an interest in it.
3.	The present routine medical examinations given to pilots to ascertain fitness for flight were a concern to the department and to a consensus of the members of the International Civil Aviation Organization because the tests were inadequate for the detection of significant coronary artery disease; hence, the commissioning of the study.
4.	The additional physical tests to ascertain medical fitness for Canadian pilots that are presently under consideration result from recent International Civil Aviation Organization recommendations. The first is that electrocardiography should be a part of the heart examination for private pilots "for the first issue of a licence, at the first re-examination after the age of 40 and thereafter no less frequently than every five years, and in re-examination in all doubtful cases". The second is a recommendation that routine chest x-ray be considered part of the initial flight medical examination.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires have been employed on a regular or part-time basis by the Department of National Defence, by year, since 1963?
2.	In how many bases or defence establishments maintained by the Department of National Defence has the use of such men and women been discontinued within the past three fiscal years?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The Department of National Defence requisitions commissionaire services through the Department of Supply and Services on the basis of a stated number of hours per week of required service. Commissionaires are therefore not of this department; and the actual number of members of the Corps of Commissionaires to provide the contracted services is known only to the Corps. Based on the total hours of approved commissionaire services the following are the minimum number of commissionaires employed by the Corps to satisfy the department's requirement each year from 1967.
December 17, 1973

Total Hours/week Approx. No. Corpsmen
Year	Approved	(Based on 48 hour week)1967	
91,771	1,9111968	
67,899	1,4141969	
81,876	1,7051970	
79,946	1,6651971	
72,246	1,5051972	
68,935	1,4361973	
75,796	1,579
Note: Departmental records in this form only go back to 1967.
During the past three years, the use of commissionaire services has been discontinued at the following bases or stations: CFB Clinton; CFS Cobourg; CFB Gimli; CFB Rivers; CFS Coverdale; CFS LaMaeaza; 32 CFAD/CFB Gagetown; Camp Picton/CFB Kingston; NRHQ Yellowknife; Bouchard Det/CFB Montreal.
Note: The reasons for discontinuance of the use of commissionaire services would be base closure and disposal, a reappraisal of security requirements or the inability of the Corps to provide the service.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government currently undertaking any definitive studies of the advantages or otherwise in terms of cost benefit analysis of geothermal energy for industrial and municipal use and, if so (a) to what level has funding been appropriated for this fiscal year
(b)	what is the present status of such studies (c) on what dates can they be expected to be made public?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by several departments as follows: No.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	(a) On what date is it intended to erect a new terminal building at the Charlottetown Airport (b) what are the dimensions and estimated cost of such a building?
2.	(a) In the past five years, what extensions have been made to the Charlottetown Airport (b) what was the cost and purpose of each such extension (c) to what extent was the seating capacity increased by each extension?
3.	What new land has been acquired for the Charlottetown Airport?
4.	What is the present seating capacity of the Airport passenger terminal building?
5.	What is the total passenger load capacity of the planes using the Airport on a daily scheduled basis?
6.	What is the capacity of the public parking area at the Charlottetown Airport?
7.	Is it the view of the Department of Transport that the present seating capacity of the passenger lounge is adequate to the needs of the travelling public?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Current discussions between ministry and provincial officials are keyed to the need for a new air terminal building for the 1978/79 fiscal year, (b) Plans are not yet sufficiently advanced to define the dimensions and estimated costs;
Order Paper Questions
the new terminal building must be located in another area of the airport and internal and adjunctive needs have not been fully assessed.
2.	(a) In the past five years the internal capacity of the air terminal building was expanded; in 1970 this involved relocation/expansion of EPA offices, ticket counters, baggage handling areas, washrooms and waiting rooms; in 1971 passenger baggage reclaim and waiting room areas were again expanded; in 1973 the waiting room areas were added to and baggage reclaim area modifications are currently proceeding, (b) The costs of the 1970 expansion were $87,924; for 1971 the costs amounted to $48,158 and 1973 expenditures are $67,656; the over-all purpose was to progressively expand the air terminal building to meet increasing needs for more space and passenger/carrier conveniences, (c) The seating capacity was increased by 57 in the period 1970-73.
3.	The latest acquisition of land adjacent to the present airport property was purchased from a Major McRae on May 5, 1971. Parcel 57, deed 71426, and consisting of 39.42 acres, was purchased for $18,000.
4.	The present seating capacity of the airline terminal building is 87.
5.	The Dart Herald, with a seating arrangement of 41, and the Boeing 737, with passenger carrying configuration of 109, are using the airport on a daily scheduled basis. EPA operates both types of aircraft. They operate nine arrivals and nine departures daily at Charlottetown Airport of which five flights are Dart Herald and four flights are Boeing 737, providing a total passenger load capacity of 641 seats on arriving and 641 on departing aircraft assuming full loads.
6.	The public parking area at the airport presently consists of 64 spaces for long-term parking and 81 spaces for short-term parking privileges. Total capacity of the public parking area is 145.
7.	Seating capacity for the passenger lounge is adequate to meet the normal needs of the travelling public based on present levels of traffic.


Mr. Olaussen: How much did the government (a) spend on (b) receive from harbour operations in Powell River since 1946?


Jean Marchand: (a)
$485,799.40; (b) $300,268.30.


Mr. Gleave: 1.	On what date was the sale by CNR of the Bessborough Hotel in Saskatoon completed?
2.	What was the sale price?
3.	What was the book value?
4.	What were the names of the purchasers?


Jean Marchand: The
management of the Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. May 29, 1973.

December 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	It is not the company's practice nor policy to discuss terms and conditions of transactions it may have with other parties.
3.	$4,276,353.
4.	Management Associates Limited.
HOUSING-CORA BROWN-MacDONALD SUBDIVISIONS AT VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For the month of September, 1973 (a) what was the total amount of rents received by the Department of Transport for houses rented in the Cora Brown-MacDonald Subdivisions at Vancouver International Airport (b) how many houses were rented (c) what was the monthly management fee paid to the rental agents (d) what amount, if any, was paid or allotted by the Department for maintenance or repairs to any of the homes?
2.	What procedures are followed by the Department to ensure that the homes are maintained in a good state of repair and fit for habitation and comply with health and safety standards?
3.	For the month of September, 1973, what was the total amount of fire insurance required to be carried by the tenants on the homes?
4.	Was the house located in the MacDonald Subdivision at 463 Tapp Road destroyed by fire on September 5, 1973 and, if so (a) has the Department made a claim against the insurers (b) has the Department ascertained the cause of the fire?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
$7,828.50; (b) 75 houses; (c) $782.85; (d) no amount was paid or allotted by the department for maintenance or repairs to any of the homes as this is a responsibility of the tenant under the terms of his lease.
2.	The rental agent is required to advise tenants of any repairs that may require attention as part of his duties. The Health Inspector for the Corporation of the Township of Richmond carries out routine health and safety inspections.
3.	$1,284,000.
4.	The house located at 463 Tapp Road was partially destroyed by fire on September 5, 1973. (a) The department has made a claim against the insurers, (b) The fire was believed to have been caused by a fault in the electrical wiring.


Mr. Roy (Timmins): 1.	(a) What was the administrative budget for offices, travel and personnel of the Canada Development Corporation for the fiscal year 1972-73 (b) what is the projected operating budget for the current fiscal year (c) for each of these years, what is the budget breakdown dor (i) total wages and salaries (ii) office expenditures (iii) administrative costs?
2.	How many persons were employed by the Canada Development Corporation for (a) the fiscal year 1972-73 (b) the current year?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2.
Pursuant to section 31 of the Canada Development Corporation Act the CDC is not an agent of Her Majesty or a Crown Corporation. Public disclosure of information concerning the internal operations of the corporation is at the discretion of the CDC board of directors. In connection
with the above questions the CDC's latest Annual Report mentions that, as at May 1973, the Corporation's staff numbered 15 persons. However no information is available on the corporation's internal administrative budget.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How much money was expended by the government on breakwaters and land-fill in the Turkey Point, Mary Tod Island area in the past ten years?
2.	Does the government have any control over expansion of commercial facilities now provided sheltered waters due to the breakwaters?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2. Yes.
Mr. McKinnon: How much money was expended by the government on the approaches to Rock Bay Inner Harbour Victoria to provide access for the exclusive use of Ocean Cement Co.?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: contract for dredging the approach channel to the Ocean Cement Company's barge loading facilities in Rock Bay was awarded by the department on April 16, 1973 in the amount of $93,325 on a 50/50 cost-sharing basis. The final payment has not been made to date on this contract; however, the department's share to date amounts to $36,025.


Mr. Wise: 1.	How many applications were filed by businessmen in the constituency of Elgin for Industrial Development Bank 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 businessmen in the constituency of Elgin by the Industrial Development Bank of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2.
The Industrial Development Bank does not maintain statistical information by constituency. However, it does publish such information by province in its annual report.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What staff will be required as maintenance personnel at the new federal building in Stephenville, Newfoundland, after completion?
2.	What is the intention of the government as to retention or disposal of the present post office building in Stephenville, Newfoundland, after completion of the new federal building?
[Mr. Marchand (Langelier).J
December 17, 1973


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
Maintenance and janitorial service is to be provided on a contractual basis. It is expected that the contractor will hire a minimum of two part-time employees.
2. The present post office building is to be retained as accommodation for various government departments and agencies.


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
change planes in Warsaw for the trip to Copenhagen. On August 10, 1971, Mr. Hunt proceeded on annual leave. On expiry of his leave he departed for Canada from Glasgow and arranged and paid for his own transportation between London and Glasgow. No additional expenses were incurred by the Crown due to the departure for Canada from Glasgow rather than Copenhagen. The round trip ticket also included stopover in London without extra charge. As indicated below the trip to Boston was a separate trip to address the Boston World Affairs Organization. The cost of this trip was $174.28 which was included in the total of $1,492.
2. Trip to Moscow made from July 19, 1971 to August 9, 1971. Trip to Boston made January 25-26, 1972.
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by A. D. Hunt, Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Moscow, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Glasgow, Boston ($1,492)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The purpose of the trip to Moscow was to accompany the minister on his visit to the U.S.S.R. On the return trip he visited the Ministry for Greenland Affairs in Copenhagen. It was necessary to


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by Ernst Eliasen, Vice-President of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (salary range: $29,000-$32,000), to Trinidad, London, New York, Washington, Buenos Aires, Paris, Madrid, Sydney ($3,868)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.
Purposes of trips made:	Place	Month	(a) Meeting of the Interim Communications Satellite Committee 53rd Meeting Canada's Representative and elected Vice-Chairman 54th Meeting COTC is Canada's designated Operating Entity 55th Meeting 56th Meeting 57th Meeting	Washington Washington Buenos Aires Washington Washington	May July September/October December Febuary/March	1971 1 week 1971 1 week 1971 2 weeks 1971	2 weeks 1972	1 week(b) Commonwealth Telecommunications Council Meetings and Sub-committee: Standing Committee (Planning) (COTC's Representative at meetings) 6th Standing Committee (Planning) 7th Council Meeting	Port of Spain	March/April	1971 2 weeks7th Standing Committee (Planning)	Sydney, Australia	July	1971 2 weeks(c) Transatlantic Cable Conferences and Meetings with European Administration covering Operating Arrangements for CAN TAT 2 Cable	London/Paris London/Madrid	June November	1971 1 week 1971 1 week(d) Meetings with Western Union International, Inc. and American Telephone and Telegraph Company relating to Operating Arrangements for CAN TAT 2 Cable	New York *New York	August/September March	1971	4 days 1972	2 days*Following 57th ICSC meeting	PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY J.-C. DELORME, PRESIDENT OF . CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION Purpose of trips	Place	Month


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J.-C. Delorme, President of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation (salary range: $45,000), to The Hague, Bonn, Rome, Paris, Madrid, Berne, London, New York, Washington, Nairobi, Australia, New Zealand ($5,076)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Gérard Pelletier: 1 and 2.
(a)	Signing of the Operating	Washington August 1971,
Agreement of the International	2 days
Telecommunications Satellite Organization
(b)	Meeting with Western Union	New York August 1971,
International relating to	2 days
WUl/Anglo operations in Canada for international traffic
8788

December 17, 1973
Purpose of trips
Order Paper Questions
Place
Month
(c)	Meeting with Western Union	New York September 1971,
International and American	4 days
Telephone & Telegraph Co.- relating to use of CANTAT 2 Cable for USA/European traffic
(d)	Commonwealth Telecommunica- Nairobi tions Council Meeting, Canada's Representative
October 1971, 2 weeks
(e) Meeting with European
Administrations with respect to Canada/European Traffic Operations over CANTAT 2 Cable
PTT The	November, 1971
Hague	11 days
PTT Bonn
PTT Berne
Italcable
Rome
PTT Madrid PTT Paris
(f)	European/North American	London November, 1971
Carriers Conference	4 days
relating to future planning transatlantic cables
(g)	Meeting relating to Pacific Cable Planning
Sydney,
Australia
November 1971, 3 days
(h)	Meeting of Commonwealth Cable Management Committee
Wellington,
New
Zealand
December 1971, 1 week
(i)	Meeting with Branch Post Office London	March 1972,
and French PTT. Administrations	1 week
relating to interconnection facilities for CANTAT 2 Cable for Canada/
European traffic


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by Pierre Juneau, Chairman of Canadian Radio-Television Commission (salary range: $40,000-$45,000), to Boston, Washington ($250)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The purpose of the trip was to learn about the communications research carried out at the Arthur D. Little Laboratories in Boston and Mitre Corporation in Reston, Virginia. The trip lasted two days, with departure from Ottawa at 5:30 p.m. on December 1, 1971 and returning at 8:27 p.m. on December 3.
2.	In December, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by J. H. Chapman, Assistant Deputy Minister of Communi-

cations (salary range: $28,000-$35,000) to (a) Washington ($151) (b) Europe ($797)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. (a) To accept NASA Group Achievement Award, in Washington, on behalf of the Canadian International Satellites for Ionospheric Studies (ISIS) Project Team, (b) Mission in France; Scientific Mission composed of 13 representatives from the federal government and Canadian Electronic Industries. Mission led by Dr. Chapman. To explore the opportunities for increased co-operation in telecommunications research and development between France and Canada.
2. (a) October, 1971. (b) February 18-March 2, 1972.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by R. Humphrys, Superintendent of Insurance (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to (a) Brussels ($329) (b) New York ($265)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


John Napier Turner: 1. (a) To
attend meeting of the Council of International Actuarial Association, (b) To attend meeting of National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
2. Brussels, September. New York, June.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. D. Love, Deputy Minister of Labour (salary range: $31,500-$37,500), to New York ($544)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


John Carr Munro: 1. Purpose of trip: To attend International Symposium on Public Employment Labour Relations.
2. May, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by Bernard Wilson, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour (salary range: $26,000-$32,500) to Geneva ($1,675)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


John Carr Munro: 1. Purpose of trip: To Head Canadian Delegation to the 56th Session of the International Labour Conference.
2. June, 1971.
December 17, 1973


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by G. B. Williams, Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works (salary range: $32,500-$35,000), to USSR ($5,221)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
The purpose of the trip was as a member of the Canada/ USSR Mixed Commission on Industrial Application of Science and Technology to chair a meeting of the Joint Canada/USSR Working Group on Architecture, Building Materials and Construction.
2. October, 1971.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by Jules Leger, Under Secretary of State (salary range: $45,000-$50,000), to Paris and Africa ($2,565)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1 and
2. Trip made by Jules Leger when Under Secretary of State: Paris, Yaounde, Cameroon (Africa) ($2,565) Study group on bilingualism; Discussions with French authorities: youth exchange; Discussions with Cameroon authorities: Canada/World Youth. December, 1971 and January, 1972.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by M. Yalden, Assistant Under-Secretary of State (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) New York ($146) (b) Paris ($996)
(c)	Paris ($1,036)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1 and
2. Trips made by M. Yalden when Assistant Under-Secretary of State: (a) New York ($146)-To attend the Northeast Conference of Teachers of Foreign Languages, April, 1971; (b) Paris ($996)-To attend the Paris Conference on Language and Culture, December, 1971;	(c) Paris
($1,036)-To attend the OECD Conference on Education, February and March, 1972.


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by O. G. Stoner, Deputy Minister of Transport (salary range: $40,000-$45,000), to (a) Yugoslavia ($640) (b) Paris ($537) (c) Paris ($485)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
The trip to Yugoslavia was at the request of that govern-
Order Paper Questions
ment and involved discussions concerning Canada-Yugos-lavia civil aviation relations; and meetings with the Yugoslav government relative to a substantial sale of Canadian diesel locomotives to Yugoslavia, (b) To represent the government at ceremonies commemorating the 25th Anniversary of Air Canada service to France; and to meet with French Civil Aviation Authorities to discuss planning and construction of their new international airport at Roissy-en-France. (c) To accompany the Minister of Transport in support of Canadian Air Industries participation at the Paris Air Show.
2. August, 1971; April, 1971 and June, 1971, respectively.


Mr. Mazankowski: What specific action has been taken by the Canadian Transport Commission to comply with Section 278(16) of the Railway Act?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Pursuant to the requirement of the statute, the Commission, on April 30, 1971, reported to the Governor in Council on the operation of section 278 (then s. 336).


Mr. Fairweather: In preparing Canada's trade figures, are goods in transit and for which export permits are required added to the export totals?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: Goods moving in transit through Canada and clearly identified as such are excluded from Canada's trade statistics. Goods which have been imported into Canada and are subsequently re-exported are included in import and export statistics whether or not an export permit may be required.


Mr. Cossitt: December 17, 1973
Order Paper Questions
6.	Was the announcement of such construction in the spring of 1974 planned to coincide with the announcement of the federal general election in spring of 1974?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. On or about November 8 a member of the staff of Mr. Cossitt's office phoned the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and enquired as to what was taking place on departmental lands at Elgin, Ontario. I am informed that, in response to the inquiry, a canal employee advised that the land was being cleared and no mention was made of proposed or impending construction.
2.	Mr. L. W. Clark, Acting Operations Superintendent, Canals Division, Parks Canada.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) no.
4.	A tender for the construction of a division maintenance building at this site has been called.
5.	I am informed that, on or about November 15, the Deputy Superintending Engineer of the Rideau Canal advised an employee of the Gananoque Record and Times that the site was being cleared to ascertain soil conditions and rock location. The canal employee disclosed no information with respect to a proposed building.
6.	No.


Mr. McKinnon: What was the cost of the Hydraulic Model Studies Report on Harbour Protection and Foreshore Erosion, Oak Bay, Vancouver Island, British Columbia for the Department of Public Works by Western Canada Hydraulic Laboratories, Ltd., Port Coquitlam, British Columbia?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The cost for the Hydraulic Model Studies Report was $37,800.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What is the average annual operating cost per university student to the government?
2.	How many foreign students are studying at Canadian universities?
3.	Does the government contribute to their education on the same basis as that of Canadian students?
4.	What is the average annual operating cost per foreign student to the government?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
According to estimates for fiscal year 1973-74, the federal contribution toward operating expenditures for postsecondary education under Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, will amount to approximately $1,067 million, of which approximately $664 million will be the amount of the federal contribution attributable to the operating expenditures of colleges and universities. In addition to this contribution, which takes the form of a combination of tax and cash transfers, the

federal government supports post-secondary education in Canada through other programs, including student assistance; loans, scholarships, fellowships and provision of research funds. It is estimated that enrolments in Canadian colleges and universities in 1973-74 will total approximately 318,000 full-time and 157,000 part-time students.
2.	As reported by Statistics Canada (Education in Canada, 1973, pp. 162-163), 3.9 per cent of the 274,963 full-time undergraduate university and college students in 1970-71 were residents of countries other than Canada; 35.1 per cent of the 33,172 full-time graduate students in 197071 were citizens of countries other than Canada.
3.	The federal contributions under Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, are calculated on the basis of the eligible operating expenditures for post-secondary education and not on the basis of enrolments or the composition of the student body.
4.	Since the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972, does not require provincial governments to report to the federal government the amount of operating expenditures attributable to foreign students studying in Canada, the information required to calculate the average annual operating cost per foreign student to the government is not available.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	In each year 1970, 1971 and 1972 what was the total collected in taxes by federal, provincial and municipal governments?
2.	For each of these years, what percentage of the Gross National Product does each total represent?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. On a national account basis in millions of dollars:
Government Level	1970	1971	1972Federal	
14,768	16,368	18,296Provincial	
9,400	10,442	11,608Local	
3,825	4,067	4,3082. Percentage of each of the above respectively of	GNP:Government Level	1970	1971	1972Federal	
17.2	17.5	17.7Provincial	11.0	11.2	11.2Local	.. 4.5	4.4	4.2


Mr. Cossitt: How many applications were received from the constituency of Leeds under provisions of the Small Businesses Loans Act for government loans during each of the past three years for which figures are available, how many of these applications were grant-
December 17, 1973

ed and what was the total amount loaned in the electoral district for each year in question?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
requested data is not maintained by electoral district.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the amount spent through the government and the National Museums of Canada, in direct payments to personnel or in grants to outside institutions or individuals, for research into the history of Canada in each year since 1965 inclusive?
2.	What is the amount budgeted for such inquiries and research through the National Museums of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974?
3.	Does the government consider that the funding as outlined above is adequate?
4.	Through what other agencies of government is such support being given to the history of Canada?
5.	Is the government considering the giving of the highest priority to research and support of research into Canadian history within the context of the various programmes as outlined above?
Return tabled.



LIP-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN RECEIPT OF FUNDING

Mr. Alexander: 1.	By constituency and province for the years 1972-73 and 197374, which construction projects received funding under the Local Initiatives Program?
2.	What was the name, number and amounts of money expended per project?
3.	What criteria were used under the Local Initiatives Program for giving grants to construction projects?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-BREAKDOWN OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN COMPONENTS

Mr. Forrestall: What are the major bases and stations of the Canadian Armed Forces and, in each case, what is the breakdown between military and civilian components?
Return tabled.



TRIPS BY MR. PAUL GERIN-LAJOIE TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Stevens: 1.	(a) From November 1970 to date, what trips has Mr. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, President of CIDA, taken to foreign lands at direct or indirect government expense (b) in each case, what were the total expenses of his trip categorized to show expenses related to travel, lodging, entertainment and other?
2.	Did any member of Mr. Gerin-Lajoie's family travel with him at direct or indirect government expense and, if so, what members, what trips and at what expense?
Order Paper Questions
Return tabled.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN EXHIBITIONS AND FAIRS

Mr. Schumacher: 1.	From 1967 to date, in how many exhibitions or fairs has Canada participated?
2.	In each case, what was (a) the location (b) the total cost involved (c) the nature of such participation (d) the date?
3.	From 1967 to date, how many invitations to participate in exhibitions or fairs has Canada refused?
4.	In each case, what was (a) the location (b) the cost involved (c) the nature of such invitations (d) the date (e) the reason for Canada's refusal?
5.	What is the projection for Canada's attendance at exhibitions or fairs for (a) the remainder of 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975?
6.	In each case, what is (a) the location (b) the estimated cost (c) the nature of Canada's participation (d) the date?
Return tabled.



DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD-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 Defence Research Board 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.



GRANTS UNDER DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH PROGRAM

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Defence Industrial Research Program (DIR), in each of the fiscal years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1972-73 and 197374 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What was the date of the latest evaluative study of the program conducted by the Department?
Return tabled.



CIRCULATION OF BANK NOTES AND AMOUNT OF CREDIT MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH ALL SOURCES

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the circulation of bank notes (a) in 1970 (b) from January to June 1973 by the Bank of Canada?
2.	What was the total amount of loans given (a) by banks (b) by all other credit institutions in Canada in 1970?
3.	Does the government have the breakdown of credit made available through all sources year by year and, if so, where is that information available?

December 17, 1973
Oral Questions
Return tabled.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PUKAWKWA NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What studies have been conducted by or for the government regarding any aspects of the proposal to establish a national park, temporarily called Pukawkwa National Park?
2.	What are the main recommendations of each study concerning (a) the economic aspect (b) the social impact (c) the impact upon native persons of the establishment of such a park?
3.	What (a) economic impact (b) social impact (c) impact upon native people is expected to ensue from the establishment of such a national park?
4.	Is the surrender of treaty rights involved in the establishment of such a park and, if so, what is the current status of negotiations with the native people involved?
Return tabled.



* FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO ETHIOPIA

Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	On what date did Canada first receive a request for aid from the Government of Ethiopia?
2.	How much aid has been sent by the government to Ethiopia and on what dates did this occur?
3.	What priorities will CIDA require in allotting more funds to the relief effort in Ethiopia?
4.	Will additional aid be sent to Ethiopia and, if so, how much, in what form and on what date?
5.	Does CIDA have available funds to allocate more aid to Ethiopia?
6.	Is the present world crisis in food shortage affecting Canada's decisions regarding sending further aid to Ethiopia?
7.	How serious a problem is the present worldwide food shortage with respect to CIDA's present and future commitments?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: You can't beat class, can you, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Now that we have the preliminaries over, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would he advise the House whether or not members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are also members of the integrated NORAD command automatically went on

the alert technically known as "Defcon III" when President Nixon ordered Defcon III on October 25?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the House closer to that date that the Canadian forces were not put on alert.


