1974-12-05

PRIVILEGE


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Globe and Mail this morning carried a headline which reads "Munro phoned SIU for money: police". The story under the headline says that I solicited a campaign contribution from the Seafarers' International Union. It goes on to say that some source suggested I initiated the call. This is totally false, Mr. Speaker. The facts are that Mr. Gralewicz telephoned my campaign office at a time when I was not available. I returned his call subsequently and it was during this conversation that he offered campaign support to me. I did not at any time solicit support from the SIU. As the House knows, my campaign organization received a contribution from the SIU but it was returned several weeks later.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of privilege. I apologize to the Chair for not giving notice that I wanted to speak on the question of privilege. Allegations in the same context were made about me when I was Minister of Labour in 1972 to the effect that I received affidavits and documents from persons in the Seafarers' International Union concerning alleged violence and did nothing about it. I did something about it at that time and the Department of Labour heard nothing more from those people after that point. I will be glad to describe what I did at that time. It resolved the matter, at least at that time.
It is also said that I appointed Mr. McLaughlin, president of that union, to the ILO or to the United Nations. I did not do so. It is also said by Mr. Shulman and in the press that certain affidavits were supplied to me. I am informed by the Department of Labour that the specific one mentioned in the press was not received by me. There are many allegations going about in this situation. I want to clarify my own position in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baldwin:: Are there any more confessions?
MR. MacKAY-CANCELLATION OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE CONSIDERING ESTIMATES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have just been informed that the scheduled proceedings of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates called to consider the supplementary
estimates in connection with transport have been cancelled. I believe this is true with respect to the consideration of several other supplementary estimates, and since this concerns a matter so fundamental to the work of parliament, the examination of supplementary estimates, I should like to move-and I hope other members will support me:
That the way the scheduling has been carried out, the abrupt cancellations, and so on, be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization for further study.
The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) raised this matter earlier. In my opinion the way in which this has been done is most unsatisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised, without notice, a question of privilege, supported by only a very brief development of his argument. I have not noticed any other members who seem prepared to make any contribution. The hon. member has referred to the sudden cancellation of a standing committee meeting. Unless possessed of much greater detail it would be impossible for the Chair to hold that a valid question of privilege arises in respect to the proceedings of committees, certainly in respect to the scheduling of meetings or to the cancellation of a scheduled meeting. The Chair does not know the reason the meeting was cancelled and, in the circumstances, it would be most difficult to find there was a prima facie case of privilege.
This is not to say that the subject, one which has been raised on other occasions by hon. members in the last few days, is in any way less important. The question has been referred to not only by the hon. member but by two other hon. members in the last two days in the light of the fact that under the rules the time allowed for the examination of these estimates has been so greatly reduced. I hope all members on both sides of the House feel that this is an important restriction on the opportunity afforded them to carry out the important task of detailed examination of these estimates.
In this context, I repeat that it was comforting to all members, I am sure, to have the assurance of the President of the Privy Council that this whole subject of the examination of the estimates is to be considered at an early date by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
1960

December 5, 1974
Oral Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table copies in both official languages of a planning concept for the national capital region entitled, "Tomorrow's Capital".



AIR CANADA


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, involving our national airline. Members of the Canadian Airlines Employees Association have just walked off their jobs in Winnipeg in protest over labour-management relationships at Air Canada. As this is the second occasion since the 81-day strike last year, the effects of which are still being felt, and since I am reliably informed that serious internal problems exist at upper management levels in Air Canada as well as difficulties with our airline's current capital budget, not yet approved by cabinet, I move:
[DOT] <1420)
That the Minister of Transport immediately refer these matters to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for appropriate consideration and action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be debated at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I

should like to ask him when he first became aware of the letter from the seamen's reform committee to his predecessor, who spoke on a question of privilege this afternoon, allegedly accompanied by massive affidavits alleging violence and requesting an investigation before any more violence occurred, and of the reply by an executive assistant to his predecessor following a meeting with some officers of the department to the effect that the Department of Labour had no authority to investigate the internal affairs of the union. When did the Minister of Labour first become aware of these matters?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say the precise time because that would be impossible in terms of memory. I do recall some time ago talking to some of my senior officials and asking them when notice came to me of allegations against the SIU. I asked whether any such allegations or complaints had been made to the department, and my officials informed me that, subsequent to my being a minister, such complaints were made-I believe they indicated two or three- and they went on to say they had taken the appropriate action at the time with respect to them.
I have since checked as late as yesterday what action was taken at that time, having been advised that appropriate action had been taken, and I was told that the matter was, firstly, referred to the so-called watchdog committee of the Canadian Labour Congress, and secondly, that they had recommended that the matter be turned over to the police. They felt that that was appropriate advice and conduct on their part at the time these complaints came to their attention. The former minister may wish to amplify, but I believe that is the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would try to refresh his memory as to whether he received this intimation before the election campaign or after. As a supplementary question I should like to ask the Solicitor General this. In view of the information just given by the Minister of Labour that the Department of Labour turned this information over to the police, presumably through the Department of the Solicitor General, how-