An hon. Member:: What were they doing in the mountains?


James Armstrong Richardson: It was the American component of NORAD that was called to alert and not any part of the Canadian component of NORAD.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is a strange answer following the statement made by the Canadian general on the NORAD staff last night on the CBC television news. Can the minister explain to the House how a vitally important and integrated part of an operation such as NORAD can operate with half on alert and the other half not on alert?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether a question asked in those terms is in order. Perhaps the hon. member might rephrase the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Semi-alert.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister how it is possible for an operation in which we are participating and on which the safety of this continent depends, to operate with half its personnel alerted and the other half not alerted?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the alert status of the Canadian forces cannot be changed without the authority of the Canadian government. We were at no time requested to change that status. We were advised that the United States intended to elevate the status of their alert, and that was all. We were advised that they were doing this, but we were not asked to change the status of our alert in any way.


George Harris Hees: If this is our idea of co-operation in NORAD under our continental commitment, I would ask the Prime Minister whether this is an example of the way the government is trying to run the affairs of this country?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence when we were advised as a nation that the continental air defence command of the United States had gone on alert? In view of the fact that this automatically involved Canadian troops, were we advised before or after the fact?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it was 18 minutes past two o'clock on October 25 that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the United States advised his counterpart in Canada, the Canadian chief of staff, General Dextraze, that he was moving the alert status of the United States forces to Defcon Position III-that is, Defence Condition
December 17, 1973

III. He specifically exempted us. He was simply advising us of this action on the part of the American air defence.


Douglas Charles Rowland: What were the minister's instructions to the Canadian personnel in NORAD on receipt of that information?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there was no need to give any instructions. The information was there. They were aware of the information that had been provided to us but there was no need to give additional instructions.


Douglas Charles Rowland: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to ask a third supplementary. The hon. member will be recognized for that purpose, following which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that Canada was not consulted in advance of the United States ordering its forces to a Defcon III position, and in light of the fact that we were advised only after the fact, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that he will take the necessary steps to protect Canadian sovereignty in the future by indicating to the United States that on the termination of the current NORAD agreement we will not again agree to its renewal in light of the present situation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this question of consultation on several occasions and I am satisfied that with some improvements this system can and does work well. Of course, consultation only applies when both countries under NORAD are going into a different Defcon. The situation does not apply when the Americans with their own troops, whether it be under the umbrella of NORAD or in some other area, decide to change the defence conditions of those troops. As the minister just explained, Canadian defence forces were not involved in any way in this alert which was applied by the Americans to the Americans, and surely we would not want the American government to have to consult us when they are going to do something with their own troops.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence because obviously there is a very bad misunderstanding as exemplified by the views expressed last night on national television. I would ask the minister whether or not this exclusion or exemption from the alert applied only to the North Bay set-up or in fact applied to all of the bases where nuclear instruments are being held?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, not only was the Canadian component of NORAD not put on alert, but NORAD itself was not on alert because NORAD does not exist without that Canadian component. It was the American air defence component of NORAD that was on alert.
Oral Questions


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Defence stating now that the Canadian forces were not on alert in all areas with the exception of, I think, district 22 in the Yukon? Is he stating that Canadians were not on the alert at that time?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am making clear that the Canadian forces were not on alert and that Canada was not asked to go on alert. There were some individuals in integrated staff positions who in the early stages would have been involved in the normal course of their duties, but they were not formally on alert and the country was not on alert.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a supplementary and then attempt to complete the first round of questioning and return to further supplementaries on this subject by recognizing the hon. member for Trinity and others.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Defence how much farther does he intend to go with demoralizing the Canadian forces?


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Have the minister and his officials studied the Ontario legislation Bill 274, and, if so, does the minister consider it to be a form of forced labour legislation in view of the fact that it retroactively forbids an employee resigning his job?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet formally studied that bill.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, would the minister assure the House that he will do so and inform the government of Ontario forthwith that this measure contravenes basic civil liberties as embodied in the Canadian Bill of Rights?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will no doubt be looking at this legislation as we do all provincial legislation in the ordinary course.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Could he clearly tell the House whether he intends to review his position concerning the claim of the Quebec Minister of Justice concerning the refund of considerable amounts as compensation since Quebec has its own police

December 17, 1973
Oral Questions
force, while it generally contributes to the financing of the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker. Our department has offered all of the provinces equally the services of the RCMP. We have no program to provide compensation in place of police services.
* * %


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Following the notification of the chief of the defence staff at 18 minutes after two that Defcon III was being ordered, how much later was it that the chief of defence staff notified the minister, and what instructions did the minister give the chief of defence staff at that time?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered part of that question. As there was no action to be taken by the Canadian Armed Forces, I was not advised until normal working hours, which is about 7.30 the next morning for me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a last supplementary on the subject.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do I understand the minister correctly that he is suggesting that the chief of the defence staff did not bother to advise him of the American action and consequently the government of Canada was totally unaware during all of those hours (a) that their forces were not on the alert and (b) whether or not they should be?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have said I was advised a few hours after the call in the morning, and there was no action to be taken at that time.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether or not the government has accepted the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that for policy making purposes we should accept a goal in respect of inflation of having an inflation rate of about half of one per cent less than that of our trading nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada indicated a series of goals which would be the aim for the Canadian

economy in the period of the next three years. I have indicated that I consider those goals as a whole as a challenge for the government to fulfil and as a challenge to the private sector. In that sense we hope we will outperform over the long run most other industrialized societies. This is the aim of the government. We are glad that the Economic Council did set forth these goals, but the Canadian people must be cautioned not to take any of these goals in isolation.


James McPhail Gillies: Am I to conclude from that answer that the government is willing to accept an inflation rate in Canada of IVi per cent or 8 per cent per year if that is the rate some of our trading nations have?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the goal we will try to achieve will be the set of norms put forward by the Economic Council of Canada. It might mean in some years doing better and in some years doing worse, but on the specific question of inflation we do hope to continue to outperform over the long run the other countries of the western industrial world.


POSSIBLE MODIFICATION BY MINISTER OF FINANCE OF FORECAST IN LIGHT OF ENERGY SHORTAGE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. He has been asked questions about the possible effect on Canada of the energy shortage among our trading partners. Has he now had an opportunity to analyse the forecasted effects upon the economies of our trading partners in the coming months of 1974 and as a result has he seen fit to modify in any way the forecast previously made by his department with regard to our own economy in the coming months?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week to one of the hon. gentleman's colleagues, while there might well be some negative effects on the economy as a result of the world energy shortage, it was still premature to base an economic policy upon them because at this stage there is no way of knowing what the shortfall or shortage will be.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the position of the Minister of Finance that the general economic stance he took earlier in the year and continued through the year is still the appropriate stance for the government to take in view of the anticipated slowdown predicted in the case of some of our major trading partners? Does the minister still regard this stance as the appropriate one, or is he starting to put in place any measures to protect Canadian working people particularly against some of these secondary effects?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, watching the situation closely on a day by day basis, but at the moment the economy is still operating at close to or at capacity, and it is still the view of the government that the fiscal stance is an appropriate one at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact the minister said last week that we must not minimize the effects of this and, on the other hand, that we must not exaggerate them, when
December 17, 1973

will the minister tell us what this means, those ordinary Canadians who cannot tell just exactly what it means, on the one hand, not to minimize something and, on the other hand, not to exaggerate it, in view of the severe consequences that may be felt by the Canadian people unless the government launches precautionary moves?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has quoted me correctly. I want to say to him that until the facts become clearer it would be premature to change the stance of the economic policy of the government. I want to suggest to him, in terms he might find un-Canadian, that I would prefer to base policy on facts when those facts are known.


GOVERNMENT STEPS TO OFFSET INCREASING PRICES OF CONSUMER COMMODITIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the wholesale price of sugar in Canada has doubled in the past month and this will be passed on in the form of considerably increased retail prices, and in view of the effect this will have on the cost of food in Canada which is already largely influenced by the energy situation, I ask the minister what steps the government proposes to take to offset these increase factors relative to the cost of food in Canada which is already running at the rate of increase of 18 per cent per year.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is aware of the earlier Tariff Board decision on sugar and its refining in Canada. I am reanalysing that decision in view of the present price structure.


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture, by way of a supplementary question, whether, in view of the very serious situation regarding the sugar market and the effect this will have on the cost of living in Canada, he is now prepared, after two years, to bring in his sugar policy?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, my sugar policy is not two years delayed; and by the time the two years are up you can be sure we will have a new sugar beet industry and a new sugar refining industry in western Ontario and a policy for all of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will see the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for South Shore.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


SURVEY OF COMPANIES ON CONSEQUENCES OF ENERGY CRISIS-PUBLICATION OF FINDINGS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Two weeks ago the minister indicated that his department was conducting a survey of over 1,000 corporations with respect to the effects of the energy crisis. Is the minister now prepared to inform the House of the results of his department's analysis of the data thus obtained, and also is he prepared to table that information for the benefit of the House?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 
GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR OVERLAND MOVEMENT OF OIL FOLLOWING CLOSING OF SEAWAY-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Lake Ontario section of the St. Lawrence Seaway will officially close on December 20, is the minister prepared at this time to announce any specific government actions and programs relating to overland movement of oil now moving through the seaway by tankers?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have already stated to the House that the seaway will close on December 20. It is not possible to postpone its closing. At the same time, we are preparing to move oil by train and truck.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the special dependency of the people of Atlantic Canada and Quebec on oil now moving through the St. Lawrence Seaway, can the minister give his assurance that the overland movement of oil will be in place by December 20?
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: The problem is as follows, Mr. Speaker. Everything must be ready to meet the needs of eastern Canada as soon as they will be felt.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he completed an assessment of the need for an overland oil transportation system and, if so, what specific new programs will he be implementing to assure the movement of oil by this route?

December 17, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions both with my colleague's department and with the oil companies with regard to the possibility of movement through this area. This matter is now being defined a little further. What is clear is that there may well be substantial additional investment required to undertake any movement in quantity.


EXPORT CONTROLS ON REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS FROM UNITED STATES-NEGOTIATIONS TO EXCLUDE CANADA
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the announcement by the United States energy czar, Mr. William Simon, to the effect that beginning last Friday export controls would be placed on refined petroleum products from the United States. In spite of the fact Mr. Simon hinted that Canada might not be included, I ask the minister whether he has been in touch with Mr. Simon or any of the authorities in the United States to ensure that Canada will not be included in view of the fact we export to the United States about 28 times the quantity of refined petroleum products that they export to us?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian representative in Washington with specific responsibility for the oil and gas area has been in touch with the United States administration to that effect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: First, has the minister had any assurance from the American government? Second, since I understand that ARCO, the marketing company for Atlantic Richfield at Cherry Point, has informed British Columbia customers that there will be no shipments from December 16 until January 1 and after that date shipments will be cut to 80 per cent, is the minister aware of this and is he or the National Energy Board taking up this matter? I ask the question because this action could have serious consequences for the lower mainland area of British Columbia and disastrous consequences for the people of Vancouver Island.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing this to my attention.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL- CONSIDERATION OF NORTHERN ONTARIO ROUTE
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It relates to the construction of the proposed pipeline to Montreal. In view of the recent assumptions by people in the news media that the line will be built from Sarnia, and in view of the interest shown in the past by the Northern Ontario members of the treasury benches in having this pipeline built through Northern Ontario from Sault Ste. Marie, would the minister indicate whether serious consideration is still being given to building that pipeline from Sault Ste. Marie through Northern Ontario and, if so,

will the decision be announced in a very short period of time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the possibility of the route from Sault Ste. Marie is indeed a very serious one, and I hope we will be able to make an announcement on this in the very near future.


PENITENTIARIES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. With regard to the discussions that he had with his provincial counterparts last week, would the minister say if any timetable was established for the phasing out of the women's prison in Kingston?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, there was no timetable, but the phasing out was based on an agreement we made with the provinces for the exchange of services and facilities. Under that agreement we hope to sign individual agreements with the different provinces to place women inmates in their institutions. As we sign them we will be able to phase out the women's penitentiary and probably provide other facilities for those left with us.


NATIVE INMATES-TIME OF SPECIAL CONFERENCE ON CORRECTIONS-PARTICIPATION BY INDIANS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the same meetings last week can the minister tell the House when the special conference on corrections relating to native people will be held and if he intends to consult with native leaders prior to that time to arrange for their assistance in working out rehabilitative programs?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was decided to have a conference on native inmates some time early next summer. A steering committee was set up under the chairmanship of the deputy minister for Manitoba to plan the conference, and it was decided that we would approach the Indian people to participate in this conference as well.


DISCUSSION WITH PREMIERS OF ATLANTIC PROVINCES OF MEASURES TO OFFSET RISING PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he had contact with the Atlantic provinces premiers over the weekend with regard to possible joint federal-provincial measures to cope with the
December 17, 1973

effects of rapidly rising prices for petroleum products on eastern Canadian provincial economies, and can the minister say if there has yet been a level set by the federal government beyond which it will not permit prices to rise in that area of Canada without relief measures being introduced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The answer to both parts of the question is no.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a brief supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Having regard to the special and serious consequences of the energy crisis on eastern Canada, has the minister made any specific proposals to cabinet to help mitigate these effects, for example, with respect to Newfoundland where the price of home heating oil has risen from 19 cents to over 40 cents a gallon in a comparatively short period of time?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am constantly making representations to my colleagues with regard to the betterment of conditions in Atlantic Canada, and you can take it for granted that I am doing so on this issue as well.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that some two weeks ago the minister received the report of the Canadian Transport Commission on rail passenger service in southwestern Ontario, would the minister advise the House when that report will be made available to the members of the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this report was received and is being analysed by the department. I want to discuss it with the government of Ontario and I hope that even before then we will reach some decision concerning this report.


William Herbert Jarvis: In light of the fact the minister has been deferring questions on this matter for some months awaiting this study, would he agree that the study should be made available to members of the House before he discusses the matter with his provincial counterpart in Ontario?
[Transla tion]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I-
Oral Questions


NEGOTIATIONS BY QUEBEC TO PURCHASE OVERSEAS OIL-PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware of the efforts of SOQUIP, the Quebec government oil company, to buy oil around the world, and especially the efforts of Paul Desrochers negotiating on behalf of the Quebec government in the Middle East? If so, has there been any exchange of information at the ministerial level and to officials of the Canadian Commercial Corporation as to success?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss the general question with my Quebec colleague last week. There was no indication at that time that any contract had been secured by SOQUIP or any other Quebec company.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the third quarter profits for corporations have gone up 48 per cent this year and profits of primary industries have gone up some 105 per cent, is the minister contemplating a policy of expanding selective price controls on products such as aluminum, nickel and other raw materials produced in this country?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member a supplementary question, and then I will see the hon. member for Lincoln, followed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the tremendous problems in some of these areas, could the minister tell us whether he is contemplating the possibility of implementing an export tax on such items as aluminum, nickel and copper?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if that were so, this would not be the time to announce it.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the sudden and sharp increase in the price of building materials during the last month to six weeks, presumably as a result of the petroleum problems which we are suffer-

December 17, 1973
Oral Questions
ing, with the result that the construction cost of an average dwelling has increased by between $1,000 and $1,200? If so, would the minister propose very soon either the reduction or elimination of the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his representation. Of course, I would analyse that situation against the revenue consequences to the government.


ORDER STOPPING EXPORT OF MEDIUM CRUDE OIL FROM SASKATCHEWAN TO UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he has some information on the medium crude exports from Saskatchewan about which I asked last week.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my information is that it is a question of the heavy crude involved in this situation. The board is expecting an increase in the export of heavy crude in this current month and, indeed, has sent to the various normal export licensees proposals, for the first time, to differentiate between light and heavy crude in order to put this Saskatchewan product on a sounder basis as far as export is concerned.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Would the minister care to comment on whether he or his colleague, the Minister of Justice, or the government in general have any information on the alleged 12-man antiespionage group that reports to the minister of justice of the province of Quebec?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no information with respect to that group.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask a question. He will appreciate that what he is doing now is asking the minister to comment. Comments should be made by way of statement on motions but if the hon. member is seeking information he should ask a question tending in that direction.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I did ask for information, Mr. Speaker. If the minister has no information on it, because anti-espion-

age is not normally a matter handled by provincial law enforcement agencies I wonder if the minister would make an investigation and report to the House?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I shall do that, although it is a little vague as to exactly what group the member has in mind.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is there more than one?


William Warren Allmand: I might say we do have consultations with the Quebec government and other provincial governments with respect to security and police matters, but we do it through their responsible ministers and from time to time with the premiers.


PROTECTION OF PRIVACY BILL
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this question could be put to the Minister of Justice but it might be better if I were to address it to the Prime Minister or to the government House leader. In view of the fact the government's responsibility, indeed its answerability, is to the elected members of this House of Commons, and in view of the fact the provision that the Senate wants to cut out of the wiretapping bill is one on which this House voted precisely, is the government considering introducing an appropriate motion for the rejection of the Senate amendment to Bill C-176?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the exact course of conduct with regard to Bill C-176 is under consideration.


PENSIONS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Bill C-220 was passed to increase the annuities paid to ex-servicemen in order to help them meet the rising cost of living. The answer given to my question No. 3206 at page 8664 of Hansard indicates that this amendment will apply only to 3.6 per cent of retired servicemen. Would the President of the Treasury Board now consider sponsoring further amendments to the act so that it will apply to more than a small fraction of ex-servicemen and women?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look at that representation.
December 17, 1973


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister intend to make a statement in the House about the replacement of long-range patrol aircraft to carry out Canada's maritime surveillance responsibilities?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not in the near future, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: On December 4 the minister issued a press release. I should like to know whether the minister can let the House and the country know whether, before the decision as announced in the press release was taken, consideration was given by him and by the cabinet to the almost equal trade-off possibilities, in the case of Nimrod, of balancing off the cost of acquiring the Nimrod against the sale of CANDU reactors to Britain to give us access in this field not only to Britain but to the European Economic Community?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very careful consideration was given to all possible offsets in the case of all competing manufacturing companies.


INQUIRY WHETHER IN FACT SAUDI ARABIA HAS IMPOSED EMBARGO ON EXPORTS OF OIL TO CANADA
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister now in a position to confirm that there is a de facto embargo on shipments of oil to Canada from Saudi Arabia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are receiving two conflicting sets of information. From our diplomatic representatives and from the government of Saudi Arabia and from the international company there is the government denial that Canada is under embargo, but Aramco, the oil company, insists that we are.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister confirm that no oil has been shipped to Canada from Saudi Arabia since October 19, and that the shipment he referred to the other day as having been received by Irving was in fact en route on or before October 19?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm the actual timing of the shipment received late in November.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


SALE OF LIQUID PROTEIN TO LIVESTOCK FARMERS IN LIGHT OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING MOISTURE CONTENT OF DRY PRODUCTS
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact it has always been mandatory for feed manufacturers to register specifically the moisture content of their dry products before sale to the trade, why are companies presently allowed to offer for sale liquid protein to the livestock farmer without registering the maximum moisture content so that farmers will know how much plain water they are buying?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to look into that.


OIL SHIPMENTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CLARIFY SITUATION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, following the information just given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding shipments of oil from Saudi Arabia. Does the government intend to take any initiative, or has it taken any initiative to clarify the situation with regard to the shipment of oil from Saudi Arabia; or does the government have to await passage of Bill C-236 and declare a state of emergency before taking a simple diplomatic initiative?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador accredited to Saudi Arabia has been there for the last few days.


OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976 METHOD OF AWARDING ADVERTISING CONTRACT FOR COIN PROGRAM
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General and arises from reports that the Postmaster General awarded the Olympic coin advertising contract on the basis of what he has called usual procedures. Will the minister tell the House what these usual procedures are and, specifically, did one of these procedures include consideration of the fact that a Liberal Party campaign official is reported to have held a high position-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must recognize that the question asked in those terms is out of order.

December 17, 1973
Oral Questions


USE OF CANADIAN SHIPS TO MOVE WESTERN OIL TO EASTERN CANADA
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question might properly be directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. What I am trying to get at is the registry of ships, namely, where we get them, the number of ships, the registry and the flag under which they are sailing. I am speaking of those ships now engaged in the movement of oil from the west coast to the east coast of Canada. Can the minister advise the House whether or not any Canadian ships are involved in this transshipment? If so, how many? If there are none, are we doing anything to encourage Canadian bottoms, Canadian flag ships, to move this oil from west to east?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Minister of Transport.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the attention of the Minister of Transport, as the Minister of Supply and Services has suggested I should direct my question to him. Can the Minister of Transport indicate to the House whether any of the ships engaged in the movement of oil out of Alberta through the Trans Mountain pipeline and thence to the east coast of Canada are Canadian-registered vessels? If none of this oil is moving in Canadian-registered vessels, what are the plans or intentions of the government to encourage or to secure Canadian ships for this particular purpose?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in principle we try to encourage-besides this is what was decided after a meeting with the Maritimes premiers-owners of vessels registered in Canada.
I had in hand last week a list of vessels used and copy of their registration for the shipment of oil. Maybe I could bring him such a list tomorrow. About ten vessels are involved but unfortunately I would be unable to give him their names by heart.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. I will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary but the hon. member for Leeds is rising on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago I directed a question to the Postmaster General. I believe it is a legitimate question as it concerns a matter of concern to all Canadians and to members of this House. On two occasions since I asked the question the Postmaster General has risen in his place in an obvious attempt to answer it. I

felt it was a legitimate question seeking information which it was within my rights to request.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask a question if he follows the rules, but he knows he cannot ask a question that makes charges or allegations. It is easy to ask a question without using that kind of approach, as I am sure the hon. member knows.


SHIPPING
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport advise the House whether a date has been set for Canada to advise the members of the British Commonwealth shipping arrangement of our intention to withdraw from that agreement? Will we do that before the end of the current year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it will be done pretty soon. It has to be done by cabinet, and I think this matter will be before cabinet soon.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the western provinces in July were led to understand with the agreement of the Minister of Transport that they would be able to obtain information relating to the costs of the railways, the CNR and the CPR, and as the minister has given the CNR and CPR an ultimatum to supply such information within ten days, can the minister inform the House whether the two railways have informed him that they will or will not supply the information?
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I stated last week that the railway companies had not yet been requested by the Canadian Transport Commission to provide this information. I have contacted the railway companies directly and they have until December 21 to comply, but no reply has been received as yet.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is a very serious charge which was laid a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). I can assure him that the award of contracts partly to a Montreal firm and partly to a Vancouver firm was based on their competence. The unqualified success of the program bears witness to their competence since the production of coins cannot keep up with the demand.
December 17, 1973


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I did not, as the minister has stated-I feel I have to correct this-make an allegation. I asked a question. That is an entirely different situation. I feel I am certainly within my rights to ask a question that involves the expenditure of public funds without the calling of tenders or comparable presentations from other companies. I believe the minister was quite incorrect to make the charge that I made an allegation. He must feel there is something wrong or he would not have used the word "allegation". He must have a guilty conscience.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 14, 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. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday at four o'clock I was about one-third of the way through my speech. Perhaps I might clarify some of my remarks. I had been speaking on clause 35 of the bill. As the title suggests, the provisions of the bill are to be invoked only if there is a national energy emergency. I would therefore question the propriety of clause 35(4) which reads:
An order under subsection (3) shall be laid before parliament not later than fifteen days after it has been made, or, if parliament is not then sitting, within the first fifteen days next thereafter that parliament is sitting.
It is my contention that if parliament is not sitting when the emergency is announced, parliament should be recalled immediately. There are precedents for such action. Earlier this year when the railway unions went on strike there was a national emergency. Part of the country was in danger as a result of lack of transportation and parliament was recalled immediately. I think that if an energy emergency should arise in this country, the situation would be important enough to justify the immediate recall of parliament, when the matter could be debated. What better forum is there for debating such a matter than one in which 264 members of parliament can explain
Energy Supplies Emergency Act the situation in the various areas of the country? For that matter, even if parliament is sitting when the emergency arises I think the House should immediately deal with the emergency by debate and perhaps a vote should be taken on the question.
I have one question regarding the validity of the bill. I am referring to that part between clauses 1 to 10 inclusive. I am curious to know, as I am sure all members of the House are, why the energy allocation board should be made directly responsible to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and be controlled by him. I suggest the board would be more respected and more acceptable if it were an autonomous body and if it were available for consultation with the minister and the department as well as with private industry. Perhaps, if necessary, in the performance of its duties it could even consult with those with expertise in this field on my side of the House.
The wide-ranging powers requested in this bill with respect to alternate fuels are too autocratic and totally unnecessary. The provinces are trading their resources, one example being electrical power. That resource is being traded among the provinces now and I am sure they would be willing to do this automatically in a situation in which one province is short of such power.
Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive of this bill will lead, I believe, to complete control over all of Canada's non-renewable energy resources being vested in one man responsible to the federal government of Canada. The federal government's relations with the government of the province of Alberta are now, to put it mildly, strained. I would hate to see what would happen if the clauses of this bill were invoked should an emergency arise and the government had the authority to legislate the bill's provisions within the province even without consultation should they feel it necessary.
The province of Alberta and the oil industry have grown together over the years. By virtue of this development, the Alberta government has developed a great amount of knowledge and expertise in the field of energy and resource management. Consultation on energy matters with the provinces in general and Alberta in particular will be much more beneficial to the government than their present policy of consultation, which seems to be only with the New Democratic Party. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by virtue of his Vancouver verbal attack on Premier Lougheed, has set the stage for confrontation at the forthcoming first ministers' conference in January. For the sake of all concerned, I urge the Prime Minister to change his approach from one of confrontation to one of consultation.
I have already voiced my objections to some of the requests made in this bill-for example, the severance of consultation with the provinces in energy matters and the granting of autocratic powers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would also like to express my displeasure that the government would request this House, in the case of an energy crisis, to revoke the Combines Investigation Act, various transport acts and environmental considerations should any or all of these interfere with the invoking of Bill C-236.

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
If an emergency existed, surely all Canadians would pull together: transportation officials would do everything in their power to transport oil or other energy products across this country and there would not be any need to overcome all the legislation for which the provinces, the federal government and many citizens of this country have worked very hard. Surely that would be a bad precedent to set. I join with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in requesting that this government not allow a board of officials the right to destroy those regulations and statutes which the provinces and the federal government have enacted over the years in an attempt to make this country a better place for all. This is a dangerous precedent and one that should not be treated lightly by either side of the House.
Over the past few weeks a number of comments have been made about a national petroleum corporation. There will be a lot more talk about it-perhaps in the new session. Apparently, the objective of this corporation is to assist and participate in the research and development of non-renewable energy sources, particularly the oil sands. I wish to spend a little time on the topic of research. The government said it will commit $40 million over the next five years in the field of research, particularly on the Athabasca tar sands. I do not feel that is nearly enough to spend on research, particularly on the tar sands, when you compare it with what is being spent by some corporations in this area. For example, in the past couple of years Syncrude has put some $80 million into research. Texaco announced it will spend $40 million over the next two years. Great Canadian Oil Sands has spent millions of dollars in this field over the years. When it comes to research into the oil fields, $40 million is just not enough.
The United States government has said it will spend some $10 billion in the field of research into all forms of energy between now and 1980. That should be a precedent for this government. We should put in at least one-tenth of that amount, not only into energy usage of the conventional type but into other types of energy where we have some expertise. For example, there are the high-powered gas lasers to which the United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently referred.
The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) will have a lot to tell us later, including in committee, about the Athabasca tar sands. Very few people are aware of the great expanse of Alberta which these sands cover. They are approximately 70 miles wide and 130 miles long. Syncrude will mine eight square miles to produce 125,000 barrels a day for the next 25 years. These sands contain approximately 600 billion barrels of oil in place. About half of this oil is either currently recoverable or shows promise of being recoverable in the not too distant future. The part that seems destined for earliest large-scale development is the 110 billion barrels of bitumen sufficiently close to the surface to be economically mined. These shallow deposits will produce sufficient bitumen to create 86 billion barrels of synthetic crude oil. Beyond there deposits there are some 200 billion barrels of high-grade bitumen in deeper formations which it may some day be possible to tap with in situ production techniques.
Thus, the tar sands represent an ultimate potential of more than 300 billion barrels of bitumen. This compares

with total proved North American reserves of 56 billion barrels of conventional crude oil. The only comparable oil energy resources in North America are the oil shale deposits in the western United States. The oil shales may contain as much as 600 billion barrels of petroleum, but no feasible method of producing this oil has yet been commercially demonstrated.
In one of Mr. Lougheeds's speeches he states that one of the key portions of Alberta's energy policy is the development of new production both from conventional and oil sand sources. The discovery of replacement barrels of oil and natural gas is going to be more difficult and more expensive, so that the cash flows and incentives to explorers of these resources must be adequate.
In a presentation made to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on May 10, 1973, the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists noted the following conclusions: First, Canada has a very large potential physical resource base of fossil fuel reserves in petroleum and natural gas, in heavy oil sands and in coal. Less than 1 per cent of the estimated reserves in place have been produced today. Second, Canada has on hand a proven recoverable reserves supply of conventional oil and gas capable of meeting her near-term future needs of the next 10 to 15 years. Third, development of Canada's additional energy resources will necessitate increased costs. These resources will be technologically difficult to discover and develop, and costly to transport because of their remote location. Fourth, in order to provide significant contributions of hydrocarbons from the frontier exploration areas, synthetic oil from our heavy oils and processed products from our coal measures, long lead times of ten years or more are necessary because of the complex technology, logistics and over-all magnitude of these undertakings. In addition, a lead time of up to three years is necessary to acquire the materials and technological expertise to carry out the many areas of energy research and development which are required.
At the present time it is extremely difficult to get, not only staff with the necessary expertise but also the special machinery and equipment which are required. There is an unprecedented demand all over the world for the type of equipment needed in the development of energy, not only from oil but from uranium. Syncrude, for example, had to reach agreement with a West German firm several months ago in connection with the equipment needed for research and development this year. There are very few firms capable of providing the expertise and equipment required to develop the oil sands. If other companies, or even the government itself, were to attempt to get such equipment today they would have to wait two years before they could do so.
The standing committee heard evidence that money and incentives were required in connection with exploration. Mr. Speaker, there are people in my constituency in Alberta who, after working in the exploration field for years, are now going south to the United States to take advantage of the incentives provided in that country. In this connection I should like to quote as follows from a newspaper article which has come to my attention:
Concept Resources is one of 88 Canadian companies carrying out
December 17, 1973

oil and gas exploration in foreign jurisdictions, mostly in the United States and the North Sea.
Three years ago, Mr. Darling, 44, decided to curtail his Canadian activity. Today, through a wholly-owned subsidiary, Concept Resources Inc. of Billings, Montana, he has shifted virtually all active exploration to Montana, Colorado, Washington and New Mexico.
"What I wonder is why other companies are staying in Canada," he says, adding he is convinced that other Canadian-based companies will follow his example. Government policies in Canada are taking away the incentives, whereas in the U.S. "I see nothing but roses".
Premier Lougheed has said it is critical we should realize that the life index of conventional oil and gas reserves is rapidly declining and that the rate of new discoveries of crude oil and natural gas has declined. Little success has been experienced in finding new oilfields in Alberta, the northern territories or offshore of the Maritimes. Unfortunately, recent federal actions have probably set back the discovery and development of alternate natural gas reserves in the Mackenzie Valley basin.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: If it were not for the Alberta oil sands, or tar sands as they are sometimes called, the long-term Canadian oil supply position would be a poor one. The Alberta oil sands contain reserves of enormous potential provided we do not delay their development. Again, I say it is vital that we should not drive away funds for the development of oil supplies in Canada. We must remember that even if it begins operations now, Syncrude will not produce until 1978 at the earliest. We must bear in mind, also, that it will not be possible to get further supplies of skilled labour and special equipment for at least two years, and that even when oil begins to flow from the tar sands, some time in the 1980s probably, it will likely be restricted to about 125,000 barrels a day.
I would point out that in 1959, 1969 and again in early 1973 the government of Alberta attempted to persuade the federal government that a pipeline to Montreal was and is in the national public interest. The response to this suggestion has in the past been negative. If the Montreal pipeline were in operation today, shortages of energy in eastern Canada could be eliminated. If we wish to become self-sufficient while at the same time maintaining our market in the United States, present requirements call for between 600,000 and 700,000 barrels a day.
To meet this demand, four or five new plants are immediately required so that the crude may be extracted from the tar sands in the necessary volume. This will mean not only heavy financial investment but the provision of a satisfactory social structure in the areas to be developed. The tar sands are some 200 miles north of Edmonton. Each plant will require at least 1,000 people to operate it. These people will need to be housed in the area, and it Is difficult to expect a small community to provide newcomers with the facilities which they probably enjoyed in other areas where they had been living. Recruiting staff will not be easy, in any case. People with suitable qualifications are already employed in one sector or another of the oil industry. Before they would consent to work on a new project they would require an assurance of wages at least equal to those they have been getting, and probably higher.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act These are my comments on Bill C-236. I hope that in committee we shall make the amendments which are necessary.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the House for a few minutes today on predominantly one aspect of the bill before us-an aspect which has largely been overlooked in the debate thus far. I am not suggesting it has been overlooked because hon. members on the government side do not share my concern about the threat to environmental law which is contained in one of the clauses of the bill. I am surprised, though, that although this debate has gone on for some days, during which time a number of government supporters have taken part, none of them has addressed himself to what in my view is one of the most dangerous and probably one of the most unnecessary clauses in the measure. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in the debate some days ago, did refer to the environment but only in the context of hastening the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
I do not want to go over the bill clause by clause or anything like that-


An hon. Member:: Go ahead; the speaker won't mind.


John Allen Fraser: -but I think it is important we should keep in mind clause 24, which is headed "Environmental Considerations". What is the effect of this clause? What it does, basically, is authorize the government, through a board it proposes to set up under this bill, to override all environmental law in Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


John Allen Fraser: I urge all hon. members, especially those on the government side, to ask themselves whether, in the first place, this provision is necessary. Second, if it should be necessary in some circumstances, is it necessary to hand these sweeping powers to a board of officials and then sit back and watch those officials go to the cabinet and say, "These are the regulations we require in order to override environmental law"? After all, as I said in the House a few days ago when putting a question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), all members of this House, as well as our colleagues in the provincial legislatures, have worked for a good number of years to build up in Canada a body of environmental law which will start to cope with the very serious and complex problems relating to the environment with which we are faced in this country. These are serious problems. We have to extract from the earth our minerals; we have to take trees out of the forests; we require hydroelectric power and resources of gas and oil. We also have to build highways and ports and transship goods from one part of the country to the other.
Because we have to do all these things, and because all of them infringe to some degree or another on the environment, we have during the last few years, though admittedly belatedly, begun to pass laws which give us the capacity to cope with the problem. The problem, very simply put, is that we have built up a high standard of living and way of

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act life on an exploitative concept of natural resources and our consumption of natural resources, but during all these years have neglected for the most part to do anything about protecting those resources from a conservation point of view. In addition, we have done very little to protect the environment, the earth we live on, from the ravages of our industrial onslaught.
To me it is peculiar that for many years debate went on between the advocates of a strong federal position in the environmental field and those who felt that the federal government ought not to get itself directly involved in the environmental field because some people said it was essentially a provincial matter. There were brought before committees of this House experts who gave evidence as to what the federal power was in environmental matters. I was not one who ever gave testimony, but I have read some of the testimony that was given. Many of us believed that if one were to look at the provisions of the British North America Act in the context of the time that statute was passed, in view of the fact that environmental considerations were not matters specifically given to the provinces the federal government did have a very good argument for saying that, wherever necessary, it should be able to exercise its federal power to protect the environment.
However, these arguments were never really accepted by the federal government over the past few years and this is clearly shown in the legislation that has been passed. I refer to acts like the Clean Air Act and the Canada Water Act, which for the most part do not go into operation unless provincial agreement is sought and obtained in advance. We have always had the Fisheries Act, which for very many years has been the most effective anti-pollution legislation in this country, at least with respect to our waters. But this is a government and a party which for the last half dozen years or so have backed away from exercising a strong federal position in environmental law and yet now propose to this House that they give the right to abridge what law there is to a five-man board.
Surely there is a grave inconsistency in the approach that the government has taken over a number of years. I think there comes a time when the federal power has to be exercised in the interests of all Canadians. I would be the last one to run and hide behind the shield of provincial rights in every case when the national good required federal action. But I find it passing strange that this government, which for the most part has retreated when it comes to taking the initiative in proposing environmental legislation, now advances with a vengeance and grants to a board the right to make regulations to take away the effect of environmental laws, provincial, municipal and federal, which we have all worked so hard to pass in the last half dozen years.
Although they have not directed their minds to this so far in the debate, some apologists for the government may well say that subsection (1) of clause 24 provides that the board "may" consult with other bodies, including the provinces. But that is a permissive provision; there is nothing making the consultation mandatory. The Minister of the Environment and some members of the government may take some comfort from the fact that under subsection (2) the board "shall" consult with the Minister of the Environment. But the Minister of the Environment does

not have the power under this bill to say no, even if he wanted to, and unless he can win the fight later on in cabinet with his other colleagues the recommendation put forward by the board will take the form of regulations no matter whether the Minister of the Environment is against it or not. The government may well say, "Well, of course, that won't happen". All I can say to that is that every time legislation is passed that overrides rights and laws and gives an amazing amount of power to a few people under a so-called crisis, this is the hardest legislation to get off the books, and it is at that time that things happen which everybody said beforehand would not happen.
I can give some examples of this, Mr. Speaker. As I have mentioned before in this House, I very well remember reading some extracts from the minutes of the proceedings before the justice and legal affairs committee where the then minister of justice said that the rules of natural law would apply to a certain section in the new Expropriation Act. This year the courts have said no, that is not so at all. I also remember reading with some interest the comments of the Minister of the Environment several years ago when this House was debating the James Bay project. The position was put to him; Would the environmental studies that the government was prepared to do in conjunction with the province of Quebec be conducted before construction began? His reply was, "Yes, that is our intention". But, of course, that is not what happened at all.
In this regard the press not long ago made a very interesting observation. It pointed out construction was well under way, before any environmental studies had been completed or were even likely to be completed. On August 23 of this year the Globe and Mail reported as follows:
Results of the first environmental impact studies on the James Bay hydroelectric project will not be made public until after three airports and a 450-mile road are finished and a start made on the first and largest dam complex.
J. C. Tremblay, the James Bay Development Corp. official in charge of federal-provincial relations, said yesterday that by next spring construction of three airports and a 450-mile road will be finished. And construction on the LG2 dam complex, the largest of four on the La Grande River in phase 1 of Quebec's hydroelectric development, will have started. Meanwhile, Mr. Tremblay said yesterday that in fact very few, if any, "environmental impact studies" have been started by either the federal or provincial scientists engaged in the cost-shared environmental impact effort.
Under the federal-provincial agreement, the true environmental impact studies-the ones that attempt to uncover problem areas and recommend changes in plans to prevent environmental damage-will not start until next year, Mr. Tremblay said.
And because even cursory environmental impact studies take a least one to two years to complete, this would mean any results and recommendations based on the results could not be made public until late in 1975 or 1976 at the earliest.
When government members say that these things will not happen and we are becoming alarmed about something that is not likely to take place, I remind them of what we were alarmed about yesterday and the fact that they have in fact taken place today. If one looks at the legislation the federal government has passed in recent years in respect of the environment, he will see that my contention for the most part is correct in that the federal government has
December 17, 1973

withdrawn from exercising federal power in defence of our environment. I remember that not very long ago at a committee meeting the minister was asked why the federal government did not move in to stop the discharge of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River, and he said this was a municipal problem and the federal government did not have the power. However, it was pointed out to him that under the Fisheries Act the term "corporation" included a municipal corporation, and his reply was that it would not be political to move in that direction.
This is an illustration of the fact that we must pay attention to the lack of concern by the federal government in respect of the use of its power and authority in defence of our environment. One wonders why the federal government has taken a hands-off approach. This was borne out in replies to questions directed to the Minister of the Environment on April 10 when he appeared before the committee on fisheries and forestry. I quote in part from that exchange. I began by asking:
I take it that what the minister is saying is that there is a certain amount of discussion between departments on these matters and, hopefully, the Department of the Environment somehow finds out about things in time to have some input. But is there any legislation at all that makes it a requirement of another department, working within its own sphere of influence and authority, to have each project approved by Environment before it goes ahead and announces it, and gets it under way?


Mr. Davis:: There is a requirement that projects of any scale, certainly projects that would come to cabinet or to the higher levels of government, be checked out, not only from a financial point of view but from an environmental point of view, but this is not a requirement in law, it is an administrative requirement within the government.
MR. Fraser: In other words, it is a function of government to try to ensure that this happens?


John (Jack) Davis: It is administrative and not legal.
MR. Fraser: Has there been any serious consideration by the government to secure this procedure by enacting legislation which would require the Department of the Environment to peruse and approve of any project done by another department from an environmental point of view before it goes ahead?


John (Jack) Davis: I do not think legislation along those lines would be considered very rational, at least in a parliamentary type of government.
I suggest we have a government that does not want to use the power it has to discipline its own departments, yet it is prepared by this legislation to abridge and abrogate all environmental law in this country. There is a vast body of law in this country in respect of the environment. It might surprise hon. members to know just how extensive this law is. I have before me a compilation of all the environmental laws and regulations in this country, the index of which shows that in the province of Alberta there are 54 laws and regulations, in British Columbia there are 27, in Manitoba there are 11, in New Brunswick there are 14, in Newfoundland there are 11, in Nova Scotia there are 9, in Ontario there are 36, in Prince Edward Island there are 18, in Quebec there are 30, and in Saskatchewan there are 30. Under the Canadian index there are 55 noted environmental laws and regulations, both provincial and federal.
Through this bill the minister is apparently prepared to propose a measure which overrides all those laws and regulations. In looking over the debates on this matter I noted with interest that hardly anyone has mentioned
Energy Supplies Emergency Act environmental concerns except Conservative speakers. The only reference the Prime Minister made to the environment is to be found at page 8482 of Hansard where he said, when talking about the gas pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley:
While this project must, of course, be submitted to the usual regulatory proceedings and cannot go ahead until it has been approved by responsible Canadian authorities, the government believes that it would be in the public interest to facilitate early construction by any means which do not require the lowering of environmental standards or the neglect of Indian rights and interests.
If that is the Prime Minister's view-and I must assume that all hon. members on the government side agree with it-and if he wants to push ahead with the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, why is this incredible power included in this bill at the present time? I think it is only fair to point out that no one on the government side so far has given any explanation, or even attempted to give one, as to why this power is needed. No one has tried to come up with any defence in answer to comments by speakers on this side of the House in criticism of this particular aspect. No government member has given us any explanation at all as to why the government is asking for these extraordinary powers.
I would ask, quite seriously, why no government member has even concerned himself with this matter? I know that government members are just as concerned as I am about our environment, but I should think that someone on the government side would have gone to the minister or his colleagues to find out what we are doing and what is the great need for this power to be given to the suggested five-man board.
I suggest to hon. members that they should take a quick look at the volume and extent of our environmental law and ask themselves if what is embodied in this bill is what we should do, and whether it is really necessary. It is all very well to talk about the energy crisis-and we certainly do have a problem, part of which can be associated with transportation. But I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) if he would agree that in spite of the difficulties and problems of our fellow citizens in the eastern provinces, this government does not require the tremendous power asked for in this bill. Surely the government must have some idea of the environmental laws that might be abridged or abrogated momentarily or for a limited period of time in order to carry out the purpose of this bill, allocating resources when undue shortages may occur. No one on the government side has assisted us in any way in this regard.
When we consider this matter of extraordinary powers, government members will have to agree that it is not the function of this House to grant such powers to the government unless it makes out a case. So far as I can see, silence is not a case: in this regard the government has made no case whatsoever for these far reaching powers to abrogate or abridge environmental law in this country.
One might ask what sort of situation the government has in mind. Has the government in mind the air quality standards surrounding some refinery somewhere? If so, surely these places could be isolated and described. Surely

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act the government, since it has a board which advises it from time to time, can go to the board and ask it where it expects the government might have to relax the environmental standards. Surely this is a legitimate question for government members to ask; but I do not hear any of them asking it. I do not hear anyone on the other side of the House even beginning to try to persuade me or any other hon. member that this legislation is necessary. When one looks back at the history of environmental legislation in this country, we find that it was a phenomenon that the government, under pressure, established the Department of the Environment.
It was also only under pressure that the government passed the Clean Air Act and the Canada Water Act, which legislation, as I said earlier in this address, was carefully designed to make sure that the federal power does not push too hard in any direction. Yet without any evidence or definitive explanation concerning where these laws will be abridged, if there is a need, the federal government pushes in and tells Canadians from coast to coast in every province that at the whim of a five-man board, if it should so decide, any environmental law can be abridged.
I say that is an extraordinary situation and not one in which I am happy to hand over to the government that sort of power. Government speakers may say the federal government has not pushed for this power because it encouraged the provinces and coaxed them along. I wonder how much coaxing the government did, ard I wonder how much provincial legislation has come to pass because there was no federal legislation. Certainly in many areas this is so. The fact is that because the federal government did not provide strong leadership in the environmental situation the provinces have moved as fast as they have.
There is always cause for concern whether in certain cases provincial legislation might be adequate, and one wonders where the federal government is. I notice on page two of today's Globe and Mail an article concerning lead poisoning. I should like to quote from this article as follows:
Officials from the environment and the health ministries have expressed concern at the effectiveness of existing pollution legislation, doctors have expressed anger that children they treated have to be sent back to the areas where they were initially poisoned, researchers claim that lead contamination levels have not been significantly reduced and the level of public exasperation has been skyrocketing.
I ask why the federal government has not applied its power and force to look at this sort of thing. The fact of the matter is that the federal government has pretty well neglected to move on the environmental front. I know someone could tell me about the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act which sat on the shelf for a long time before there were any regulations. Someone could tell me about other acts and regulations. But for the most part the federal government, except under the Fisheries Act, has not much power within the provinces or has not had the courage to exercise it. However, here we have a crisis which is not very well explained and in respect of which a number of intelligent people-I am not talking about anybody in the political process at all, but people commenting

from the sidelines-ask just how grave a crisis we really face.
I think we legitimately pose a question here. I believe the question is: Why has the federal government decided now to use this power to abridge environmental laws? Members of the government have failed to try to address their minds to the problem in this debate. I think probably my friends and colleagues on the government side may well be asking the same question. No doubt part of the reason they are asking that question is the extraordinary exchange which took place a few days ago between myself and the Minister of the Environment. On Tuesday, December 4, as recorded at page 8388 of Hansard, I asked this question of the Minister of the Environment:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Can he assure the House that the provisions of clause 24 of Bill C-236, whereby the energy supplies allocation board is empowered to override environmental laws, will not apply to pollution control standards or to permits issued by provincial governments ?
The minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot assure the hon. member of that. However, we are working very closely with provincial authorities and we have the closest liaison possible with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I wonder how closely the government has been working with the provincial authorities. A few days after this I had occasion to reach officials of the government of British Columbia on the telephone, and officials in most departments to whom I spoke said they had barely heard that this act was in the mill. From what I could gather there had been no close liaison in respect of this particular section. On the same day I then asked this question:
In view of the fact that for a good number of years some hon. members, including members on the government side, have worked very hard to establish good environmental laws, can the minister advise whether clause 24 will apply? Will he make a statement to make it clear to the House that environmental standards are not going to be sacrificed across this country just because of an energy shortage in some parts, and will he tell the House why the power to regulate relaxation of environmental law is given to five appointed officials without any provision for appeal or public discussion?
This is the extraordinary reply given by the Minister of the Environment:
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is correct in suggesting that that clause can suspend environmental standards. At the same time, I know of no existing federal or provincial legislation which will in fact be overridden.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Minister of the Environment said that he knows of no existing federal or provincial legislation which will in fact be overridden. If the Minister of the Environment does not know of any provincial or federal legislation which will be overridden, what in heaven's name are we doing passing this piece of legislation?
I ask every member on the government side, because I know they surely are not here to try to deliberately override the environmental laws in this country, to speak to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and to the Prime Minister and ask them what in the name of heaven is meant by that remark. We are talking about emergency legislation. We are talking about an act which, apart completely from the envi-
December 17, 1973

ronmental aspect, abridges and invades an area which does not under ordinary circumstances belong to the federal government. That in itself is warning enough. However, when in respect of this particular part of the bill we find this extraordinary reply from the minister, when he says he knows of no existing federal or provincial legislation which will in fact be overridden, I ask why in the name of heaven are we looking at this bill which in effect would abridge environmental legislation? If the government's view is that this will apply only to some municipal legislation, let it say so; let the government tell us exactly what is its area of concern. But please don't come and ask me, an opposition member, in the face of silence and no explanation-what explanation we have been given makes no sense-to rush off pell-mell to give the government this authority unless the government can justify it.
I do not think we will be thanked by the Canadian people if we sit back and then finally go along with a provision like this. After all, too many members of the Canadian public have worked too long with legislators over a period of years to build up the body of environmental law which we presently have. I take some comfort from comments of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). I know that often his remarks are not designed to give me or anybody else any comfort-and that is fair enough, Mr. Speaker. But as recorded at page 8754 of Hansard, the hon. member said in part:
Certainly there is great need for clarification of a number of proposals in the bill. Certainly there is great need for a number of amendments, because some of the powers are unnecessarily large or unnecessarily wide.
I certainly agree with that. Further, I do not think that what I have said will meet with too much disagreement on the government side. I would urge the government, when this bill reaches committee, to co-operate with all hon. members in making sure that, in an attempt to take the responsibility that is the government's and effectively to establish some machinery to combat a possible shortfall in some parts of the country, we do not go overboard on this question and pass legislation which has not been defended, which is probably indefensible and which goes a long way to wiping out the work of the last half dozen years.
[Transla tion]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of Bill C-236, I have listened with great interest to all those who spoke, especially to our leader the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and several of our colleagues. I had not intended to speak on second reading, but owing to the turn of the discussion and the determination of the Progressive Conservative members to carry on with this debate, I thought that I should urge this House to be a little bit more understanding.
Personally, I must admit that I am not overly enthusiastic about that bill, while I am willing to have it read a second time before Christmas to allow a more thorough consideration by the standing committee, even if we have to return to this House after New Year's and the meeting with the provinces to have it passed. Like many other members, I regret that the government did not chose to
Energy Supplies Emergency Act introduce this bill after consulting with all of the provinces of Canada, both oil-producing and oil-consuming.
As was so rightly stated by our leader, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), the present chain of events is leading us very rapidly towards an economic crisis nearly as serious as that of the Thirties, if the government does not assume its responsibilities and does not co-operate with all the provinces to put a stop to the financial ambitions of the oil giants for whom money has precedence over the security of the population. This government, faithful servant to big finance, invokes the urgency of the situation to have the bill adopted this time without any consultation with the provinces.
The previous speaker was wondering a moment ago why the government is requesting such extraordinary powers by introducing Bill C-236. Mr. Speaker, we are used to the tactics of this centralizing government. Very cleverly they create emergency situations to force Parliament into enacting legislation which the population will reprove soon afterwards in order to further extend their rule over the whole country, encroaching more and more upon provincial jurisdictions. I say to the hon. member who has spoken a moment ago that this is the reason for introducing this extraordinary emergency measure. At times I think that I am reliving the end of the thirties when this same central government pretexting the urgency of winning the war brought Parliament to approve the 1942 agreements which turned provincial governments into mere vassals of the federal government.
Today the federal government wants to do still more than stealing the taxation rights exclusive to the provinces. It wants to become the absolute master of all energy powers in Canada. It knows well that all natural resources belong exclusively to the provinces. It wants to infringe on that field and its only weapon is the pretext of emergency. The minister will say that this is temporary and he notes that even in the bill. But we are convinced in advance that this temporary act will become permanent just like the agreement of 1942 through which the central government undertook to give back to the provinces three fields of taxation as soon as the war would end.
There came about the situation we are faced with, Mr. Speaker, a war of nerves to reconquer what we had lent to those wordless centralisers in Ottawa. As the old saying goes, if you want indeed to control two men stronger than you, have them fight together, or still, divide to rule. That is indeed what this government is doing, dividing the provinces, having them fight among themselves to better possess them. That is monstrous, will you say, but that is the truth. And all that for the sake of Canadian unity.
First, of course, we must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, if there is really an oil shortage in Canada. One has only to read non finance owned or controlled newspapers to realize that there is no real shortage but rather a provoked and well orchestrated shortage even if in a boogyman manner the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) came into this House trumpeting that we were going to be short of fuel this winter, that we were going to freeze, that we were going to be short of gasoline. He even went as far as saying that we would be short of electric