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may, I did not say that when these complaints were made some time ago when I was not Minister of Labour that they were turned over to the police. I said that the officials advised me that they recommended to the people that they turn the matter over to the police themselves.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-POLICY OF GOVERNMENT WHEN COMPLAINTS OF UNION VIOLENCE RECEIVED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: thank the minister for his correction because I did misunderstand him. Therefore I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the government, when one of its ministers receives a complaint alleging violence in connection with a union that has previously been investigated for violence and the minister is asked to take action before further violence occurs, simply to state to the complainants that the department in question has no authority to
December 5, 1974

conduct an investigation into the internal affairs of the union and to send the complainant off to the police?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I must give is that under the circumstances prevailing at that time the Minister of Labour acted very well, indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is it therefore the view of the Acting Prime Minister, and the policy of the government, that when a complaint like this in connection with a union over which the federal government has general jurisdiction is received, the government should not conduct any further investigations itself but simply wash its hands of the whole affair?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it greatly depends upon the circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question about general policy. I should think that in each particular case it would be necessary to make a judgment, and I think that the Minister of Labour and his department exercised good judgment in the circumstances. I have heard nothing to the contrary.


Gerald William Baldwin: We challenge that judgment. We think it was very bad.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE IN RESPECT OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the answer of the Minister of Labour, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General regarding the investigation and the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday that "the RCMP have been invited to investigate and are investigating allegations that affect the reputation of federal officials or ministers". In precise and concise terms will the Solicitor General tell us what instructions were given to the RCMP in respect of the investigation and what were they to investigate; violence on the waterfront, the SIU, the reputation of government ministers or senior officials-just what were the Instructions and who gave them to the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I did not give any instructions. Following an approach by the Minister of Labour I asked the RCMP to investigate the allegations made by Mr. Shulman of the Ontario legislature. They came back to me later and said that these investigations covered some matters that were not under their jurisdiction, but they would investigate fully all allegations relating to misconduct on the part of federal officials Or elected members of parliament and ministers. That is what they are investigating. They said the aspects relating to violence between individuals were matters for the Ontario Attorney General and the police of the province.
Oral Questions


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF MINISTERS INVESTIGATED
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. Will he now tell the House in plain, concise and precise terms the names of the ministers of the government who were subject to any investigation by the RCMP?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there were no ministers named. I asked the RCMP to check into the allegations by Mr. Shulman. His allegations have been very vague. I think one of the members on this side said yesterday that he revealed part of the allegations day by day, like taking a rabbit out of a hat, and then there was no rabbit. His allegations were very vague. He recently mentioned my name and the name of the Minister of Labour. I tried to deal with that and said there was nothing there, but there has been no allegation made by Mr. Shulman directly involving members of the cabinet or officials of the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might follow that up with just one further question? In view of the minister's answer, and having seen the report of the RCMP which was discussed yesterday in the House, what ministers were investigated in reference to the allegation of this Mr. Shulman and the waterfront coverup?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour requested that the RCMP investigate the allegations of Mr. Shulman and the deputy minister did the same thing in writing to the Commissioner of the RCMP. As a result of that request the RCMP visited Mr. Shulman to get from him whatever evidence he may have. While he told them his story he did not give them any documents, transcripts, tapes or anything whatsoever. The RCMP then went to the provincial authorities of Ontario and the Toronto Metropolitan Police and obtained certain material. They gave me the interim report and are still continuing their investigation.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It is based on the clear precedent of 1962 when, in the light of continuing trouble on the waterfront, an industrial inquiry commission was established under section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which provision now is section 159 of the Canada Labour Code. In order that this whole matter of corruption on the waterfront, charges of violence and all the other charges might be thoroughly investigated on a broad basis, is the Minister of Labour now prepared under section 159 of the Canada Labour Code to establish an industrial inquiry commission?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on several occasions in this House, I would be prepared to consider such an inquiry at a later stage but at the moment the matter is under investigation