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act power. Just imagine, a shortage of electric power in Quebec because of the Israeli-Arab war. And to strenghten his SOS he suggests his famous restrictions everyone of them weirder than the other, such as turning the thermostat down to 70 instead of 72, as if he did not know that it cost as much to maintain a temperature at 70 or 72. Here is another restriction, closing doors very quickly so as not to let the cold come in, and leaving all windows closed to keep the heat in.
And during all that time oil companies like Golden Eagle Canada Limited are stating they doubled their exports to the United States in the last month of 1973, 2.5 million gallons in one month. One can read this in the newspaper La Presse, and I quote:
In spite of the crisis, Quebec exports oil. At a time when Quebec is theatened with a shortage of oil this winter with the intensification of the Arab embargo, a few Quebec refineries, including Golden Eagle Canada Limited of Saint-Romuald, continue to export huge quantities of industrial heating oil or bunker fuel to the United States.
From October 15 to November 26 last, Quebec ranked first among exporting provinces that ship refined products to the American market with exports of 2.5 million barrels, or the equivalent of 87.5 million gallons.
After Ottawa decreed export quotas of industrial oils on October 15 last, Quebec supplied, to October 31, almost half of all Canadian exports to the U.S.A.
In coming weeks, those exports of refined oil should decline however, not to better serve Quebec needs in bunker fuel low in sulphur content, but to supply British Columbia via the Panama Canal.
At least here, Mr. Speaker, we are staying inside Canada. The article goes on to say:
The federal government is indeed preparing to convince eastern Canada refiners to help British Columbia, where there will be a serious shortage of industrial oils this winter. During the next few weeks, the National Energy Board will have to issue a smaller number of exportation permits for the United States in order to divert the bunker towards the Pacific coast.
Mr. Speaker, when these absurdities are mentioned, the Liberals always protest: There is a surplus. But if we have a surplus, why pretend that there is a shortage?
This is again reminiscent of the artificial food shortage of the 1930's when food was burned so that prices might triple, even though the population was starving. The simple reason for this crisis was the will to cause a price increase and the reason for the crisis today is still a question of price increase.
It is fortunate that the Canadian public is better informed and that it did not respond to the minister's entreaty. That is why he had to return to reality and admit oil products were in abundance. He acknowledged also that it was not oil that would be lacking this winter but the proper means of transportation. How can one believe now that means of transportation will be lacking? I suggest that the joke has gone a little too far.
I heard an hon. member from Alberta state that if we had an adequate transportation and storage system, Alberta could produce oil 24 hours a day instead of 10 or 11 hours. Such a comment leaves the Canadian public absolutely nonplussed.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article which appeared in Montreal-Matin as follows:
We have oil but we lack the means to move and store it.

Canada now has in storage 3 million barrels of crude oil and will receive 3 million more by the end of March but we do not know how to distribute it between the refineries in eastern Canada.
So there is no oil shortage: the only shortage we do have has to do with transportation and storage.
This is the essential of the statement made yesterday to the media by Energy, Mines and Resources Minister, Donald Macdonald.
The government keeps on saying that the shortage is the result of the Middle East conflit. I wonder what the Arab countries have to do with the matter of oil in Canada, since western provinces export about 50 per cent of their production and eastern Canada, including Quebec, has always imported most of its oil supplies from Venezuela and Rumania, where there is surely no war going on. As far as the war between Israel and the Arab countries is concerned, I wish I had a few minutes, or even half an hour more, to deal with it. I will simply say that after meeting with the diplomats involved, I realized that this crisis would be easily settled were it not for the foreign financial interests in Arabia that decided to double their export prices.
This is the main cause of this conflict that is ridiculous for the Arab people. From the political point of view, the Arab-Israeli war would quickly come to an end if the United Nations forced the Jewish people to return home and be satisfied with the territory that the Arabs were willing to give them. But there are still the interests of American millionaires and their stooges who enable them to obtain everything for almost nothing. Why does the present government not have the guts to tell the truth to the people, explaining to them that all wars are first and above all wars of financial interests. It is the same for the Arab countries war. The opportunity was given by owners of coal mines to start blockades and double prices by imposing restraints, and the governments played the game willy-nilly.
Today, the government is surprised by the opposition reaction. I am not. I believe that for the first time, the western provinces will really oppose the federal government to preserve their property. I understand them, but I am very pleased because this will make the Quebec people realize that the province of Quebec is not the only one that wants to be independent. It will prove at the same time to westerners what humiliation Quebec had to suffer because of Ottawa's infringements. I deplore only one think in Quebec today: the lack of combativeness, not to mention the puerile resignation of its government in trusting the Big Brother in Ottawa. In this respect, I should like to quote an article from Clement Brown, a columnist for Mon treal-Ma tin:
An ambiguity: the national emergency
The Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Gilles Masse, said in a statement the other day that although he intends to co-operate with Ottawa in the setting up of an emergency program to prevent oil shortages, Quebec will see to it that the federal government does not monopolize permanently powers that come normally under provincial jurisdiction.
Except under the rather vague terms of "Peace",-
Time does not permit me to read from another most interesting article which is a very good illustration of the simplistic attitude and submission of the province of
December 17, 1973

Quebec in these circumstances. However, generally speaking people in Quebec are reacting smartly to this situation. Especially my own constituents who are considered to be the most well-informed in the province because I do my best to keep them informed about all that is going on. Let me read this report from our regional daily:
Oil consumers get panicky.
Panicky heating oil users are in the process of creating a truly artificial shortage at the oil retailing level.
That was the statement made yesterday by Mr. Jean-Louis Gauthier, manager of A.E. Gauthier Co. and director of Golden Eagle of Canada.
Mr. Gauthier said that the psychosis which was developing within-


Mr. Trudel:: Is he your brother?


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: No, I do not even know him.
-within our population could further complicate the situation, admittedly serious, that will prevail this winter.
It is reported that some customers have acquired additionnal tanks holding up to 4,000 gallons, which far exceeds a family's winter oil consumption.
Those people who are hoarding oil are certainly creating a shortage for the time being. Retailers are operating on a quota basis and in many cases they will exceed their supplies for November and December, said Mr. Gauthier.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is on account of those alarming rumours, of those limitations, that people are frightened and some families in other parts of the country are bound to be deprieved of oil at certain times, if they are not totally short of it.
The script is always the same, Mr. Speaker. After the alarm cry, they create panic and all the news media, which are in the pay of the government in power, react as expected. The people are fooled and we can read all about it in the newspapers. Meanwhile, Quebec pretends to ignore everything and, as always, asks Ottawa to act on their behalf. Then we can read the following in an another newspaper article:
Ottawa acts on behalf of Quebec in the oil situation.
The dependence of the Bourassa government on Ottawa and on oil companies and the lack of leadership from the Department of Natural Resources paralyse the energy policy in Quebec. This is what the Official Opposition maintained yesterday when they introduced their first non confidence motion on the energy policy of the goverment.
According to the Leader of the Opposition, the problems in Quebec are directly related to this twofold dependence; "... dependence of Quebec, first as far as the energy they need is concerned, which is from 75 to 80 per cent of energy consumption, second, dependence on large oil companies which import, sell and distribute oil; as the government does not know anything as far as stocks are concerned, they cannot intervene."
Mr. Speaker, before referring this bill to the Committee, I ask the minister to recall that Confederation concerns the provinces as well and that the government has to know their will before voting such a bill which will have far reaching consequences on future federal-provincial relations.
If this government no longer wants to abide by the principles of confederation, let it say so to the Canadians and stop taking indirect means to bring about centralization. We must keep in mind that the confederation has
Energy Supplies Emergency Act been created by the provinces, and that the federal government must therefore be their instrument. But today this order of things is reversed and this is quite deplorable for all Canada because this kind of situation causes all the disagreements between the provinces.
I hope this government will scrutinize itself before it is too late, for if they go on the same way as in the past it will not be long before we can say it is too late.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker I am pleased to take this opportunity to express some thoughts on Bill C-236, the energy supplies emergency bill. The bill gives power to the minister to set prices for energy resources, to control exports and imports, to establish rationing and to take almost any other action that the cabinet decides. This legislation is one more step in a game more easily begun than ended. In its proposed form, this bill could ensure that never again will a province be able to uphold its rights to control energy resources without resorting to extraordinary measures. This bill gives powers as far reaching as wartime measures, and the severity of the bill depends upon unknowns.
I have had some experience, Mr. Speaker, in administering an act of parliament as chairman of a government board. To me it is almost beyond belief that regulations made under this act will supersede a good many acts of parliament. This is heavy stuff indeed. A question that has bothered me a good deal during my service with the government, and now as a member of parliament, is just how reliable is the advice of the senior government servants to members of parliament and to cabinet ministers. The latest example is the minister's erratic replies to questions on Canada's oil situation. They are all very hazy. He has been saying he had been given the information by what he calls his technical committee. So the erratic information the minister has been getting from his so-called technical committee is in question as, of course, is the government's whole handling of this so-called energy crisis.
Far too many senior government servants who administer the programs passed by parliament do not have any real sympathy for the law to succeed. They should at least have some will to ensure success of the acts and programs. Should they not be like a surgeon performing an operation? Surely, he has some desire for the patient to live. Government employees and civil servants are usually people who have nothing to do with producing goods. The further removed they are, the more influential they seem to be with their daily power of suggestion to the minister. A good number of them are disdainful of commerce. Let us look at clause 3 of the bill before us. It reads:
There is hereby established an energy supplies allocation board consisting of a chairman and four other members to be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure.
It is the "during pleasure" part that I want to speak about. The members of the National Energy Board are appointed to hold office during "good behaviour for a period of seven years". There is at least some security of tenure and some independence for board members. Their numbers are to be increased to nine by this bill. The members of this new energy supplies allocation board are to be appointed to hold office "during pleasure." There is

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act no security of tenure. This means all it takes is a telephone call and they are on their way. This new board will be nothing but a club for the minister and, incredibly, will have authority to run roughshod over the National Energy Board. Also, as I said before, its regulations will supersede acts of parliament.
Is it any wonder the minister questioned the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) about appointments to this new board. I would like to quote from Hansard of December 6. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said:
I should like to compliment the hon. member on his speech. It is a good speech. It is really in respect of the appointments that I wish to ask him a question. It is not a question of political hacks but, rather, of obtaining qualified people in the oil business who would be prepared to sacrifice better incomes in order to make such a contribution.
The key words in the new bill regarding appointment are "at pleasure." This will be no more than a strawboard; surely nobody but a civil servant or a political hack will accept an appointment "at pleasure" on the board. In his television talk on energy resources, and in the House later, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke about a number of aspects of the problem; but it was certainly not an exhaustive presentation. He completely forgot about or ignored the need for fuel energy in agricultural production, which is the very basis of our survival. Fossil fuels are indispensable to the needs of modern agriculture. I cannot discuss this matter in one short speech except to say that for every three calories of food produced in this country, there must be an input of one.
Farming in Canada now uses more petroleum by-products than any other single industry. The total input of energy per acre of land producing corn in the United States is now 80 American gallons. These gallons include the energy equivalent of labour, machinery, fertilizers in the form of nitrogen, phosphorous, potash, seeds for planting, irrigation, insecticides, herbicides, drying of the crops, electricity and transportation. Lack of oil is certainly going to influence crops in Europe as well as in the United States in the next growing season. I sincerely hope that our federal cabinet and the Canadian Wheat Board fully understand the possible effects of fuel shortages on crops of cereal grains around the world. I also hope the various experts who so competently predict vast world food production increases will realize on what our past increases have been based-mainly petroleum and other types of fossil fuel energy in the industrial countries, obtained at comparatively low prices.
There is no over-all shortage of energy in Canada, or the world for that matter; but, rather, there is a definite scarcity of low-cost energy. Canada's total recoverable inventory of oil and gas, proven and potential, has been estimated to be the equivalent of 561 billion barrels of oil. To date, total cumulative Canadian production has been about ten billion barrels, less than 2 per cent of the total. The current wellhead price of a gallon of Canadian crude is approximately 11 cents and the reserves of oil available at that price are definitely limited. However, estimates contained in "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase I" suggest that a price of 20 cents per gallon would make

available 60 to 85 billion barrels of oil. By way of comparison, total Canadian oil consumption in Canada this year will be approximately .65 billion barrels.
There has been a general tendency to lament the high cost of gasoline and to infer that the oil companies are somehow at fault. The facts are that of the total retail sales price of a gallon of gasoline, the dealer's margin is about 10 cents, combined federal and provincial tax ranges from 18 cents to 28 cents, depending on the province, and the oil company receives about 26 cents from which it must, among other things, pay royalties and income taxes. The latter figure is approximately 25 per cent higher than it was 25 years ago in 1948. It is interesting to note that over this same period wages and salaries have quadrupled and the general wholesale index has doubled. In view of the realities of the petroleum situation, it is obvious that countries on subsistence agriculture will have to develop their new policies in terms of power from men and from draught animals. It is already becoming evident that some of the developing countries know this rather simple and very important fact and it may well be that some of our experts will need re-educating.
It is interesting to note the short-term response of government and industry to energy shortages. Their primary concern is to search for faster ways to exploit available energy resources, as well as to temporarily reduce present consumption to get us through the winter. Nowhere have I seen any suggestion that we plan for the long term and that we decide how we will shape our society to make the best use of our fossil fuels. For example, do we want these fuels for the next 10, 100 or 1,000 years?
In the matter of controlling the amount of money available for development, government plays an important role, taxes being a major cost. In plain terms, any shortage of petroleum we may suffer will be the direct result of inadequate capital spending engineered by this government. Canada is the world's largest major oil consumer on a per capita basis, and agriculture is the most intensive user of lubricating oil, grease, gasoline and fuel in Canada. Based on 1971 figures, fossil energy and derived products amounted to 14 per cent of all farm input expenses in Canadian agriculture, 17 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses of farmers, or equal to nearly one-third of net farm income. These figures are from Statistics Canada, 1971.
With agriculture such an important factor in the energy situation, what do we hear from this government about it? Nothing. They are asleep at the switch. The secretary of agriculture in the United States has at least made some concessions to agriculture. Millions of dollars are to be spent on fuel research in this country, but not a word about agriculture. However, agriculture, with its waste products, is a very important source of energy production. Other countries are moving in this direction and I mention just one, Taiwan. Agriculture, instead of being a net absorber of fuel energy, could well become self-reliant in fuel by proper use of its waste products, straw and animal waste. Let us spend a few thousand dollars on some little projects along this line. We seem to have millions for other research. Starchy cereals and vegetables can be converted to fuel. It has been done in other countries such as Czechoslovakia and the United States.
December 17, 1973

Canada will face serious problems in financing the level of capital expenditures now required for energy development. This will mean an increasing short supply of capital for Canadian agriculture, further difficulty in exporting farm products and more competition from other countries' imports. Comparisons of the potential ability to produce food and the potential market for food should provide a little insight into the market strategies for Canadian agriculture. Here are some selected countries, indicating the arable acres per person. The average in all of Asia and all of Europe is 12 acres per person. In the United States it is six acres per person, in the Soviet Union 40 acres per person, and in Canada 80 acres per person. These figures are taken from the FAO production year book, 1971. Canada has the best land to population ratio in the world. We have the capacity to produce more food per person than any other country in the world. Does the government have any long-range plans to capitalize on all our assets? Right now there is a build-up of idle ships all around the world because of fuel bunkering problems. Surely Canada should advertise that ocean shipping would be welcome here and assured of bunker fuel. This would be the best public relations job we could do for our country. Yet I have heard nothing along these lines.
Market strategies designed to take advantage of Canada's agricultural ability must be based on benefits to Canadian farmers rather than the extent to which the rest of the world needs our production. On humanitarian grounds we may have a moral obligation to assist in feeding the hungry world, regardless of the ability or otherwise of a particular country to purchase. It should be appreciated, though, that this obligation falls on all Canadians, not just on food producers.
What we face today, as I see it, is not an energy problem; it is a transportation crisis. It is one which brings into question the competence of the government. How can we believe the government is sufficiently competent to deal with energy problems when for years it has been unable to come up with regulations regarding procedures to be followed by the oil industry in the north in areas under federal jurisdiction? Nothing in the bill will produce one more gallon of oil or the 35 gallons to make one barrel. Instead of going beyond the communist manifesto as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says, let us show a few international good manners toward our friends to the south and a few good manners toward the provincial governments.
What will happen to agriculture around the world if the price of oil rises to the price just posted by Iran-over $17 a barrel, or settles down to $10 a barrel? I have seen no projections put forward by the government. Between 1961 and 1971 farm costs in Canaca rose 47 per cent during a period of stable energy resource prices. It is suggested that farm costs will probably rise by 40 per cent over the next ten years due to increased energy costs alone. Couple this with a general condition of capital shortage, high credit costs, increased farm wages and land prices and we can expect a minimum increase of 90 per cent in farm production costs. What plan has the government to offer to meet the situation in agriculture and rural Canada in the next decade? As a first step, I suggest a much greater degree of
Energy Supplies Emergency Act federal assistance in assuring alternate energy sources to maintain the scientific agriculture we presently enjoy.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this statute is one more step in a game more easily begun than ended. It is no substitute for sound economic management carefully conceived and consistently executed. Trying to remedy the situation along the lines the government is now suggesting will turn out to be more costly and unsettling than any preventive program which might have been adopted a few years ago when the problem was first recognized.
It seems to me there are plenty of federal government agencies in existence right now which could deal effectively with the current situation. Canadians are concerned about attitudes toward energy and energy development. The petroleum industry must be encouraged to press forward with the job it knows best how to do, that is to say, finding, developing and processing petroleum products and bringing them to Canadian consumers. Ottawa should be consistently strengthening the idea of Canada as a nation. But the approach taken by the government toward national policy in the field of energy, as in other matters, is leading to disaster.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on second reading of Bill C-236 has been going on for a number of days now and during that time we have seen some changes in the over-all situation. It appears that the energy situation is an ever-changing one. We heard the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on December 6. That speech certainly produced some new factors for our consideration. Sometimes I thought, after listening to that speech, that the Happy Hooker might have some trouble proving her status as an authority on prostitution.
I feel I must echo the comments made by others who have taken part in this debate: we have not been facing an energy crisis in this country but, rather, we are facing a problem related to transportation. If we follow the policy advocated by the minister of energy and by the Prime Minister, we are likely to be in deep-freeze for an extended period because we shall lack the energy to meet our energy requirements. The figures show that today Canada is 118 per cent self-sufficient in energy. In face of that figure, how anyone could say there is an energy crisis today is beyond my comprehension.
We have heard a few elements of a so-called policy disclosed from the other side. It was announced in September that there would be a voluntary price freeze beginning September 4. The statement was made in response to an increase in the cost of living figures and was not related to the Arab-Israeli war which began a month or so later. However, since that day the government, in its wisdom, decided to extend the so-called voluntary freeze until the end of the winter, whenever that may be. The way the government operates, we could be in for a freeze on oil prices for a very extended period and this, I can only suggest, will hurry along the day when Canada becomes a dependent country rather than a surplus country as far as oil is concerned.
Speaking about freezes, I note that the policy of the NDP is to support the government in extending the freeze beyond January 31. This was the main prize for which the
8812

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act NDP held out when considering whether to support the government on December 10.1 suggest that the NDP wants more than this. Ideally, it wants a permanent freeze in connection with the price of petroleum products in this country. I often wonder who that party thinks it is fooling when it takes stands of this kind, because if you follow that policy to its logical conclusion it would have a great effect on a number of wage earners who are supposed to be close to the heart of the NDP.
If you maintain a price freeze over an extended period, surely the wages, salaries and other benefits paid to the employees of the oil companies and the distributing system will have to suffer the same freeze. I find it strange that the NDP should be coming out in favour of a wage freeze affecting the membership of oil, atomic and chemical workers' unions in this country. I wonder what Mr. Reimer will say about that. That is the natural result of the policy proposed by the New Democratic Party, though they do not look at that side of the question when they make their ridiculous statements.
In discussing the whole subject of energy and the crisis facing the country today there has to be a fairly wide latitude allowed in debate, particularly in view of the speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister on December 6. The Prime Minister did not stick to the point of the bill at all but announced the formation of a national oil corporation and various other things having very little to do with Bill C-236.
I presume I am subject to the same rules as the Prime Minister, so I should like first of all to put some facts on the record concerning what happens on an average day in the petroleum industry of Canada. I speak of the average day in 1972, the latest period for which I have figures. I think it is important hon. members know the nature of the industry and the problem with which we are dealing. If there is one thing I have learned since being here, it is that there is not a wide understanding of the problems facing Canada in ensuring efficient operation of the husbanding of our natural resources.
On an average day in 1972, Canadian oil wells produced 1.5 million barrels of crude oil. Total Canadian liquid hydrocarbon production, including crude oil and natural gas liquids, was 1.8 million barrels. Canadian gas wells produced 8.2 billion cubic feet of raw gas. Canadian natural gas processors produced 18,200 long tons of elemental sulphur. Canada's inventories of elemental sulphur grew by 9,159 long tons. The petroleum industry spent $4.9 million in the search for, development and production of oil and gas in Canada.
The explorers and producers paid $1.2 million, which amounted to 2414 per cent of their expenditures, to governments in the form of royalties, bonuses and rentals, in addition to corporate income tax. Oil companies collected on behalf of federal and provincial governments $3.8 million in motor fuel taxes. Producers received $6 million for the sale of crude oil and natural gas and its by-products. Some 275,000 people were employed by the petroleum and natural gas industries and earned approximately $3.3 million. These are the 275,000 people whose incomes the members of the New Democratic Party would like to see frozen.