December 5, 1974
Oral Questions
by the RCMP. It seems reasonable to me that the government should have the revelations of that investigation and the details thereof before deciding whether or not an inquiry is warranted, and that is what we are waiting for.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-SUGGESTION SOLICITOR GENERAL SECURE COPIES OF TAPE OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION FROM TORONTO POLICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, not accepting the argument that now is not the time to appoint an industrial inquiry commission, if what is being pursued is an investigation by the police, may I ask the Solicitor General if he will ascertain whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have secured or will secure copies of the tapes made of telephone conversations which apparently have been obtained by the Toronto Police.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP at last report had a transcript of one taped conversation which was given to them by the Toronto police. So far as I know, that was the only one the Toronto police felt was of relevance in respect the RCMP inquiry. I might point out that the Toronto Police themselves and perhaps the Ontario Provincial Police were investigating the question relating to violence between certain members of the SIU. One would have to check with them to find out the evidence they have.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a final supplementary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that what some of us are asking for is a broad inquiry into the whole matter, will the Solicitor General make sure that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police get transcripts or copies of all tapes obtained by the Toronto police or the Ontario Provincial Police in respect of SIU matters.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Justice has contacted the Ontario authorities to get that evidence, and when he gets it we will see if such a public inquiry is necessary. Let me say that if there is substantial basis for a public inquiry I presume the government will have one, but thus far no evidence has been given which would substantiate such an inquiry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, if I understood him correctly, just said he was deferring any decision on a request for a public inquiry until the police inquiry into the violence had been terminated, whereas the Solicitor General yesterday and again today indicated to the House quite clearly he thought that the police inquiry was not into violence on the waterfront but simply into charges relating to federal officials or ministers or things right around here. I have to say I think we are being led down the garden path.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order to clarify this matter, the RCMP are investigating questions relating

to possible corruption in respect of federal officials or members of parliament and the Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto Metropolitan Police are investigating those matters relating to violence in respect of individuals on the waterfront.


Mr. Speaker:: 
PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Solicitor General?
Since the jail of Montmagny will soon be closed, may I ask the minister if the federal government gives a financial contribution for maintaining and building district jails, and if yes, can he tell the House whether he had consultations on this with the authorities of the Quebec government?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have signed an agreement with the province of Quebec and other provinces for the exchange of facilities. We have had discussions with the province of Quebec about using some of their facilities where they are no longer needed or where there is a small prison population. I would have to get information on that particular institution and report to the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would obtain from the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General and from their department particulars as to the number of incidents in which complaints of violence, intimidation or improper conduct have been made in respect of the Seafarers' International Union in recent years so that despite the sensitivity of the government in respect of conducting any judicial inquiry this House may form some opinion as to the need for such an inquiry.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I do not quite understand what kind of incidents the hon. member was inquiring about. Is he talking about violence on the waterfront or allegations made by Mr. Shulman?


Gerald William Baldwin: On that point of order, I am inquiring about incidents on the waterfront which have been matters of national notoriety over the past few years. Would he inquire of the ministers involved, who may not have been ministers at the time, about the number of incidents
December 5, 1974

of complaint that were made directly or indirectly involving these matters of improper conduct, violence and intimidation.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will undertake to do that. I should say that the Minister of Justice is trying to obtain up-to-date information in the hands of the provincial authorities on this question which would be available to the federal government. That would be considered a more reasonable way to go about the process rather than resurrect incidents from the past which may no longer be relevant.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Solicitor General indicated it was not within the jurisdiction of the RCMP to investigate matters of violence. On that ground I wonder whether the minister could explain why his department and the RCMP have changed their approach when in fact in 1972 the RCMP did all the research and initiated the prosecution of Geza Matrai who assaulted Mr. Kosygin in the city of Ottawa. If that is a matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question seems clear and direct enough for the Solicitor General to reply.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it seems that that was a case involving a guest of this country and there were external affairs implications and so on. The RCMP had jurisdiction. I want to make clear to the House that I did not suggest that the RCMP didn't have jurisdiction over the violence aspect of this case. They decided that they did not have jurisdiction and I did not press the matter with them. With regard to the previous question, not once since I have been Solicitor General has anyone approached me in respect of any allegations against the SIU. Mr. Shulman knew where my office was and never once made any attempt to see me.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I readily accept the minister's response that in the case of the attack on Mr. Kosygin there was certain national importance. Is it the view of the minister that this matter of violence on the waterfront by a union controlled under the legislation of this federal government is not a matter of national importance?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am not the principal law-officer of the Crown, I have been advised where it is a case of violence between individuals, questions of assault and so on, this is a matter for the provincial attorneys general and they are very jealous of their jurisdiction.


An hon. Member:: When it is dangerous you leave it to the provinces.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-SUGGESTED COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF NECESSITY FOR INQUIRY COMMISSION

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the evidence that is going to be gathered by the police forces involved in the investigation both of violence and possible corruption, is going to be reviewed simply by one or two of the ministers. It seems to me that since the ministers may be directly involved that this matter of investigating these reports should be done more openly. I wonder whether consideration would be given, in the interest of doing this in the open, to having a parliamentary committee assess that evidence to determine whether a further inquiry commission is required rather than just letting the minister do that himself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member failed to direct his question to any minister.