I think this is a significant number of the workers of this country.
Drillers completed 10.5 wells and drilled 38,900 feet of holes in Canada. Canadian refineries processed 1.5 million barrels of refinery feedstock. Canadians consumed 1.6 million barrels of petroleum products. Canadians burned 3.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas. New motor vehicles coming on to Canadian roads numbered 2,912, and motorists used 17.6 million gallons of gasoline. Aircraft consumed 1.9 million gallons of aviation fuel. The average cost per person for all energy used in Canada for lighting, heating, transportation and production of goods was about $1. Canadian pipelines moved 2.5 million barrels of liquids and 6.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas. Canada imported energy materials worth $2.9 million. Canada exported energy materials worth $4.8 million. All of these are daily figures, Mr. Speaker, so you can see it is apparent we are dealing with large numbers.
In order to continue this rate of production, it becomes obvious that a great deal of money is going to be required. In his speech on December 6 the Prime Minister said that one of the important things that the government was going to do was to form a national oil company, which we could expect to hear about in more detail at the next session. At this stage may I point out that if this proposed national oil company operates in any way like the Panarctic oil company in which the government of Canada has a 45 per cent interest, then we might not expect very good results.
I say that for the following reasons. While Panarctic has been very successful in establishing Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic islands, which I think was the prime reason for setting up the corporation, and while it has had fairly successful experience in regard to finding natural gas, for which I suppose we have to be thankful though there is very little likelihood we will ever be able to transship this natural gas under present government policies, the company has also made bids for drilling rights off Norway in the North Sea, in the South China Sea near Viet Nam, and in Colombia, South America.
I suppose that the proposed national oil company will be called "Oil Can", in the same way that Statistics Canada is called "Stat Can", using the kind of jargon we get used to around here, though I do not know whether there will ever be any oil in the can. But I suggest that this new company will not be too successful in providing any oil reserves that might be the subject of allocation under this particular bill, if it is ever passed into law, if the company behaves in the way Panarctic has behaved.
Speaking of offshore developments, it is becoming painfully obvious that if present government policies are allowed to continue there are going to be fewer and fewer companies exploring for oil. For example, small oil companies in the province of Alberta are now deciding it is not in their interest to continue operations. I think of one particular oil company which announced during the last two weeks it was closing down operations in Alberta and in Canada at the end of the year. This company employs 28 people who reside in the city of Calgary, and these people were advised early this month that at the end of the year the company was suspending operations and they were to treat that announcement as notice.
December 17, 1973

I believe the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the fact that certain constituents of his were revising their plans in view of the uncertainty caused by the policies of this government. These people are engaged in the petroleum industry at the very lowest levels, such as workers in the field; they feel insecure and are deciding not to proceed any further with capital spending. Entire companies are deciding to close their operations. In the past we have made reference to activities of oil companies having a multiplier effect, and I am afraid we are in for a division effect pretty soon unless some certainty can be injected into this particular area.
I was referring earlier to what will be required in the future. If we are to be concerned about a secure source of petroleum, the first thing we should consider is a pricing policy for oil in this country. That is the crux of this whole matter. Contrary to what many people believe, oil does not grow on trees like bananas and other fruit, ready to be picked when it is ripe. Oil is a hard commodity to find, exploration costs are high, and unless the price of the finished product is equated with the cost of exploration and production our problems will continue. I suggest that our problems are not related to lack of oil; most of our problems can be associated with difficulties of distribution, and those problems are not going to be solved by policies which will ensure greater expenditure in exploration.
Most of our concern is in respect of a shortage of supply in the eastern half of Canada, east of the Ottawa Valley line. I always understood that the Canadian government's point of view in respect of a pricing policy for oil is that it should be based on the price of crude landed at Montreal. It seems this policy has been changed in that the accepted price of crude will be associated with the price on the Chicago market.
When this policy was announced there was no dispute among the provinces of Canada because it was felt that in effect this pricing policy would lower the price of Alberta oil domestically and on the Chicago market. The province of Alberta, being a good Canadian corporate citizen, has and will go along with any attempt by the federal government to solve our supply problems. The first criterion expressed by the premier of that province is to make sure there is a sufficient supply of Alberta oil to offset any shortfall that might occur as a result of an interruption of offshore supplies. This is the attitude taken by the government of Alberta notwithstanding the fact that this might result in serious shortages in Alberta. In spite of that fact, Alberta is prepared to waive its conservation practices in order to provide a secure supply of oil to the rest of Canada. It bothers me very much to hear people such as the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) refer to the Premier of Alberta as "Sheik Lougheed." I can only refer to that hon. member as "Sheik Down", because that is what he has been doing in the past year or so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Let me remind hon. members what has happened in the province of British Columbia which now has an NDP premier. The price of natural gas has
Energy Supplies Emergency Act been increased by 81 per cent, with reference to no one. There has been a discussion among officials of the province of Ontario and of the province of Alberta in respect of the price of natural gas, but we have not witnessed unilateral action on the part of Alberta increasing the price of gas by 81 per cent, as was the case in the province of British Columbia.
Let us also consider what the premier of the province of Saskatchewan has done. He has effectively kept Saskatchewan resources in the ground. This has occurred without representation to the National Energy Board; and I suggest the premier has overlooked the fact that the vast majority of petroleum in that province is sour crude and can be used only in refineries in Minnesota. The premier of that province, in deciding upon this policy, said in effect that Saskatchewan would wait until a higher price was available before making its sour crude available. That premier has taken much stronger action than the premier of Alberta in that he has counteracted the federal export tax by a provincially imposed tax.
When considering tax policy, one must remember that the National Energy Board has a statutory duty to get the best price possible for Canadian oil. I wonder why the province did not operate under the provisions of this act in order to increase the price of Alberta crude, rather than allowing the federal government to impose an export tax to equate the price of Alberta crude with the price on the Chicago market. I suggest the reason is that the provincial government did not want to impose the Chicago price on all Canadian consumers. In any event, we are still left with no clear statement by the federal government as to its oil pricing policy. The best that can be said is that the days of cheap energy have passed and we will have to make sure that the price is not higher than necessary.
We must make sure that there is continuity of supply in respect of the Alberta oil sands. The maintenance of a reasonable price for energy is difficult because no one knows what a civil servant in Ottawa might do when pressured by hungry politicians to keep prices down. I do not think this is a very strong hook on which to hang an oil pricing policy which will ensure security of supply in Canada. Surely we must ensure continuity of supply, and in this regard we are lucky to have the reserves discovered by the private industrial sector. We are fortunate to have a known source of supply, not having to be dependent upon outside sources.
There seems to be a bone-headed approach by some in respect of this crisis. I believe this debate should continue for some time in order that some light might filter down to those who take such an approach to this problem.


Mr. Gilbert:: You are breaking my heart?


An hon. Member:: Where is your heart?


John Gilbert: You are making me laugh all the way home.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I think it is important to note some of the requirements of assuring security of oil supply in Canada. We cannot accomplish this with a cash position backed up by the taxpayers of this country-and a lot of people would like to see that happen. Since 1947 the petroleum industry has made expenditures of over $19.2
26695-45 J

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act billion in exploration. During the same period, the extent of producers' sales was $18.3 billion. One can see from those figures that since 1947 there has been more expended in the exploration and finding of oil reserves than has been received as a result of production. While 1973 probably will see total revenues exceed expenditures, it has taken 25 years for that position to be reached. This is before taking into account significant income taxes which have been paid.
If I might digress for a moment, I would point out that when speaking about taxes, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made some interesting comments when he testified before the committee on miscellaneous estimates on December 4 this year. Many people have said that this so-called export tax is a means of making sure that larger windfall profits do not fall into the hands of the large corporations. Of course, they conveniently forget the very efficient tax collecting machine we have in this country to make sure that these huge profits do not automatically fall into the pockets of the large oil companies, or into any other pocket for that matter. We really have quite a machine in order to make sure that there are not these huge profits. At that committee meeting the Minister of Finance was questioned by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). He was asked about what would happen to these large windfall profits, so-called, if they were left to the companies and not taken by the government under the export tax. As reported at page 5845 of the committee proceedings, the Minister of Finance said:
Alberta would have taken 22.5 per cent of that, and the federal government would have taken about 50 per cent; 49 or 48 per cent, or whatever it is.
So if you take 22.5 per cent off the top, and have the federal government take 50 per cent of the remainder, you have made quite a dint into this so-called huge windfall profit. The minister went on to say:
Oh yes, we would get roughly 50 per cent corporate tax on their profit on that increase of price. Mind you, that 22.5 per cent royalty is deductible for federal corporate tax purposes. Then, of course, Alberta is entitled to 10 per cent of that corporate tax, of the corporate tax against companies with head offices and doing business in Alberta. Roughly that is how it would have worked.
Then, speaking of the fact that some of the money not used for reinvestment in exploration for more oil might end up in the hands of the shareholders by way of profits or dividends, the minister said:
Some of it might well have gone into exploration; some of it might have gone into dividends; some of it might have been allocated as a cost factor that the parent company undergoes at its expense as opposed to the subsidiary expense, or the subsidiary might have taken some of the cost figures into its own calculating. We are dealing hypothetically here.
Mr. Speaker, it becomes quite obvious that if it did not go into exploration or otherwise it would go by way of dividends, which on the average probably would be around 33 per cent. So if the rest of it is taxed through income tax on a personal basis, there will not be much left in the form of windfall profits.
I think it is interesting to note that while the industry is just reaching a point where revenue exceeds expenditure, during this same period the taxes paid to government by

way of royalties, rentals and other taxes, not including income tax, amounted to $5.5 billion. The petroleum industry has a reputation for being highly profitable. The reasons for this probably are attributed to the spectacular profits some companies make when a major pool is discovered, the volatility of petroleum stocks in the stock market due to investors speculating on prospects, the fact that the industry employs highly-paid, highly-skilled personnel and the large bonus payments made to government. But it would not appear that the market anticipated huge profits for the petroleum or energy side of our industrial endeavours, because it appears that while some oil companies have held up reasonably well, this has not been the rule. I should like to refer to an article by W. L. Dack which appeared in the Financial Postior December 8, 1973. He wrote:
Fast-breaking energy events are keeping Canadian oil and gas investors on a perpetual hot seat. Oil stock prices tumbled almost 12 per cent during November for one of the steepest monthly declines on record by the Toronto stock exchange western oils index.
The drop reflects the investment community's pessimistic view of government's increasing industry controls and the particularly poor performance turned in by Mackenzie delta stocks. This, plus the sweeping general market decline, has knocked the index down 35 points.
Later in the article the author quotes a Toronto oil analyst and says:
What about government controls, the issue that stalled a strongly rising uptrend in oil share prices and now threatens to undermine what should be bright industry prospects?
"Very soon governments are going to have to start stressing exploration and development incentives. The industry investment attractions in other parts of the world and particularly in the U.S. where sweeping new exploration incentives are being set up, are going to force such a move."
This articles depicts in graph form the performance of selected companies. It indicates that companies that are active in Canada, particularly in the Mackenzie delta frontier area where our best prospects are, suffer the greatest. Those which have a sure source of supply, like the Great Canadian Oil Sands Company or those which have North Sea interests like Home Oil, or an independent producer with refining capacity like Husky Oil, have withstood the onslaught better. There is a lesson to be learned from those people who have put us in the position of 100 per cent self-sufficiency in respect of what is going on in this country. We will not maintain that happy position unless things straighten out quickly.
I should also like to point out that a recent study has shown that if the industry stopped all exploration and merely reduced present reserves to exhaustion, the beforetax rate of return would be only 13.3 per cent, with after-tax being probably around 10 per cent. Obviously, there is not a windfall profit in this industry, particularly in view of the risk nature of the investment. All the time we hear comments from members of the NDP about the terrible collection of people who are involved in the petroleum industry and how they are making such great windfall profits at the expense of ordinary citizens. I think it is useful to put some of the facts on the record instead of listening to these irresponsible claims from people who have an axe to grind.
December 17, 1973

At this point I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Financial Post of December 15, 1973:
To keep some perspective on the whole situation, it's worth taking a look at figures proffered by J. A. Armstrong, president of Imperial Oil. He doesn't pretend to be a disinterested party, but he makes his points coolly and factually, considering that he heads one of the companies whose future has been sharply affected by Ottawa's moves.
The Canadian oil industry made an after-tax profit in 1972 of 7.4 per cent on the money it used in its business. The after-tax profit in manufacturing generally that year was 7.3 per cent-essentially the same return in an industry that, by normal standards, is considered to face less risk.
In 1972, Imperial's profit on each dollar of revenue was 7.3 cents, which is just about the company's average of the past 25 years.
In October, the price of a typical Alberta crude oil-Imperial's raw material-was only 16 per cent higher than it was 25 years ago. In comparison, the composite price of industrial raw materials generally increased 58 per cent in the same period.
The price at which Imperial sells its Esso gasoline to the dealer, exclusive of federal and provincial taxes, has increased 21 per cent since 1948. In the same period, the general wholesale price index has increased about 95 per cent. Average weekly wages and salaries have increased almost 400 per cent.
I ask hon. members, where is the terrible rip-off? It just isn't there.
One of the most important of the yet-to-be-answered questions about oil is what Ottawa's on-going price freeze will do to corporate plans to explore and to develop new oil sources. Although Canada has abundant potential energy resources when the various kinds are added up, immense amounts of money will have to be forthcoming to develop them. Good profits are essential because, as Armstrong points out, it costs at least $2 million to drill an exploration well on the Arctic mainland compared to an average of $150,000 in Alberta.
The great governmental grab at oil has been engineered amidst much shouting that this is what should be done to protect the Canadian consumer. If oil companies are so circumscribed by governments that they see neither point nor profit in steeping up the hunt for oil, the Canadian taxpayer might as well brace himself to provide the billions needed to set Ottawa up in the business.
If the hon. member opposite would get up on his feet and ask a question I would be able to deal with it, Mr. Speaker, but instead he sits over there mumbling to himself. I would be very happy to allow him the floor to ask a question. Would you like to ask me a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have just about reached the end of the time allocated to the hon. member, so there would be no time for the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) to ask questions.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, he does not have the nerve to ask a question anyway. I will not get much further in the next 30 seconds so I will just close by saying that we should get off the negative, rigid approach to this problem and start offering some incentives. Instead of putting a freeze on things, let us learn from what the United States has done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 40 I must advise the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis)-Transport- Study of railway passenger service in southwestern Ontario by Transport Commission-Local consultation; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)- Agriculture-Increase in farm costs-Requests for investigation by Food Prices Review Board; the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn)-Unemployment Insurance- Possibility of charging employers and employees employment rated premiums.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 14, 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 of 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. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in this debate on Bill C-236 will deal in part with the industrial problems which arise as a result of the lack of planning by the government. We have before us a bill that would give wide powers to the Governor in Council, powers beyond those given to the cabinet even in the War Measures Act. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) would have us believe that these extreme powers are required because, in their view, we are experiencing a crisis which calls for strong measures. We say that the so-called crisis, in large part, has been created by the government, and in our view its ministers are not competent to handle the problem so they should not be given the powers set forth in Bill C-236.
We need only read page 8671 of Hansard for December 13, and the right hon. Prime Minister's reply on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), to be aware of the partisan, narrow view that the Prime Minister is taking of the oil supply problem. I was going to read his remarks into the record again, but other hon. members have done so. In addition, editorials in

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act most of the leading newspapers have commented on his remarks on that occasion. Suffice it to say that his remarks were cheap, degrading and divisive. I will not read them because they have been repeated often enough.
At a time when we need a statesmanlike approach to a very complex problem we have a Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who displays all the talents of a bull in a china shop. We have a Prime Minister who takes cheap shots at the Premier of Alberta, and in general at all hon. members from Alberta.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He wants ten barrels of oil for one French lesson.


William James Kempling: How can the problems we have be solved with the attitude displayed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Is it any wonder that we have no confidence in them, and feel that the powers requested in this bill are too great for the meagre talents displayed by those who would be charged with implementing the legislation when enacted? But what of the industrial impact? We hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) stating again and again that all is well on the industrial front. But when pressed, he admits in a quiet voice that his assessment was made before the impact of the oil supply crisis became evident. Like the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources he deals in a large volume of statistics which have little relevance. Most of the replies he gives could be read from the Canada Year Book.
I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources why he felt we needed seven years to become self-sufficient in oil when, in fact, we are producing 300,000 barrels a day more than we consume. His reply had no relevance to the question. In other words, the minister waffled because he did not have an answer. From the opening of the 29th parliament numerous questions have been put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding an industrial strategy. He is contributing, as usual, with replies which range from "we are working on one" to "we are not sure an industrial strategy can be developed because of the complexities of the problem".
Can you imagine why a country like Canada, with a surplus of oil and natural gas, does not have a world-size petrochemical industry? Can you comprehend why countries like Japan and Germany, which have no domestic oil and must depend on imported feed stock, have world-size petrochemical industries. One would have thought that a minister of industry, trade and commerce who would be sharing cabinet decisions on Bill C-236, would have had the foresight to realize that the petrochemical industry in Canada depends in the main on imported feedstock from the U.S.A. and today is facing a boycott of the export of that feedstock to Canada. Would you not have thought that the minister would have foreseen that situation? The industry has foreseen its vulnerable position for some time.
I had hoped the minister would have said long ago that Canada, with its surplus of oil and gas, was going to become a world leader in petrochemicals. It is a logical move and I would have thought he would be recommend-

ing world-size plants. Instead, however, we see him playing politics along with his colleagues, playing Alberta and Saskatchewan and their oil resources against the rest of Canada. I would have thought the minister would be in the United States right now to get a supply of feedstock for our petrochemical industry. The minister, like his colleagues did not see the oil crisis in time to act. They blame it on the Israeli-Arab war, on force majeure, on clauses in contracts or anything else that comes to mind. No one in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce seems to be tuned in to the petrochemical industry to be able to foresee their problems, let alone project a world-size plant which should be part of any strategy planned for Canada.
We do not appear to have a national transportation policy, and there are those who blame the minister for this. In fact, I think the department is really too big for one minister, and I believe it could be handled more efficiently if broken down into three or four departments. Now, we are faced with the problem of wheat deliveries versus oil deliveries, and I hope the minister will not play one part of the country against the other on this issue. I have heard some questions asked in the House about this issue, and the minister's replies have implied "What do you want? Do you want oil deliveries or do you want wheat deliveries?" Let us not get into that bind, Mr. Speaker, the problem is much too serious for that. Any government consistently using this approach does not have the confidence of the people of Canada, and in our view should not be trusted with the powers they seek in Bill C-236. I can almost see the headlines. I do not like to preach gloom, as I am basically an optimistic person but the headlines next year will be something like this: "Gillespie blames energy crisis for slowdown in industrial output" or "Turner blames world inflation for high interest rates" or "P.M. says conditions beyond our control reason for slow growth". It is always something or somebody else that is responsible for our situation.
Let us look at our trade relations. As an example, we have a trade deficit with every country in the world except Britain, Mexico and the United States. We saw the headlines in the newspapers the other day regarding the deficit resulting from the autopact. Now, we see that the situation in Britain has resulted in a three-day work week, it is a real crisis situation. I can see what is going to happen to our trade in that sphere. The minister will blame it on the Arab-Israeli war, the oil crisis, world inflation but he will not tell us that autopact negotiations have been stalled for months or that he has taken no initiative to have them brought to any conclusion. We are heading into GATT discussions in 1974 in a very negative position. We are facing a balance of payments problem if the trade deficits of 1972 continue. I do not think the people of Canada will buy the current excuse being put forth by the minister. In fact, if we end up with a serious trade deficit, I do not think they will buy it at all.
In Bill C-236 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is asking this House to give the Governor in Council wide powers to regulate the supply, distribution, allocation, pricing and consumption of all forms of energy or any byproduct of an energy source. What the minister really wants is a club. He wants to say to the meeting of first ministers in January that he has the power, passed by
December 17, 1973

the parliament of Canada, to negate provincial priorities in the event of any energy crisis. The bill would, in fact, give the government so much power that it could invade areas of undisputed provincial jurisdiction. One of the most important problems facing the people of eastern Canada, the price of home heating oil, is not covered by this bill. The government's unwillingness to deal with the price to the consumer reflects its view on an incomes policy. We have heard that view many times since January. The Economic Council of Canada has stated that the major causes of inflation in Canada arise from sources within Canada, but this government refuses to look at any sort of incomes policy.
Bill C-236 implies that an energy crisis exists. Mr. . Speaker, let us correct that. There is no lack of conventional energy in Canada, only the means of transporting or conveying the various forms of energy from source to the consumer. The bill should say, in effect, that an energy delivery crisis exists. We might have some confidence in the proposed energy supplies allocation board if it were an independent board, but in fact clause 10 of Bill C-236 provides:
The board shall act under the instructions of the Governor in Council and report to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from time to time upon its activities under this act.
As anyone can easily see, the Governor in Council, or the cabinet, has all the power. The energy supplies allocation board has no power, independent of cabinet.
This bill applies not only to petroleum or petroleum products as defined in the bill, but to products manufactured wholly or in part from petroleum, natural gas, coal and any product of natural gas or coal that can be used as fuel and also electric power. Here, we are dealing with a condition existing in Canada that is caused not from a shortage of petroleum or natural gas, or energy, but from lack of transportation facilities to enable petroleum and natural gas to be delivered to the market. Here, we have Bill C-236 containing powers away beyond the gravity of the problem. I wonder if the minister has seen the offer of the Canadian Trucking Association to deliver oil on a 24-hour around the clock basis from Sarnia to Montreal. The quantities that they would be able to deliver far exceed what a pipeline can deliver at the present time.
The other evening at about six o'clock the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tabled a ways and means motion concerning the collection and allocation of the export tax being levied by the federal government on oil exported from Canada. The minister not only wants Bill C-236, but he wants the bill that would follow the ways and means motion so that he will have a club in either hand when dealing with the first ministers in late January. With this legislation in his hand, I wonder whether it is going to be a conference or just an academic exercise. I think it is really important, at a time of high tension like this, that the confidence of the provincial ministers is kept foremost in the minds of the federal negotiators.
You will note that the western provinces are talking about a quid pro quo as part of any agreement on oil. With a diminishing resource, the western premiers are obviously looking to the future and would like to see an industrial
Energy Supplies Emergency Act complex in each province, to complement industrial and technical skills developed by the oil industry. Again, we must look to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With no industrial strategy for Canada, the prospects for agreement with first ministers in January based on any quid pro quo for industrial complexes within provinces in January is not too good at this point in time.
Another interesting aspect of this so-called energy crisis-and the government is calling it a crisis-is to be found in an article written by Dian Cohen on September 10, the headline of which reads, "Energy Crisis May Be Scapegoat". The article mentions that we can look to the energy crisis, so called, to be leaned on by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to cover the lack of positive legislation to combat inflation and deal with serious trade problems that are ahead of us.
One of the serious problems we face in Canada, as a result of no real oil policy-and there is still time to act- concerns the future of the numerous Canadian companies engaged in drilling for oil. Those who are drilling in Canada today are doing so on blind faith and on commitments made many months ago, mostly to large oil companies. We have about 100,000 people employed in drilling for oil in Canada. Most of these crews belong to small wholly-owned Canadian companies which have contracted for drilling to the large oil companies. If we do not have a firm long-range policy, we stand a good chance of losing much of this expertise. Even now, many of these crews are moving to the United States, where the government has laid down ground rules which enable these companies to know where they are going. These companies have in their ranks some of the most experienced drilling crews in the world. It would be a shame to lose these people, their expertise and their knowledge. Canadian oil drilling crews can be found all over the world today. We stand to lose more men with such experience to Britain, the United States, Viet Nam, or other countries, because the government chooses to play constitutional power politics with the provinces.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Because the government chooses to play Russian roulette.


William James Kempling: Russian roulette: call it what you will. I would have hoped that the government would make available more than $40 million for the development of the tar sands. Certainly, we have heard nothing to speak of from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding this project. I would have thought there would have been negotiations with Alberta with regard to a world-sized petrochemical industry in future-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The minister does not negotiate; he just tells.


William James Kempling: He tells, that is right. I should have thought that there might have been negotiations in that area, in view of future demand for the products of the petrochemical industry. I would have thought that some consideration would have been given to this as part of the quid pro quo. This could have been done, instead of engaging in ham-handed tactics such as those in which the

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has engaged. May I call it six o'clock?	1


Mr. Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that there are still three minutes before six o'clock. I am in the hands of the House, if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


William James Kempling: That is what I call a vote of confidence. Some of the powers contained in the bill should be stated, so that we may see which of them the cabinet needs in order to overcome the so-called energy supply crisis. Clause 13 gives the cabinet power to exempt certain persons from sanctions under the Combines Investigation Act. Clause 24 overrides provincial laws and federal laws pertaining to pollution. Clauses 25 and 26-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. Will he kindly resume his seat? I must remind hon. members that it is not competent for an hon. member on second reading to consider a bill clause by clause. There is no difficulty about making general references to specific clauses, but the hon. member is doing now what it will be the responsibility of the committee to do if and when this bill goes the committee. I ask hon. members to bear this in mind when making their contributions on second reading of the bill.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, thank you for setting me straight on that point. I was trying to point out various clauses of the bill which override certain jurisdictions of other governments in this country. One clause of the bill empowers the board to seize ships for the purpose of shipping oil. Another empowers it to seize motor trucks for interprovincial transportation of oil.
One of the great dangers is that this bill will not be a temporary measure; that it will not deal with the crisis, and then expire, but that it is intended to be permanent. It is not to come into effect by proclamation, as did the War Measures Act. It is to come into effect after royal assent, and its provisions can be used by the governor in council at any time. I am not convinced that this government, in view of its record, should have this power. This bill would give the governor in council jurisdiction over the petroleum products manufacturing industry, wholly or in part. It would give the government power over industries involved with petroleum, natural gas, coal, electrical power, and over railways, ships and pipelines as well as over interprovincial motor transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me at this time to interrupt him and suggest that it is now six o'clock. It being six o'clock, I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at .six o'clock, one of the greatest dangers in this bill is that it is not a temporary measure meant to deal with a crisis and then expire. It is intended to be permanent. It does not come into effect on proclamation as did the War Measures Act, but is in effect from royal assent and can be used by the governor in council at any time. I am just not convinced that this government, on its record, should be given the powers provided by the bill.
This bill, in effect, gives the governor in council jurisdiction over petroleum products manufactured in part or in whole from petroleum, natural gas or coal, as well as electrical power, railways, ships, Canadian or foreign, pipelines and interprovincial motor transport. It further gives the governor in council powers to enter the provincial constitutional field, to effect provincial energy resources, industries manufacturing products from petroleum as well as primary and secondary industries, through control of railways, pipelines, ships and interprovincial motor truck transport. The entire power is in the governor in council. The declaration of an emergency, actual or anticipated, is at the sole discretion of the governor in council.
One of the unexplained words in the bill is "region". It is not defined. It is not given a dimension. It is just stated that a region of the country can be in what the governor in council considers to be a crisis state and the powers come into effect for all of Canada. This is power which should not be blindly given to a government with such an inept record.
There is in this proposed legislation a parallel suggestion to the one the government made during the FLQ crisis, that a public order emergency act be passed. This clearly is no time to enact permanent legislation. Such a proposal should await a period of calm, and should be acted upon following full discussion with the provinces after we have had a chance to see the effects of this winter. There is adequate power for the government to act in existing legislation. We could give the government additional powers to ration energy supplies and they would have plenty of room to operate for this winter season. This bill is written on the premise that there is a serious national energy crisis and yet the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his oil policy statement said and I quote:
We are confident no Canadian need fear serious shortages of fuel and oil this winter providing each of us plays his part.


Mr. Alexander:: The old double talk.


William James Kempling: The old double talk. The fact is there is no oil crisis. The government has not declared a crisis, yet it is asking for these powers.


Mr. Baldwin:: The only crisis is the government.


William James Kempling: That is right. We have Bill C-236 thrown at us which would place in the hands of the cabinet extraordinary powers. I say we cannot grant those powers; we cannot do that with a clear conscience. We cannot place in the hands of the cabinet such extraordinary powers or we would lose the confidence of the people of Canada.
December 17, 1973


Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, not armed with the notes that many members across the aisle have had when addressing Your Honour as to the problems concerning Bill C-236. I just stand here. I really cannot find a word to express the antipathy I feel towards this bill. In essence, it really heaps a hunk of horrifying humbug on the people of Canada and this parliament as has never been done before.
I am amazed that we sit here in such small numbers while this bill is being debated. It could really amount to a very horrific thing. I use the word "horrific" in terms of the annals of the government of Canada. Why horrific? It is very simple. The War Measures Act is really a game of Snakes and Ladders or Monopoly in comparison to what this bill can do. I wish some people would take cognizance of the fact that this bill gives Machiavellian powers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). It gives powers that are not only Machiavellian, but dictatorial and totalitarian. I could use all the adjectives in the book, but they would not begin to describe what the minister is doing to the democracy which, when I came to this House, I thought existed. I was naive enough to think that in a democracy, the means should justify the end, but I am satisfied from this piece of so-called legislation, this evil, vindictive bit of parliamentary nonsense, that the minister does not give a damn about ensuring that the end must always justify the means. That is horrific.
I used the word "humbug". Members opposite who think of "humbug" as a Christmas expedition or as having some such connotation should look up the word in the dictionary. It seems to deceive, to mislead, to lead one person to think what is so is what is not so, and what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources proposes is sheer humbug. He is an intelligent person. I would ask him to look up the definition of humbug to see why I say that is true. It bothers me that this terrific humbug is developing because what he is doing is unbelievable, unnecessary and unconstitutional. Unbelievable, because I am convinced in my own mind that this whole bill has arisen because there is a power conflict, a real fight going on within the cabinet at the moment as to who is to achieve power. I would say there is no doubt that the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is sacrificing the best interests of the country on the cross of self-expediency and the cross of self-indulgence and the cross of what he wants, so that he can control what goes on in this country of ours.
What does the legislation call for? He can do anything he wants. We are often accused of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. We cannot even do that under this legislation because the forest industry is now caught by this bill. We cannot even draw water because that is under transportation. The provisions of this bill affect the electrical industry, the transport industry and the automotive industry yes, the automotive industry. Do members across the floor realize there are 150 parts in every automobile which are fabricated by the petrochemical industry and if you can control that industry you can control automotive manufacturing in this country? That is the power you give to the minister under the present bill. Is it comprehensible you would want one minister to have this power?
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
Under clause 16(1) the government is not responsible; it can pass any regulations it wishes and not be responsible to anybody. Where do they go from here? The government says it is answerable under law, but what does it do? I makes certain little rules and regulations which permit the government to say; We don't care about the three or four hundred environmental laws and regulations passed by the provinces; we don't care, out of the door they go, because this little commissar-he will be known as Commissar Macdonald before this bill is through-wants this power. I thought we got rid of all that stuff at one time or another. You look to the Combines Investigation Act and find the same results. That law is out of the window.
I thought the government was interested in doing something for the people of Canada. I thought they were interested in making sure we are all equal under the law. But they do nothing, and I point the finger at you, Mr. Minister, and I say actions speak louder than words. Do not tell me what you think about the grandiose words you may speak. I say to you, if you have any responsibility for government in Canada, actions speak louder than words and your actions belie what your words may say. We could go on and describe unto you the way you treat the laws of this country. You have no respect for the laws of this country. You defy the constitution of this country. Under section 92 of the British North America Act the provinces have certain rights and obligations, but you do not care about that. You say: if you don't agree with us about what the price of electrical energy shall be, that does not matter to us; the board will report to me and I will be answerable only to one or two members of the cabinet who are fighting for power. That is all it means, unfortunately, as I see it. There is no question about that. It is so obvious it makes my heart sick.
I think this legislation was conceived in desperation because the government had no national energy policy, so we flin and flan and wail and wassail from one end of the bill to the other without knowing where we are going. It is strictly desperation politics trying to salvage something from nothing. And all you get from that is garbage, which is all this legislation amounts to because it will not achieve anything worthwhile except give to the minister the dictatorial power to run everything within this country. Tell me of one basic industry which is not dependent on oil to do what they have to do!
If you look at the interpretation section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, you will be amazed when you realize the extent of these powers and the care the minister has taken to ensure that actions under the bill should be accountable only to the cabinet, not to parliament. Yet, surely this is our purpose in being here. Surely, we should have some responsibility. But the minister would say: I want it all myself. How totalitarian can you get? How Machiavellian can you get? Any phrase you can lay your tongue to does not describe the essence of the power the minister wants to have. If he were responsible he would never design legislation of this kind. His guts would not let him. I say the legislation was conceived in desperation. It will be pursued with the indifference the government has always shown toward parliament. They do not care what parliament does or what parliament thinks.
8820

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I often think it is our fault that the media do not realize what the government is doing, and therefore I think I am at fault I cannot get the press to understand that they are being indifferent to the causes of people. This is my fault and I accept that, but with all of the speeches I have heard in this debate I wish somebody, somewhere, sometime would influence the minister and get him to see what is happening. I refer not only to the environment and the Combines Investigation Act but to the invasion of provincial rights in the field of electrical energy. But this means nothing to them.
What do we have to do to influence the government, Mr. Speaker? Member after member has brought this matter to their attention. Have the government made any changes in the legislation? Have they made any proposals to the opposition that perhaps the bill should be altered in this way or that? Heavens no; they go on in their own arrogant way. I repeat that the legislation has been improperly conceived. It was born of indifference but is going to raise a monster, a monster who will stalk this country up and down from coast to coast and tear at the sinews and bones of the confederation, of the body politic, which is now somewhat tenuously held together. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not aware of this, that is his fault; he has failed to have consultations with the provinces in this regard. I believe the things possible through this measure are so insidious that they could tear apart the sinews, bones and marrow of what we know as confederation, or this glorious and beloved country of Canada. This bill could stalk our country and tear apart as well its economic and social fabric.
I do not know why the minister feels the bill is necessary, since laws are available to him at the moment to do the very thing this legislation wants to do. I, for one, am not convinced that there is an energy crisis, though we may have some problems. But let us start to solve these problems in the proper way. Oil is going to be a diminishing resource, as we all know, and so is natural gas. Therefore, why does the government not bring in legislation to conduct research into the use of biomass or solar energy?


An hon. Member:: In what year?


J. Trevor Morgan: Do it now. That is what the government should be doing instead of putting this kind of legislation before the House, legislation that makes use of the War Measures Act mean nothing.
One of the problems, as I see it, with this so-called piece of legislation is that it does not deal with a real emergency but with an anticipated emergency. You can anticipate anything you want. But the bill gives this horrific board, these supermen or call them what you will, power to do anything they want and makes them responsible only to the Governor in Council. In other words, if the minister gets his way, two or three people are going to control the country, and I do not think the minister should have that power; it is as simple as that. Why anticipate anything? If there is a war, a resolution is put before the House and we decide what the country should do. If there is a railway strike, we decide what the country is going to do. But this minister decides for himself which way his road will go. I

remind him that the high road chooses the high way and the low road chooses the low way, and in between the misty flats rest drifting to and fro. I suggest to the House that this minister is drifting; he does not know which way to go.
I have one final comment for the minister. I understand he has left the chamber, so I hope he will read it in Hansard. Let me tell him that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. He is asking this House to make power corrupt absolutely.


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-236, the so-called energy supplies emergency act, I want immediately to make it clear that my comments will be divided into three sections. First of all, I want to criticize the legislation itself, which I believe to be a great potential threat to the history of industrial and economic democracy this nation has known for more than one century. Second, I want to give a real outline of the so-called "energy crisis", the crisis that this country is not experiencing and which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet ministers are exaggerating for their own ends. And third, I want to talk about the great threat that the Liberal government's policies are creating to the continued unity of this great nation, a nation in confederation that I want my children's grandchildren, and their grandchildren, to enjoy for many years to come. The Prime Minister, the man who was to unify this nation, has, I am afraid, seriously undermined our nation's unity and the brotherly love of one Canadian for another, no matter what language he speaks or culture and heritage he holds dear.
Let me deal with the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal government freely admits it is a measure to provide for an allocation board for mandatory supplies and rationing of controlled products. The government says that this legislation and the proposed board are only an insurance. It admits that the board and these measures may not be needed. So why should we have legislation and such trimmings? Why provide the board with such awesome authority, the likes of which have rarely been seen before in peacetime Canada, except perhaps for the War Measures Act, the provisions of which were invoked to deal with the October 1970 kidnapping crisis, an action which my close colleague the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) has already said was an over-reaction.
The government has brought forward this legislation because from it it can derive more power than it can legally obtain under our great democratic parliamentary system of government. As always, and as another of my colleagues, the former Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), has said, the current government wants to diminish the role of parliament in this country. Parliamentary government has too many safeguards for the people, the Prime Minister and the other two of the three wise men from Quebec; the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), to accept. This legislation is another chop at the tree of democratic parliamentary government in this country. It will invest tremendous power in a small group of people under the utter domination and direction of the cabinet, and it will take away the
December 17, 1973

authority that rightfully belongs to the provinces, placing it within the federal Cabinet.
An awesome point about the legislation is that it will allow, in its own way, almost complete power of economic dictation over most of our industrial activity. As a Canadian and a member of parliament representing the energy-rich province of Alberta, I just do not believe that the federal Cabinet ministers should be allowed to vest themselves with the authority rightfully belonging to the provinces. I can see why the Prime Minister would like to take over provincial jurisdiction, and his speech made in Vancouver a week or so ago is perfect evidence.
In that speech he scathingly attacked Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed. The Prime Minister, of all people, called Mr. Lougheed "petulant". He then followed up that comment with what has been described as the most vicious and pernicious attack ever launched by a Prime Minister of Canada against a premier of a province. This came, Mr. Speaker, from a man who was elected in 1968 with a promise to unite Canada. How times have changed; how the masks have come off and how the truth is coming out. At least the people of Canada know the truth now, and that is why the Prime Minister's smashing majority of 1968 was cut to a scant two-seat lead over the Progressive Conservatives in 1972.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Wait until next time.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Did the Prime Minister learn any lessons? A touch of humility, a bit of oil on troubled waters and then utter capitulation to his former allies, the New Democrats, in order to continue governing Canada with the aid of this party which obtained less than 18 per cent of the votes in 1972. This government party is interested in power at all costs; power and more power, and if power cannot be obtained within a parliamentary framework, then bills such as C-236 are brought forth to ensure that power in any case. I am astonished that members of parliament in any of the four parties represented in this historic House of Commons would easily support this legislation and thus force the provinces to surrender their authority. The conditions under which this authority can be invoked by the cabinet, coupled with the past performance of those who are demanding these vast powers, should give us all cause for concern. It is obvious that the government wants power far beyond its real needs. If it wants to allocate oil supplies at the wholesale level, and perhaps to ration supplies at the retail level-this is something we hope will never come to pass-then it already has legislation on the books giving it power to do these things.
Provincial rights and provincial jurisdiction are in fact a counterbalance; a democratic safeguard to federal authority. Both have their place in the Canadian constitution and both have served us well for more than 100 years. Let us not destroy those balances and safeguards now. Let us now look at the current energy crisis which the federal government suggests we face in Canada.
Let me say that in eastern Canada, in the Maritimes and in Quebec there is an energy shortage. It is simply a short-term shortage due in some small way to the international situation, but mainly due to the blindness and
Energy Supplies Emergency Act shortsightedness of the federal Liberal government which has repeatedly refused to build a pipeline extension from Sarnia to Montreal. Now that it' realizes its mistakes it tries to cover up; it tries, through vicious attacks by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to somehow blame the province of Alberta for the shortages. This approach will not work, as you can fool some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Time after time Alberta government officials have gone all out in attempts to ease the energy shortage in eastern Canada. The Alberta premier, Mr. Lougheed, and his ministers, have tried and tried again to co-operate with Ottawa, but the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has refused to accept that co-operation. Instead, perhaps because Albertans refused to elect even one Liberal member to the 75-seat Provincial legislature, the Prime Minister and the minister of energy, who believe all Progressive Conservatives are "rednecks", have set out to punish Alberta, as another of my colleagues, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), suggested in this Chamber just a week or so ago.
One of the greatest politicians of our times, that prime minister of the mother of parliaments in Westminster, Sir Winston Churchill, gallantly set out against all odds to unite his people, get them pulling together and eventually stood up against an insidious enemy. Canada's problems compared to those faced by England in 1939 are nothing, yet we have been unable to find the will to tackle them. Our Prime Minister came into the political arena promising, like Mr. Churchill, to unite our nation and lead it to a brave, new frontier. We are now as disunited as ever, and I suggest this is an artificial disunity caused and promoted simply for partisan political gain. If the Prime Minister can turn the rest of Canada against the so-called "villain" Alberta, perhaps he can, by a hate campaign, win his party more seats in eastern Canada. What a way to run a country, and what a way to seek to govern!
We have no long-term energy crisis in this country. What we have is a crisis in transportation of energy from one part of the country to the other, brought on by the Liberal government's complete refusal to build a pipeline to Montreal. What we have is a crisis in government caused by a Prime Minister spirited suddenly into power in 1968 without knowledge of, or liking for, our system of parliamentary government. All is not lost. My fellow colleagues from Alberta have more than adequately explained the situation regarding the vast abundance of oil and gas in Canada, particularly in the Athabasca tar sands. It is true that our conventional resources are reaching their peak and within a decade will be running down at a dangerous rate, but the tar sands are just beginning to open up as are resources in the Canadian Arctic and, hopefully, in the offshore Atlantic and Pacific areas.
Now that the federal government has suddenly taken an interest in the Athabasca tar sands, after so many years, I should like to point out that it was and is private enterprise, not a socialist entity, that pioneered the development of the tar sands extraction process, and pioneered that development at tremendous cost and risk. We have now all heard of the over $1 billion Syncrude Canada
8822

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act Program, an imaginative private enterprise consortium under which, by equally imaginative provincial government policy, the average Albertan will also benefit tremendously.
But we should not forget that the real commercial pioneer of this type of concept was a company called the Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited, a corporation, admittedly owned by Sun Oil, an American company, that over the past few years has lost some $90 million in pioneering oil sands extraction. That is a lot of money invested by people with imagination, ability and confidence in Canada. When we hear that the federal government intends to establish a national petroleum corporation with the Canadian taxpayers money to participate in exploration, I wonder how they will feel when, after a few years, the company might lose something like $90 million on one project. Will they get scared and back down, leaving the Canadian taxpayer to foot the losses? Quite likely.
What we should be doing, Mr. Speaker, is giving private industry and individual Canadians the incentives and encouragement they need to explore and develope new sources of energy rather than see big government grow even bigger, with the tax burden on the average Canadian becoming ever greater. Any government which gets so big that it can give you everything you want, will also be so big that it can take everything you own. Recently I saw some facts showing that within one decade under the Liberal administration the federal budget has jumped from $6 billion to $18 billion a year. And it is growing by leaps and bounds. That extra $12 billion came out of the average Canadian taxpayer's pocket, and I am not all sure the federal government is spending it to the best advantage of the people it took it from.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, might I make a plea for provincial-federal co-operation rather than confrontation, incentives and encouragement to individual Canadians rather than a "big daddy" or "big brother" government attitude, legislation which gives more rather than less freedom to the Canadian people, and a real drive toward re-establishment of a full and free parliamentary democratic government in this great country of ours. Obviously this legislation will, in one form or another, be approved. But I think it is essential, when it is considered in committee, that pressure be placed on the government to make it accede to accepting additional safeguards to the legislation, with parliamentary approval of any declaration of emergency, and some protection for provincial rights.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, like many who have preceded me, I have grave reservations about Bill C-236. Most of my concerns with the bill are similar to those already advanced by several of my colleagues. Nonetheless, this bill is of such national importance that I feel it is necessary to once again articulate these concerns. After all, history has shown this to be the only possible way to reach this government. Unlike the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), not all of us have a hot line to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). While the nature and possible ramifications of the energy crisis in Canada are far-reaching and all encompassing, I am not convinced that the broad delegation of powers

provided for in the bill are at all justified. Like many other Canadians, I am curious to know how a government can possibly justify and defend a policy when it is not even sure of the exact dimension of the problem that policy purports to alleviate.
Furthermore, has the government given serious consideration to the concommitants of the bill? For example, what effect will this legislation have on domestic economic activity? How will it affect the free enterprise system? Also, one has to wonder if it was necessary for the government to propose new legislation in order to have these standby emergency powers, when these powers are already contained in the Export and Import Permits Act.
These are only a few of the questions I have with regard to this legislation. But they are questions which have not been properly answered by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). Until these and other questions are cleared up, the people of this country will remain in the dark-they will be freezing in the dark soon anyway as long as we have this government-on the entire energy question.
As we all know, Bill C-236 would permit the creation of an allocation board with power to set prices for energy resources, to control imports and exports, to establish rationing and to take other actions should the cabinet decide that a national emergency exists because of an actual or anticipated petroleum shortage. These powers are broad and far-reaching. History has shown that powers like this once given are never easily taken back. But how can this government ask for such discretionary powers when its understanding of the energy crisis, as it affects this country, is so incredibly poor? We are bombarded daily with a plethora of conflicting statistics. What is apparent from these facts is that nobody in the cabinet seems to know the true extent of our energy crisis.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have yet to provide information to prove that the country faces a petroleum crisis. Various statements over the past few months from government spokesmen have all been inconsistent and contradictory. An example of this is the Prime Minister's ever-changing position with regard to the Montreal pipeline. He was against it in 1969, in 1970, in 1971 and in 1972. He was even against it last spring, despite the fact that his own energy policy white paper clearly warned of the real possibility of interruptions and reduction in the supply of offshore oil. But now the Prime Minister supports and embraces what was originally a Conservative policy.
It seems to me that the government should be given powers like those in Bill C-236 only after it can be established that Canada will, in fact, face a major energy crisis. While it is undoubtedly true that Canada is experiencing regional supply shortfalls of Arab oil and imported products, it is also true that, much of the country is not faced with an energy crisis similar to crises in the United States or parts of Europe. And while the Middle East dispute undoubtedly accelerated some domestic crisis characteristics, many of the aspects of Canada's crisis have their roots in long-standing domestic problems. The principal cause, therefore, of our crisis today is not Arab cut-offs or oil embargoes but the lack of federal leadership in anticipating and settling problems in an orderly and co-
December 17, 1973

ordinated manner. This lack of knowledge and leadership on the oil issue is currently evident in the minister's futile efforts to determine whether Canada is being affected by Saudi Arabian oil embargoes. The minister maintains that we are not on Saudi Arabia's black list.
The fact is, however, that we are on their embargo list. We have been told as much by Sheik Zaki Yamani, the Saudi Arabian oil minister. On CTV's "W-5", Mr. Yamani stated that Canada has been cut off totally from Saudi Arabian oil supplies. Why then has the minister not been informed of this? While it is true that Canadians are generally confused about the energy situation, it appears that the minister may be more confused than anyone. And yet, he is asking parliament to give him these tremendous powers. How can Parliament be sure the minister will know what to do with them? I am sceptical.
The economic effects of this bill must also be examined carefully. Inasmuch as the industrial, commercial and business sectors of the economy depend upon energy products to produce output, mandatory allocation and rationing of energy and energy products suggests that domestic economic activity could be regulated under the provisions of Bill C-236. It should be remembered that control over energy resources implies economic control.
For example, clause 16(2) of the bill allows allocation to be applied selectively, if necessary, to specific areas as well as to individual consumers of energy or energy products. This could be seen as a means to achieve regional economic policy ends. If the government wanted to see the establishment of a plastics industry in say, Toronto, then it would be a simple matter to declare that a shortage of certain petroleum by-products necessary for the production of plastics exists throughout Canada, except in Ontario. Whether the shortage is actual or is declared by fiat is a matter of the opinion of the Governor in Council.
There are numerous other ways in which this bill might affect economic activity. All of them imply government control, and government control means socialism. An estimate of the industries directly affected by allocation measures contained in this bill shows that almost 20 per cent of real domestic product could conceivably be controlled by the Governor in Council. This is a potentially dangerous arrangement especially for our free enterprise system. Indirectly this control also applies to retail outlets which sell goods which are composed of an energy product.
What all of this means is economic domination by the government. This is a road toward which the government is already heading Canada. Surely, Mr. Speaker, we will get there soon enough, so the government does not have to speed up the process. This bill, and the government's proposed national energy corporation simply mean the expenditure of more money, more government, more bureaucracy, more skyscrapers in Hull and, concommi-tantly, less individual freedom. This I vigorously oppose.
Not only is this bill unnecessary for the reasons I have just mentioned but it is unnecessary because a statute already exists which would give the government many of the powers it is now seeking. The special provisions of the Export and Imports Permit Act provide the government
Energy Supplies Emergency Act with most of the authority it needs to come to grips with the current situation. For example, section 3 of the act provides in part:
The Governor in Council may establish a list of goods to be called an export control list, including therein any article the export of which he deems it necessary to control.
However, this is not to imply that I favour exercising such powers under that act, or under any other act or bill. I believe that the government's reasons for not employing the provisions contained in Bill C-236 via the Export and Imports Permit Act are politically motivated. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wants to give the impression that he is doing something about the situation, and that this bill is an innovative policy to deal with our energy shortages. Such is not the case. This bill merely excuses the government's inaction on the supposed crisis by implying that the government did not have the powers necessary to deal with such an event. But this fact should not come as a surprise. After all, this is the essence of the Liberal government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the bill is unacceptable to me. It is an unnecessary and potentially harmful piece of legislation concocted for politically expedient reasons by a government whose inability to handle the entire energy situation can only be equalled by its inability to handle the economic situation. Unfortunately, in both instances it is the Canadian people who will suffer.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) opened this debate a few days ago, the thing I remembered most about his speech was not so much what he said, as the almost matter of fact way in which he outlined what I am sure he, on another day, will call a case for granting unto this particular government extraordinary powers. I say that what he said was not too important from that point of view because if he had been making a submission to a judge to try to convince him of the points of view set forth in his argument that these powers were necessary, then I think it is fair to say that his cause failed, and his cause should have failed. But it was the unconcern that I noted with which he dealt with these extraordinary powers, these massive rights, really a theft from the legislative process that he was asking this House to agree to give him without, it seemed, any recourse whatsoever that worried me.
I want to say at the outset that it has never been the policy of this party to deprive the government, even this government which has proven itself so inept and inert, of the powers it might need to cope with a real national emergency, whether that emergency was in the field of energy or anything else over which it had jurisdiction. The one criterion we have asked for, however, is proof that the emergency is in fact a real emergency.
Having said that I want to say I do not feel I would be happy being a member of this party if it abrogated its responsibilities, whether in opposition as it is now, or in government as it soon will be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -by granting all these overriding powers in circumstances under which this granting or this taking of

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act power was not warranted. I do not think the government has satisfied the burden that is on it to show beyond all reasonable doubt, and I dare say in terms of the depth and the strength of the powers that it seeks, beyond a shadow of doubt that it needs these powers to look after the national good.
As a member of this parliament, this minority parliament, I am not content with this bill as it now stands because when parliament enacts this bill, at that instant the members of parliament who represent Canadians from all walks of life in all parts of Canada will have passed their legislative responsibility to a government that has proven itself not only to be faulty in judgment but one in love with the authority of government by order in council and one which, through the fireside chats by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the statements in this House by all ministers, has shown itself to be on all sides of the energy question with respect to whether there is a crisis for Canadians this year or in the immediate future.
The burden upon the government to make out a case for these powers is even heavier in a minority parliament than it is in a parliament where a government would have a majority. It is particularly heavy on this government because the only thing that is propping it in office is a party known as the New Democratic Party, a party that left its principles a long time ago to moulder in the dust, whose members on the one hand say with all their honour that on some occasion they will oppose the government, and on the next occasion gather those incompetents opposite to their bosoms, to such an extent that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is able to announce to this House the colour of the eyes of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).
To measure the extent of the various positions of the government over the last few weeks, and how it has moved from this side to that side as to whether or not there is a crisis, one has only to hear and see how ministers have reacted to questions in this House. This should be an indication to all members of the House, including even the ciphers who support the government, that the government is running very close to the end of its string in terms of public trust.
I would like to direct the attention of the House to the government's record of vacillation and inconsistency that it has displayed in the matter of energy. The Prime Minister said on November 22:
Our current assessment is that oil rationing at the retail level will not be necessary. If Canadians generously support the voluntary program-and I know they will-there is every prospect that shortages can be minimized throughout this winter.
On September 20 of this year, on a television program, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said this:
In a sense, this is a passing situation in Canada because we've
got new refinery construction under way which will be completed in the fall of next year, and further refinery construction
will be completed in the year after.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you have this kind of optimism and pessimism. I ask you whether this is the kind of statement on which to base the far reaching and extraordinary powers for which the government is now asking.

Again on October 16, 1973, the minister, when speaking to that society of which the Prime Minister is so fond, the Royal Society of Canada, said:
Comparing this Canadian situation with that of other developed nations of the world for example, Germany and Japan, we are not on the whole in too dangerous a situation. Compared to other nations Canada is in a relatively fortunate position.
On October 7, which is not so long ago, the minister said:
Well, Canadians have been more fortunate than many other people. In terms of shortages the government has been able to take action by way of export controls to make sure that Canadian refineries will continue to have supplies of oil to turn into gasoline, into heating oil, and also to make sure that there will be supplies of gasoline and heating oil throughout the year.
This latter statement, Mr. Speaker, was made less than two months ago by the minister who has now come here to ask this parliament to grant the government extraordinary powers to meet a crisis. I do not have to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) got into the act. He has been keeping a relatively low profile for some time but he got into the energy act and not too long ago he said:
While we must be concerned . .. there is no justification at this time for panic or pessimism. Canada is in a much better position with regard to energy supplies than most other industrial countries.
There are some in this House who would say that this record of "on again off again on again Finnegan", which has characterized this government should be classed as a performance. But I think not, Mr. Speaker. What they have performed I believe is a tragedy, that is to instil in the minds of producers and consumers alike a sense of apprehensiveness and inconsistency that may or may not be justified-I do not believe this government really knows. In so doing, they have breached their public trust as a government.
It is interesting to note an article by Clyde Baxter which appeared in the Financial Post on December 15 1973 date-lined Ottawa. I will quote part of the article which reads:
One senior federal minister bet a skeptical friend in industry a steak dinner and a good bottle of wine there would not be a national petroleum corporation-protesting all the while that he, after all, had the advantage.
Ten days later, Prime Minister Trudeau announced such an agency would be created.
Last week, on Wednesday, Energy Minister Donald Macdonald assured a meeting of Toronto investment analysts the price freeze on domestic oil would come off as planned January 31. One day later, Trudeau announced it wouldn't.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources rises on a question of privilege.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have written to the editor of the Financial Post pointing out that this is a false story by Mr. Baxter so far as I am concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is an issue that the minister has chosen to take up with Mr. Baxter. Nonetheless, this article has been published. The minister was quite correct in adding that it may be false as far as he is concerned, but I think
December 17, 1973

there is a question of judgment as to whether the story is false at all.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a taped record and it is false all right. Would you care whether it is false or not?


An hon. Member:: Bring in the tapes!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to bring in the transcript.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it really does not matter what letters the minister might write or to whom. The proof of the pudding with respect to the competency of this government will be made known in the next few months. I am prepared, no matter what the minister might have said or where he said it, to defer my judgment on that, and I am sure the Canadian people will do the same.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You do not care whether it is true or not.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has intervened at this point because he has been sitting there rather quietly. I hope he has been considering the enormity of his sins of omission and commission with respect to the energy situation in this country.
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that by any standard this is no mean bill in terms of the power requested. There is one thing about the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker; they are not backward when it comes to appropriating power to themselves. In some quarters, according to the way they operate, they might have been considered crude, although I would not want to put it that way tonight.
Perhaps the enormity of the power in clause 11 of this bill has been lost on many people. It gives the government the right by order in council-and just by order in council-to declare a national emergency all by themselves, perhaps to suit their political convenience.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: If this parliament passes that clause in its present form it gives this government the right to bypass parliament and to pass an order in council sometime in the middle of the night-after two o'clock in the morning perhaps as has been known to happen in this country. I should like the civil libertarians on the other side who make speeches out of both sides of their mouths on this matter to think about the enormity of the power they are trying to give to this government. Some people would say that they must have it because to come to parliament would be too inflexible a procedure; that they must have this power to bypass parliament.
Mr. Speaker, if any Canadian is so foolish as to believe that kind of claptrap let me remind the House that parliament was called to settle the rail strike and came together within 48 hours. That rail strike was settled by that parliament, despite the foot dragging by the NDP. So, that procedure is not so inflexible that there would be a justification for departing from the principle that if the government is to have those powers let it come to this parliament, this public forum and discuss the necessity for these powers. If they make a case, then I am satisfied that this parliament, acting in the best interests of all Canadians,
Energy Supplies Emergency Act would be prepared to grant the government that kind of power. I want to make it absolutely clear to this government that we believe this arbitrary, irresponsible and undemocratic principle, this ability that they ask for to govern by order in council, is not satisfactory to this party as a matter of principle as well as by reason of the fact of this particular government's bad record or judgment.
Mr. Speaker, this is an immense bill in another way. I have dealt with the power that will be left to a group of small men who are responsible from then on to no one but themselves. They have the power to allocate and ration. These powers apply to petroleum, petroleum products, secondary petroleum products such as plastics, alternative fuels-which incidentally are not specifically defined in the bill-anything capable of being used as a fuel, any product from anything capable of being used as fuel, coal, coal products, electrical power and probably following from that, any electrical power products. This board is to be a powerful board. Perhaps in an emergency, such powers are necessary, but that emergency must be demonstrated.
The principal powers of the board will relate to dates of allocation, to apportionment of product to wholesalers, to assigning of supplies to wholesalers, to storage control and prices to wholesalers, to market area determination and so on. Then, comes this omnibus part of clause 16, which always frightens me, which says that the board may undertake any other action that "the board considers necessary for the purpose of carrying out a mandatory allocation program... ". That covers a whole host of actions which may or may not be justified by circumstances of the day. That is why we must be careful. It is not that the government may not need these powers at some time; rather, it is that the government ought not to have these powers all the time. That is the principle which concerns me.
Other speakers have indicated that once this declaration regarding a national emergency is made, statutes such as the Combines Investigation Act, the National Energy Board Act, environment statutes, the Transport Act, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act as well as other acts are to be superseded. The rights and duties of citizens, together with their burdens and benefits under these acts, are to be superseded by five faceless men who are not elected and who are responsible only to the minister. I think that is a lot to ask parliament to give away. For that reason, we must look carefully at the principle behind this bill.
Members have spoken about the power of the board to alter supply contracts, to impose wholesale rationing, and so on. It is important for the House and country to know the extent of these powers and the industries and people in Canada which could be directly controlled under the emergency powers conferred by this bill, emergency powers which, as 1 said, any government should have if there is an emergency. This government has not established that emergency.
The activities of the board could affect forestry and uranium mining, mineral fuel mines, the rubber industry, synthetic textile mills, fabric preparing mills, the carpet, mat and rug industry, linoleum and coated fabric indus-

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act tries, miscellaneous textile industries, paper, petroleum refineries, petroleum and coal products, manufacturers of plastics, resins, paint and varnish, plastic fabricators, all kinds of other manufacturing industries. It will affect wood industries, transportation, electric power and gas utilities, coal and coke, petroleum bulk tank stations, and many other industries.
This bill confers significant powers. I emphasize that no government, certainly not this government, which has put forward its case through the mouth of the minister who has been supported only by the acquiescence and silence of backbenchers, is entitled to these powers permanently. I submit that on the evidence presented thus far the government is not entitled to the powers it asks parliament to confer.
There is another serious ramification that flows from this bill; that is, the seeming authority that is given to the government of Canada, if there were a national emergency, to interfere in fields of legislative authority which are left to the provinces under the constitution of Canada. There are many in this country who would be inclined to argue that our constitution perhaps needs revamping and that we ought to take a long look at it from the point of view of changes and amendments, a redistribution of power and a redefinition of the objectives towards which all levels of government should aim. That may be all well and good; yet, surely there is a time and place for this, Mr. Speaker. There is a method for doing it. I suggest that the method is not the introduction of a piece of legislation which, in the hands of one government, can be used to bludgeon another. I gravely suspect that this idea is behind the haste with which this government wants to garner these powers unto itself.
Speaking as a member of parliament from Ontario, I am concerned for my own province because of the powers that would be granted to the government under this bill, particularly with respect to the field of hydroelectric energy. I am sure that this concern is shared by representatives from the province of Quebec, although some of them have sold out their principles to the extent that they probably would not voice that concern on the floor of this House. That is why they remain silent about that concept of this bill and another which has been mooted. They well know of what I speak.
Clause 14 permits the government to authorize the allocation of electric power and to establish mandatory allocations in respect thereof. This comes within the terms of the statute. Once electric power has been added to the mandatory allocation program this act will apply mutatis mutandis in respect of electric power to the same extent as if such electric power were a petroleum product. There is no mention of consultation. I think this is an omission, and perhaps indicates the way in which this government is prepared to consider relationships between the federal and provincial governments of this country.
No one would ever argue that there would never be a time in our national life when such drastic, sweeping powers which leap across sections of the British North America Act might not be necessary. In that event, I put it to you that there would not be one provincial legislator, not one provincial premier and not one provincial government in this country which, regardless of political stripe,

would stand against the government of Canada if it needed these kinds of powers in a real emergency.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, without such an emergency, and even if the government says that there is an anticipated emergency, in connection with energy, but has not proven it to any greater extent than it has, these clauses can only be classed as instruments of confrontation as opposed to consultation. These instruments are not unfamiliar to this government. Speaking as a member from Ontario, I think that the government has embarked upon a very dangerous course for which it has not proven the necessity. One can only speculate as to the reasons for adopting this position.
Much has been said, Mr. Speaker, about what has been generally and loosely called an energy crisis, whether in terms of supply or in terms of the transportation system. There might be a crisis relating to transportation, in that it may be difficult to supply Canadians in all parts of Canada with fuel taken from territory within their country. In the recent weeks when we have been exposed to many government inconsistencies and the general lack of leadership in the important field of energy, it has become apparent to Canadians that there is a much more important crisis facing them. That crisis is the crisis of leadership, a crisis caused by the failure of the government either to anticipate events, as reasonable men would expect them to be anticipated, or to act when these events have appeared on the horizon.
If there is a place where the crisis of leadership in this country is apparent, it is in the fact that at this late date, in 1973, the government of Canada, with all its resources and research capabilities, with the large and growing Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, cannot say to this House that it has a Montreal pipeline in the works. Oh, they have talked about the pipeline. The Prime Minister has used his prime ministerial rhetoric about the pipeline. As each day goes on, the date upon which such a pipeline would be in place fades further and further into the future. Not long ago the Prime Minister indicated that the pipeline would be ready in 1974. Everyone was prepared to cheer. Then, a few days ago we heard that the government has been told that the pipeline cannot be commenced until some time in 1975. Then, the other day, we found out that two applications to the National Energy Board would be required. The government has not even told us authoritatively what is to be the size of the pipe.
The government indicated as late as last night on the CTV network, through the mouth of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that it was not even sure of the route that was to be taken. There is the whole question of acquiring and establishing the right of way. There is even the question of acquiring steel. This has not been dealt with authoritatively. All of these problems have been allowed to lie dormant even though we are faced with them in this usual mad scrambling of a government which scrambles to make up for its own deficiencies. This is a mad scramble which is usually fraught with futility.
All of these problems have been allowed to lie dormant. They have even been allowed to lie dormant since September 4 and, more important, well before that time. As is usual with this government, we are now faced with a last
December 17, 1973

minute, too late mad scramble to make up for their deficiencies and to cover their inefficiencies, ineptitude and negligence in Prime Ministerial rhetoric. It is the usual mad scramble, the usual badge of this government. It is a course of action that we in this House have learned is fraught with futility. This fact has also been learned by the people of Canada.
The Liberal party has governed this country since 1963, a period of 10 years. The Prime Minister has been in office since 1968. Our party warned the government and the country that, as a result of the six day war and the uncertainties which it brought about, our country could not expect that forever we could have a sure supply of petroleum from the Middle East, so we ought to consider building a pipeline. Even the government's policy papers tabled last summer in the House of Commons, the so-called first energy policy which was nothing more than a discussion of various problems, pointed to why the pipeline ought not to be built. Now, today, faced with a crisis, really a crisis of leadership, abandonment of responsibility and the results of neglect, we suddenly have been talking about a pipeline, but as far as this government is concerned it is a rhetorical pipeline. The fixed objective of a national policy must be that of an assured oil supply for all of Canada. We can only have that assurance if the source of supply is Canadian.
The Progressive Conservative party believes that it is within the competence of a national policy to provide that assured supply and at a reasonable price. The Canadian objective should be self-sufficiency. Indeed the Canadian opportunity over the course of the coming decade will be self-sufficiency, not because this government acted but because this government will be horsed out of office and replaced by a government that is prepared to act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I can understand the noise from the other side. I am glad they are awake. It is the first time since last week. I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that great objective of self-sufficiency is not a remote goal but one well within our grasp. The barrier between us and the attainment of that objective, the only obvious barrier, is the long-standing and continued, neglect of duty by the Trudeau government.
We are fortunate in Canada because we live in an area where we do, in fact, have self-sufficiency in terms of the amount of crude oil that we produce. I want to state that we reached this state of development only as a result of the 1961 national oil policy implemented by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That was the most significant step taken in relation to petroleum resources development in Canada. It allowed us to develop our resources. It allowed them to develop to state that they are today. I want to point out as well that since 1969 our party has been on record in support of extending the interprovincial pipeline from Ontario into Quebec. We advocated that policy not only in the interest of expanded national self-sufficiency, but because we saw in 1969 a prospect of curtailed off-shore supply from the Middle East.
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
I put it to you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that had the Progressive Conservative party the responsibility of government at that time, that pipeline would be in place today. The fact that it is not in place today is a monument to the neglect, ineptitude and the failure of initiative of this government. This, perhaps more than any other reason in this current debate, is why this government does not deserve to govern, and is not fit to govern. It ought not to be given the powers it asks for in this bill in its present form.
Now we have the Prime Minister supporting the extension of the pipeline to Montreal. What a change. He was against it in 1969. He was against it in 1970. He was against it in 1971. He was against it in 1972. He was against it even in the spring of 1973. Then, he did his usual flipflop. Now, we find him making speeches about it, telling about what a wonderful idea it is. Well, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians are not going to be fooled by that kind of nonsense. In terms of energy, this government and this Prime Minister have been like a weather vane affected by every wind that blows, not consistent as to the direction in which it would point itself. The biggest wind that affected it not too long ago was the wind from the party to my left.
Regrettable as it is for all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, the government's record of neglect in the field of Canadian self-sufficiency and in the field of security of supply for Canadians, is another example of how the Trudeau government has not come to grips with reality and has not acted. Let there be no mistake about it. We have seen nothing that indicates that our warning in 1969 was wrong then or is wrong now. In fact, events have confirmed the correctness of our view at that time. We say to his government, do not wait until 1975 but do something about building the pipeline now.
As a result of the neglect of this situation there are many Canadians in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and perhaps in other parts of Canada who are going to suffer this winter by reason of additional costs. Eastern Canadians and others in this country are beginning to understand how barren of action and decision are the words of the Prime Minister. As a result of the neglect, many Canadians in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and perhaps other parts of Canada are going to suffer this year. We have advocated a shelter grant system for the consumers of home heating oil because they are the ones who need the protection and assistance in a market that is rising.
There can be no doubt that because of various factors, not the least of which is the neglect of the government in terms of petroleum, there are going to be price increases to Canadians over the year. It is our view that these price increases ought to be staged. It is the hallmark of our policy with respect to oil that Canadians ought not to have to pay the world price for petroleum products. It is also the hallmark of our policy that there ought not to be two Canadas with respect to the price of petroleum products. Our party believes in a one-price system for Canada. The announcement by the Prime Minister in this debate a few days ago creates two Canadas in terms of price, creates a division in the country which has been overlooked by the Liberal members from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces who, by sitting in their places and say nothing, who by defending the government like the ciphers they are, have

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act
sold out their provinces and sold out the people that they were supposed to represent.
* (2130)


Mr. Blais:: I dare the hon. member to come to my riding and talk that nonsense.


Walter David Baker: We take the position that the tax system ought to be used to provide incentives for Canadians to build storage facilities. We do not believe the government should act in such a way as to be held to be admitting that its policies are subject to the whims of the international corporations.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, a few days ago a new person strutted across the energy scene, a person called force majeure. Someone called me to ask whether he was a French-speaking army officer who was taking part in the crisis. A lot of Canadians did not know what it meant. But they got the hint when the minister told them that the largest oil shortfall could result from pro-rationing among multinational companies and that to do this the companies would have to enforce the force majeure clauses in the supply contracts. Canadians ask why should this be, and look to the government for answers. As usual, they receive none. Through subsequent questioning in the House of Commons by my leader and others, it became apparent that the Canadian government could not or would not challenge the right of the multinationals to allocate oil supplies arbitrarily. It came to light that the government was not only weak in policy but weak in resolve. When asked whether or not the minister or any of his officials had been in direct contact with these large oil companies or seen the supply contracts, the reply was: It is not our business. At this point Canadians began to think that perhaps the government was permitting a situation to develop in which the national government of Canada was subservient to the will of private international companies. Our view, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is the view of most Canadians, is that this is not a healthy situation and that the government has been derelict in its duty in this field as well.
There is to be a federal-provincial conference of first ministers on January 22, 1974. The Prime Minister has said they will be discussing the energy issue and it may well be that the conference will consider other matters affecting Canadians, such as the uncontrolled inflation which is itself causing concern and which, again, is being aggravated by the crisis in petroleum. This conference could prove to be one of the most important first ministers conferences since the practice of holding such meetings was begun. It might also be one of the most productive. It will all depend on the attitude of the participants. If the conference is to be used as an instrument to bludgeon the provincial governments it will surely fail. Although there may be a lot of strutting about and a lot of breast beating about national supremacy, our country will be the worse for that failure. Unfortunately, there is an atmosphere of confrontation in Canada and the federal government must take a substantial share of the blame for this. It should surely take a substantial share in an initiative to erase this attitude.
While it cannot be said that the ten provinces ought to regard themselves as ten sovereign states-and I do not think they do-it must be said that the federal govern-

ment ought not to forget that the governments of the ten provinces are duly elected governments with mandates of their own. The people of those provinces are all Canadians and would not welcome, from either their provincial governments or from the federal government, any action, statement or position which would deprive them of the right to participate in a matter of national interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am the first speaker for the New Democratic Party since early Friday morning, and I intend to be brief-


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster.


Randolph Harding: -because we are hopeful that the bill may get through the House tonight. We have listened to an interesting debate on the energy supplies bill currently before us. The position taken by the NDP is that the House of Commons should give speedy passage to the legislation. The government should be given the powers required to cope with the present energy crisis but these powers should not be excessive. It would be completely irresponsible to break for a lengthy Christmas recess without dealing with this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: If a crisis arises we must have the necessary measures in place to meet it and for this reason I strongly oppose the suggestion by the Conservative Party that the legislation be held up until the end of January. Why wait until the winter is half over before laying plans to forestall a possible energy crisis? The official opposition is using the same delaying tactics as it used in trying to block progressive legislation this past spring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: The people of Canada brought them to their senses at that time by reflecting in the public opinion polls growing disillusionment with their stalling tactics. I predict it will happen again, for the Canadian people expect parliament to prepare plans and measures to cope with the looming energy crisis. We cannot take a chance and wait until the end of January before making plans as proposed by the Tory party. The completely irresponsible position take by the official opposition shows that their concern is for the multinational oil corporations, not for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: Our group will offer some amendments to the legislation. We hope to see second reading completed quickly and the legislation sent to committee for immediate study and report. We urge the Conservative party to call off their apparent filibuster of the bill and to join with other parties in trying to set up the necessary machinery to cope with a possible energy crisis in our country.
December 17, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: The bill provides for the creation of a five-member board whose task will be to prepare, review and maintain contingency plans in readiness in the event of an energy shortage. The board will also be given power to impose mandatory allocations of energy sources, and to ration supplies. This power is contingent upon a decision by the cabinet that a national emergency exists. Such an emergency could arise as a result of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in petroleum markets which affect, of might affect, the national security of Canada.
The Conservative party says these powers are excessive. They say the government has to prove there is an energy crisis to justify the legislation and that its provisions are an infringement of provincial jurisdiction. What is the solution offered by the Conservatives? It is to wait until the federal-provincial conference on January 24 and then deal with the legislation. But what would happen should a crisis develop? We cannot forecast what might happen in the tense international field to further upset our oil imports. Again, internal problems of supply might arise. The official Conservative position of delaying action is not defensible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: It is an indication of their inability to grasp the seriousness of the situation and of their lack of concern about preparing for an emergency which could seriously affect the nation. Their present attitude stands out in sharp contrast to their concern for the welfare of the multinational oil corporations.
Let us look at the events which have taken place in Canada in the energy field over the past few months and at the role played by the various parties in this House. It should give us a clear indication of who is really fighting for the best interests of Canada and Canadians. A number of Conservative members have told us that they have fought for the pipeline to Montreal for a number of years. Let the people of Canada know that it was a Conservative government which, in 1961, brought in legislation to stop the building of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: And in their 1969 election literature, Mr. Speaker, they did not say that they were going to build the pipeline to Montreal; they said that they would consider the building of the pipeline to Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: If it had not been for the Tory party, and for their short-sighted energy policy in 1961, we would have had the pipeline into Montreal and Quebec and would not be worrying about a shortage of oil for the people in eastern Canada. It is the official opposition that are really to blame for the energy crisis today, and they are trying to talk their way out of it by using the little gimmicks we have heard in this particular debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Energy Supplies Emergency Act


Randolph Harding: There are one or two points I should like to make about the bill. One section deals with the environment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the House give the hon. member an opportunity to be heard. His voice I continue to hear but I think he has to force himself. Not everything that he says has to be greeted by applause or disapproval. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about one section of the bill. There are a number of sections with regard to which our party intends to offer amendments, but one of the provisions relates to the environment. One of the members this afternoon spoke very eloquently on this matter, and I agree with many of the remarks he made concerning changing this section. I think it is foolish to pass legislation without consulting the various provinces and ministers and taking into consideration legislation which they have on their statute books. This is why consideration must be given to changing this particular section, and as I say our party is going to offer an amendment to try to improve the bill in this regard. We are going to bring in other amendments to the bill as well. I shall not discuss them at this time; the proper place to do so is in committee.
In closing, may I say that this is no time for any party to play politics since a possible energy crisis is facing Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: We can sit around the committee table, and hopefully amendments will be offered by the official opposition, by our party, by the Social Credit party and indeed by government members themselves, and I hope they will be given serious consideration. I am certain that basically most members of the House are anxious to assure the Canadian people that we are really trying to set up the type of legislation that will enable us to meet the energy crisis to the best of our ability, should such a crisis eventuate. But let every one of us hope and pray that we do not have to use the emergency measures which I think we should give the government in order to plan for the crisis in the event that it hits us later on this winter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I had very little intention of taking part in this debate, but a certain confusion exists in my mind. I am not an expert on this particular subject but I do not think that prevents me from speaking of the concern I have over the principles that I see the government accepting and which we must, of course, challenge; there is no question of that. I listened to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who for ten minutes carried on just in order to have an opportunity of-


An hon. Member:: Filibustering.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Well, I would not say filibustering. I do not know what he was trying to do except criticize this party because we have had the nerve to stand up when we believe something is wrong and has to be questioned. With all he had to say, he left me with but one thought, and that

December 17, 1973
Energy Supplies Emergency Act was that he was not happy with the bill. He said that, in view of the environment provision, which I think is clause 24, it would be foolish for us to pass the bill, keeping in mind there are provincial responsibilities one must be aware of and concerned about.
In this regard I wonder why at this particular time, a time of concern, this government cannot understand that our federal system works on the basis of co-operation and consultation rather than confrontation. If anything is clear to me, to all members of the House and the people of Canada, it is the way in which this government has projected itself into the mainstream of this very important matter without having any consideration whatever for the requirements of the provinces, without any consideration whatever for our constitution, if I may call it that, the British North America Act, in terms of provincial rights. The provinces feel their resources are of such great importance that one sees them all going in various ways trying to beat the government. When one approaches a subject of such importance in a spirit of confrontation rather than consultation, then it seems to me the provincial governments have every right to put before the House their concern and the way in which they are going to handle this very serious situation.
Having read the preamble to this bill- I do not know whether it is the preamble but those who have more expertise will correct me if I am wrong-I am of the opinion that a very heavy onus is placed on the minister to indicate to this House just what crisis we are facing in whatever terms he can divulge it to the House. I have looked for such an indication in his speech. I did not peruse his speech in its entirety, but I did read some of the statements that the minister put on the record. I should like to repeat what the minister had to say when presenting to the House the atmosphere surrounding this emergency, or as we and others have called it, this crisis. I refer to page 8442 of Hansard for December 5, where the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said there had been established a technical advisory committee on petroleum supply and demand. Then, he went on to say this:
That committee, composed of senior representatives of oil companies and of the various departments of government, has continued to meet every week.
What I am more concerned about is this passage.
The recommendations prepared by that committee have been undergoing continuous review and refinement. The picture which emerges indicates clearly the possibility of shortages of middle distillates and heavy oils in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and to some extent in Ontario. There is also the possibility of local shortages of these products in British Columbia.
I ask whether the possibility outlined there would indicate that we should be dealing with matters we might call national emergencies?
Let me move on again to quote from the minister's speech where he indicates that the province of Ontario appreciates the difficulties which may arise. On page 8445, the minister is reported as having quoted Mr. McKeough as stating:
In other words, Canadians cannot expect to escape the effect of a Middle East embargo on the United States. As a consequence of all

this, there is more than a possibility of a Canadian gasoline and heating oil shortage. We in Ontario must accept our share of the burden.
Is that the basis of the national emergency the minister has talked about? Let me quote again form the minister's statement as reported at page 8445 of Hansard. He is reported as having said:
As for the views of another provincial government, I refer to remarks made by the Quebec minister of transport as reported in La Presse for November 30 of this year. He indicated that he felt voluntary restrictions would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting the Quebec market. I quote from his remarks in La Presse.
"Voluntary restrictions, he explained, would not be adequate for the purpose of protecting us against a possible scarcity."
My point is that the shortage about which the minister speaks is only a possibility. Are we on this side of the House to assume that because of possibilities referred to by the minister there is a national emergency? I suggest that the answer is, of course not. Because we take this attitude we are being criticized, and the suggestion is made that we are against the national interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would tell you one thing I have learned since I came to this House, ever since the War Measures Emergency Act was proclaimed, I will never again let this government or any other government railroad legislation through this House without giving us the facts upon which such legislation is based. We must be given the facts in order to come to a conclusion as to the necessity for such government action. We were fooled once, but we will not be fooled again. This government will have to give us some proof of the necessity for granting these powers.
As I understand the situation the NDP do not like this bill but feel they should rush it through in order to support this minority government. I suggest that we are entitled to some proof by this government that these extraordinary measures are necessary. I doubt that we will have the opportunity of voting on this measure tonight, Mr. Speaker, but I must repeat that we in this party are concerned about the federal government taking powers which traditionally have been provincial powers. The federal government will be meeting with representatives of the provinces on January 21 and 22 of this year, and I hope that these difficulties will be resolved as a result of consultation at that time.
I see the minister looking at me now, and I assume he is doing so because of the suggestion by other hon. members that there must be consultation with provincial authorities. I also see an hon. member who is sitting in the government front benches, although I suspect he never will sit there as a matter of right, who questions my criticisms of the Saskatchewan government in imposing a provincial tax on crude oil exported from that province. What this bill suggests is that we give this five-man board sweeping powers with the right to delegate powers to an agency. Speaking on behalf of the Canadian people, I do not think we should give up our rights as parliamentarians to a five-man board which could in turn circumnavigate, mesmerize and emasculate the powers of the governor in council.
December 17, 1973

I wish I had more time at my disposal in order to outline several other points I have in mind, but let me say in conclusion that there is no way I could support this bill in its present form. Let me refer to a brochure I have before me under the heading of "Richardson Securities of Canada" under the date of December, 1973. I am not sure whether this has been published under the authority of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), but it states in part:
It appears appropriate at this time to consider the need for co-operation rather than confrontation. Recent government actions, which have been based on short-term expediencies, have been disruptive enough in themselves, but the manner in which they have been handled is even more disconcerting.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to be involved in this debate, and I conclude by suggesting that the problem facing this government is one of consultation. There are clauses in this proposed bill that need clarification, but over-all and in an overriding way there is a need for provincial consultation before going any further with this measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


An hon. Member:: Let's call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) has already spoken during this debate. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we have wasted enough time playing this stupid game for the Progressive Conservatives who are striving for political capital, may I call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Temis-caminque (Mr. Caouette) calling it ten o'clock, or shall I put the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion proposed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader what the business of the House is for tomorrow?
Adjournment Motion


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will proceed to the consideration of the bill on election expenses, to be followed by the bill on export taxes and the division of profits. Hopefully, we will begin the report stage of the election expenses bill.


Thomas Miller Bell: Do I understand that this same schedule will carry on into next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It very well might, and even next year.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unfortunately, the leader of the Creditiste party is not in his seat. I hope he will return because I have something to say that I feel might be of interest to him. I took advantage of my allotted time to register my concern about the extremely partisan attitude taken by that hon. member who indicated a desire to call it ten o'clock.


David Réal Caouette: I did not say that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know how we play this game, and I do not suppose I should call it a game-


An hon. Member:: Sit down or say something.


An hon. Member:: You are ignorant.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Notwithstanding what anyone, including my House leader might say, I do not take any instructions from anyone in respect of my concern about the measure being debated tonight, and I certainly will not take a back seat to anyone in respect of my involvement in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Temiscamingue on the same point of order.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not have any objection to the member saying what he had to say, but there was an understanding between the House Leaders to the effect that the vote would be taken at 9:45. When I saw the hon. member rise after 9:45 I thought he was not respecting the word given by the House Leader of his own party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I should not have allowed the hon. member for Hamilton West to raise the point in the first place, since it is after ten o'clock. I, therefore, suggest that if hon. members wish to pursue this point they do it after the completion of the Routine Proceedings tomorrow.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I must say there was no agreement whatsoever about this debate being terminated tonight.

December 17, 1973
Adjournment Motion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is that this House do now adjourn.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question of privilege may be raised on the same point tomorrow, but we are within the adjournment hour now.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, for many months a number of members have been trying in vain to find out what, if anything, the Department of Transport has been doing about passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario. For many weeks the Canadian Transport Commission study of this service in that area of Canada has been shrouded in secrecy. My colleagues and I have been denied any information by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) regarding the terms of reference of the study, its progress, or its conclusions or recommendations. We were led to believe, most explicitly, by the minister that the study involved local consultation. Those of us in the area affected searched far and wide in our ridings for someone, anyone, who had been consulted by the CTC, all to no avail. This, of course, prompted my question to the minister on November 22 last.
It was not until the Commission's chairman, Hon. J. Edgar Benson, appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates that I was able to determine that there was, in fact, no consultation with local people or officials. To the contrary, the CTC appears to be making two reports, the first being of an historical nature with possible solutions and recommendations and the second a survey or sampling of the needs of 1200 families in the affected area. The first study, according to my information, has been in the hands of the Minister of Transport for approximately two weeks. In response to my inquiry during the question period today, he did not deny that he had the report but he refuses to make it available to members of parliament and, even more important, to the communities of southwestern Ontario, isolated from rail transport.
If I understood him correctly today, the course of action of the minister defies reason and boggles the imagination. He seems to have adopted a four-step procedure: first, consider the CTC report; second, consult with the Prov-

ince of Ontario; third, make a decision and, fourth, inform the House of Commons. This is a backwards procedure and that has been the difficulty from the very beginning of this travesty in passenger rail service. It seems to me that whenever the Department of Transport and the CTC have presented to them a reasonable course of action they consider it and then proceed to do the exact opposite. Surely, it is reasonable that the report, paid for by the taxpayers, should be made available to the taxpayers before any decision is made; indeed, I would think even before the Province of Ontario is consulted.
I know that there are circumstances where certain reports, for various good reasons, need not be made public immediately, indeed if ever. But the minister has been hiding behind this report for months. He has repeatedly used it as a crutch when I have tried to secure information or commitments. To use Mr. Benson's words, this study is "historical-poses several courses of action in a solution to the problem." If this be true what then is there to hide? Why does the minister not want the reaction of members of all parties whose ridings are in the area?
Finally, how can the minister make any valid decision based on his study of the CTC report without the benefit of the reaction of the taxpayers of southwestern Ontario? Therefore, I have two areas of concern this evening, Mr. Speaker. First, in my question of November 22 I pointed out to the minister that, despite his assurances, the CTC had not consulted any local people, and I asked him whether he approved of the study being conducted and completed without local consultation. I quote his reply:
I think it was stated before the Standing Committee by Mr. Benson that these consultations are going to take place and that the report will likely be ready in a few weeks.
I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that I believe all of us would interpret that answer to mean that there was to be local consultation before the completion of the report. That is not what has happened. The minister now has the report. There has been no local consultation. Not one single municipal official or representative has had any opportunity to offer advice or information. Indeed, I cannot find one single constituent who has been consulted.
In the light of these circumstances I can only accept Mr. Benson's version of what is taking place, that is, that there are two reports. The first, involving no consultation, was completed some weeks ago and, I believe, has been in the minister's hands since about December 4. The second report is to be some kind of a Gallup poll or sampling of 1,200 families in the area. This, to my knowledge, has not even been commenced.
This brings us to my second problem, and that is what the minister said today in reply to my question. If I understood him correctly, he indicated that the report had been received and was being studied. He indicated that he wanted to discuss it with the province of Ontario, and then I believe he said "even before that I hope we will reach some decision concerning this report." Does this mean a decision will be made before discussing it with the province? If so, what is the point of any discussion? When the minister says "we will reach some decision concerning the report" does he mean he will decide if it is good or bad? Does he mean he will decide whether or not he will
December 17, 1973

make it public? Does he mean he will decide whether it is worth discussing with the province? Does he mean he will decide whether or not he will have any local consultation?
The unhappy history of rail passenger service in southwestern Ontario is that every time the minister purports to answer a question he in fact does not answer but instead he raises all kinds of other questions. The path to the solution of this problem has been obstructed time and time again by ministerial uncertainties, evasions and contradictions.
The following are reasonable questions which I put to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker. They are not conceived out of political partisanship but out of genuine concern for the plight of the many communities in southwestern Ontario that have been neglected, ignored and misled. I put these questions to the minister not in an atmosphere of confrontation but by way of sincere appeal for information, and with the assurance that all members representing the affected area will do all they can to assist him in finding a solution to the problem. These are my questions: One, will the minister make public immediately the CTC report that he has now in his possession? Two, will the minister agree to local consultation with municipal representatives and officials, and the public, once they have had an opportunity to consider the report? Three, will the minister then consult with the provincial authorities if he deems it advisable? Four, finally, will the minister reinstate passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the mid-western Ontario passenger service was actively studied by the Canadian Transport Commission in cooperation with the government of Ontario. I know that the hon. member for Perth-Wilmont (Mr. Jarvis) did not hear what I said so possibly I should repeat it.
The question of the mid-western Ontario passenger service was actively studied by the CTC in co-operation with the government of Ontario. As a result of this close cooperation with Ontario, on November 9, 1973, the CTC received certain origin/destination information which, after evaluation, indicated that public surveys were required. As a result, the CTC contracted to have public surveys carried out. These started during the last week of November and are almost finished. The surveys consist of multiple interviews with some 1,200 families.
This action by the CTC met the recommendations formulated when the mid-western development council met with myself, five other members of parliament and six government officials earlier this year to discuss the midwestern Ontario transportation problem. Notwithstanding the progress made to date in the study of this question, I should like to inform you of the reasons for the delay in producing reports on the studies and for the delay in the resolution of the question of the type and extent of public consultations required. Of course, we received the interim report on this question from the CTC over two weeks ago. The delays which occurred in producing the reports were due in large part to the departure of three transportation analysts who had been working on the study. Needless to
Adjournment Motion
say, the project responsibilities were immediately passed on to others, but this inevitably delayed the production of reports. In view of the importance of the study, persons from other studies were reassigned to accelerate the work.


AGRICULTURE-INCREASE IN FARM COSTS-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, tonight I wish to pursue the question which I asked some months ago about the failure of the Prices Review Board to study farm costs when they were looking into the price of food in this country. It seems to me that the increase in cost to the farmer is a forgotten fact when looking at the cost of food to the consumer. The price that the farmer has to pay to produce a bushel of wheat or to grow a hog is increasing rapidly every year and not just the feed input but machinery, machinery repairs, fertilizer, lumber, fencing and all the other materials that the farmer needs to produce food for this country and many other countries in the world.
I thought it important that the Prices Review Board, to be effective, should analyse farm input costs as they are a large part of what the consumer pays for food. Today I looked at some figures from Statistics Canada which verify my point.
For example, in the third quarter of 1973 compared to the second quarter, that is a three month period, farm costs went up by 7.3 per cent. That is a hefty increase in a three month period. If you take the third quarter of 1973 over the third quarter of 1972, you find that farm input costs escalated by some 20.1 per cent over a one year period. When the farmer has to pay that much more for the basic necessities to produce food in this country it is no wonder that the price of food is going up. The farmer has to pass this on or be squeezed out of business.
Over the last number of years many farmers have indeed been squeezed out of business. They have been caught in the cost price squeeze and have been forced off the farm. As a matter of fact, two or three years ago, the average net income for a farmer in Saskatchewan was not much more than a thousand dollars a year, that is going back to 1970-71. Many people had to leave the farms and this led to the decay of the rural society, the small communities and towns and many of the small business enterprises that served them.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to stabilize farm income, if we are to have a secure agricultural economy and a secure food base in the future for our people, we must look at the cost to the farmer. We can do that in three or four different ways. First, the Food Prices Review Board must be expanded to become a Prices Review Board that will examine farm input costs in general rather than just the cost of food after it leaves the farm gate. I think the Food Prices Review Board should have the power to control selectively the prices of commodities when it appears that those prices are unjustifiably high.
Third, and I do not see why the government should not do this, I think the government ought to expand a program of selective pricing controls, to control the pricing of commodities we produce in this country and which we can control. For example, I am thinking of energy, with

December 17, 1973
Adjournment Motion
respect to which there are now voluntary controls, and of other commodities which we can produce and control, such as steel, lumber, iron, copper, nickel and so on. We could effectively control such commodities. That would help the producers of this country who are farmers as well as consumers. The government ought to do these things because they would help farmers and consumers as well.
I remind the parliamentary secretary that, today, the farmer and the agricultural community are the backbone of our economy. If things go well for the farmer, the chances are that they will go well for many others in our society as well. In the future, I think we shall find that there will be shortages particularly in two fields, energy and food. There will be a real future in agriculture for the farmers of Canada if only we give the farmers a chance, give them some opportunities. There will be a snowball effect if the farmer has that opportunity; because, in the processing and growing of food and in the development of export markets, there is a tremendous growth potential.
We might begin by expanding the powers of the Food Prices Review Board and giving it power to look at farm input costs, particularly in cases where farm input costs are excessively high. It should also look into such areas as lumber, energy, iron, steel, farm machinery, and farm machinery parts and repairs. In saying this I am reflecting the views, certainly, of the rural parts of the Prairies. I urge the minister most seriously to look at the ideas put forward, as they may contain, possibly, solutions for making our country a better place in which to live.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member posed his question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on June 12 of this year, he will recall that the minister expressed confidence that the Food Prices Review Board would be looking into farm input prices.
In its first quarterly report, published on September 26 of this year, the board did in fact devote a section of the third chapter to this very question of farmers' costs and prices. The hon. member may have noted in the report that a considerable portion of the increase in the annual rate of change in farm input price indices for the first six months of 1973, over the same period in the previous year, I would refer to hon. member to table 5, page 17 of the report, was attributable to trade in farm produce between one farmer and another. The highest increases were noted in the rate of change for feed prices, at 34.1 per cent; for seed prices, at 31.6 per cent; and in feeder cattle prices, which changed by 25.9 per cent. These increased prices were reflected in increases in farmers' incomes and generally indicated a rather buoyant situation in the farm economy.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) suggested that we ought to impose controls over certain commodities. He mentioned energy, steel, lumber, iron, copper, nickel and so on. I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that, for example, the comparative increase in the price of farm machinery was only 2.4 per cent, and of petroleum products, only 2.7 per cent. I therefore fail to see any connection between the point he tried to make and the factual situation.

While it is true that the farmer has had to bear higher prices for non-farm commodities, including farm building replacements and repairs, together with some increase in labour costs, and I would refer the hon. member again to table 5, farmers' returns on an average basis were well above farm input prices during the first half of 1973, as shown by chart 4, page 19 of the report, and they have continued to be so.
The second quarterly report of the Food Prices Review Board is expected shortly. I believe the board has also stated before the standing committee that it is doing a study on feed gains, and these additional reports may further elucidate the problem.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-POSSIBILITY OF CHARGING EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES EMPLOYMENT RATED PREMIUMS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I want to refer to questions I directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), as recorded at page 8565 of Hansard. I want to first talk about the question of topping up wages, as set out in my supplementary question. Unfortunately, industry, business and labour have to some extent got to know how to play the game with unemployment insurance. That is probably because of the rules. When you make rules or laws, people learn how to use them.
In the construction industry, there is a common practice of employees winding up a work week that is almost referable to the hours of daylight. As the season progresses, there are shorter and shorter work weeks. Indeed, throughout the fall there are periods of rain, periods where it is impossible to do anything. It has become a practice to use holiday pay to, in effect, top up wages by paying holidays for one or two days a week. The effect is that when an employee is eventually laid off because of the inclemency of the weather, he has had his holidays. When he applies for unemployment insurance, after the two week waiting period he is able to immediately claim unemployment insurance because the wages have been topped up at the maximum rate. In effect, he and his employer have used the system. Usually this is someone who does fairly highly specialized work. Because he is from an area where there is not likely to be part-time employment for him, he is able to draw unemployment insurance for the bulk of the off-season period, and that is not just winter.
I will refer to the construction industry, logging industry, the auto industry, the Great Lakes shipping industry, the farming industry and to some extent the board of education in terms of secretarial help for schools. Industry has been able to use the fund to keep its employees grouped together during the slack period or offseason. They have quite a method of doing things. I received a letter today from Hutt Fence Limited, which is in the fence construction business. It states that their employees are concerned. They want to have their holiday pay. They want it blended in with their regular payment so that when they apply for unemployment insurance, they will get it immediately after the two-week waiting period.
December 17, 1973

My constituent is a very concerned person and does not want to do that. However, if he does not do that, he will lose his help. He has contacted the Unemployment Insurance Commission to see whether it is appropriate. I will have to tell him that it probably is, that he can probably do that kind of thing. There is nothing in the act to say when a person must take his holidays. He can take them any time he wants. There is nothing to prevent an employer from paying a person two days' holiday pay a week for a number of weeks prior to a layoff. Indeed, they can give him a day's holiday a week if they want to handle it that way. Really, it is the use of the system, not the abuse of the system.
This brings me to the first question I asked in connection with merit pay, as the minister likes to call it-I prefer to call it employment rating. The Unemployment Insurance Act provides for employment rating. There are some categories of employment in which a lay-off rarely occurs. For example, the secretaries in my law office are rarely, if ever, unemployed and they probably never will be in a traditional sense. It seems to me totally unrealistic that people in a job where there is no likelihood of lay-off pay the same premium as those in an industry which by its very nature can scarcely continue during the off-season. You do not run a skidoo or a ski-lift in the summer, and schools are closed during July and August. People who take up employment of this type, employers and employees alike, have an obligation to realise that this is the name of the game. Surely, it is not the responsibility of the government of Canada to keep an employment group together under the guise of paying unemployment insurance.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) has been very vocal on this subject, telling us that unemployment insurance is a form of income redistribution. He even likened it to a form of DREE grant. I want to tell him we certainly do not need social welfare programs designed for those who may well be earning $20,000 a year and living for extended periods at the expense of taxpayers such as the kids in my office who are working all the year round and paying the same amount in unemployment insurance contributions as others do.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, we could discuss the question of holiday pay from a number of different viewpoints, but since the hon. member has directed his remarks to it from the viewpoint of merit pay, I should like to answer them in that context. May I say in passing that the government does not acknowledge that unemployment insurance is a form of social welfare. We think, rather, that it is a form of social
Adjournment Motion
insurance, and on another occasion I should be happy to explain this point to the hon. member for Peel South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mississauga.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am sorry, Mississauga. The original question was whether the minister had received a proposal or proposition from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. While we have received no such proposition from the Commission it is relevant to note that the white paper on unemployment insurance tabled in June, 1970, proposed a form of experience rating which would relate the premium paid by employers to the experience generated in terms of benefit costs against the program. This proposal was studied in depth by the parliamentary committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in the fall of 1970.
Many briefs were received from both employer and employee associations respecting the merits of introducing a system of experience rating in the Canadian context. The committee endorsed the principle of experience rating but recommended in its report that the subject matter be further studied with a view to determining the general structure of an appropriate rating system.
The government accepted this recommendation by the parliamentary committee and in the spring of 1971, when Bill C-229 was presented to the House, the minister of labour of that day asked the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Committee to undertake a complete review of the question of experience rating and make appropriate recommendations. The committee began the review in the fall of 1971 and a subcommittee of commission officials, management and labour was formed to examine in detail the technical aspects of any experience rating system. The committee met on a number of occasions during 1972 and it was expected that the Advisory Committee would receive a report at the beginning of 1973.
However, in the early part of 1973, when the committee would have expected to begin concluding its examination of experience rating, it was asked by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to review the benefit control operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The chairman of the committee has stated that the committee expects to pursue this matter early in 1974 in the hope that some conclusion can be arrived at in the course of that year.
Due to the complexity of this matter and the generally negative reaction which this concept has aroused among both employer and employee organizations, these first findings will have a bearing on the committee's ultimate recommendation. I cannot, of course, prejudge this conclusion but we have to take into account the feelings which employers and employees generally hold.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.33 p.m.

Tuesday, December 18, 1973