Paul Yewchuk: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The question was directed to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that would be a useful suggestion at the present time. I think we ought to have more facts and less gossip.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY RCMP INVOLVING CABINET MINISTERS

Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Solicitor General arises from the exchange between him and the hon. member for Calgary North who asked for the names of ministers being investigated. The minister's response was that Dr. Shulman supplied no information on specific ministers. In light of the statement by Dr. Shulman as recorded in the Ontario Hansard as follows:
Roman Gralewicz, president of the SIU in September of 1974 when interviewed by police officers from two forces, boasted to them that they could do nothing to the SIU because he had a senior cabinet minister "in his pocket". He then named the minister. It was not Mr. Munro. It was not Mr. Allmand. In the course of the same statement, Gralewicz also spoke of the union's close connection with other members of the cabinet. The RCMP have a copy ...


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question for the Solicitor General?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. In light of this assertion by Dr. Shulman and the further assertion he makes that "The RCMP have a copy of Gralewicz's statement," can the minister state categorically that the RCMP have not received any such police report dealing with bragging by Gralewicz that he had a senior unnamed cabinet minister in his pocket?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the RCMP are also aware of this statement and they will visit and inquire from all persons named in the report and obtain what information they have. I am

December 5, 1974
Oral Questions
saying the RCMP are carrying out this investigation. They will approach the people mentioned as they feel it necessary to do so; they are independent in this investigation; they will pursue whatever course they think necessary. In response to the last question, Mr. Speaker, if the RCMP or the Ontario police forces see that wrongdoing has taken place they will lay charges and prosecute.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he is changing his previous assertion that no allegations were made specifically about any cabinet minister and if in fact allegations were made and the RCMP has evidence as to the particular ministers involved, will the Solicitor General disclose the names of the ministers under investigation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when the RCMP went to Dr. Shulman he did not provide them with any documents or affidavits. He told them his story. In the Ontario legislature he did refer to me and he told several lies extremely-what I call very serious falsehoods and he also referred to the Minister of Labour. Now, I am sure that the RCMP will pursue some of the information that was raised by Mr. Shulman in the Ontario legislature and rightly so.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ALL DOCUMENTS

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to my previous question. In the interests of ensuring that this whole matter is investigated in the open, would the Acting Prime Minister consider tabling all of the documents related to this matter-documents, tapes, transcripts, letters, communications of any kind?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I would not adopt that suggestion and I am sure the hon. gentleman would be just as concerned as I would be about the correctness of tabling documents in this House which might involve the civil rights of many individuals. I am sure he would feel that a question like that has many implications that would be very, very important to members of this House and all Canadian citizens. I do not think my colleague, the Minister of Labour, would have any objection to those tapes being tabled but I believe there are many people in this country who would take very serious exception to that procedure.


Gerald William Baldwin: Never have I seen so much virtue.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the Prime Minister's statement of December 18, 1973 that "A minister has an obligation to seek the advice of the Prime Minister on any matter concerning a conflict of interest in which he may be in doubt", would the minister indicate if

he sought the advice of the Prime Minister, on what date did he seek the advice and what was the advice of the Prime Minister concerning the possibility of a conflict of interest involving the minister and the SIU situation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated several times, I did not consider campaign contributions coming to members of parliament or ministers in the process of a campaign as in any way putting that member of parliament, or that cabinet minister, in a position of conflict.


An hon. Member:: Why did you send it back?


John Carr Munro: It was, therefore, unnecessary to consult the Prime Minister.



POSSIBLE CONFLICT FOR SOLICITOR GENERAL ARISING FROM INVOLVEMENT WITH SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-ADVICE OF PRIME MINISTER

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I should like to put substantially the same question to the Solicitor General. Did he consult and ask for the Prime Minister's advice concerning any possible conflict of interest involving himself and the SIU situation?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not. I got a contribution from them during the election campaign. Of course, at that time hon. members opposite thought they were going to form the government. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the SIU gave donations to members of all parties in this House. My campaign cost $13,000, the SIU gave me $500. I did not consider that a conflict of interest.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why you took it. You did not think you would be in the government.



THE MINISTRY


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statements made in answer to my earlier questions both by the Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General, and in view of the allegations and innuendos surrounding the present Minister of Labour and the Solicitor General of Canada with respect to the SIU, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if consideration has been given to rearranging or transferring from those two ministers their duties with respect to the SIU and related matters under the provisions of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act and if so, to what ministers is it proposed to transfer their duties at least in the interim until an inquiry may begin?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the hon. gentle-
December 5, 1974

man that the people of Canada decided it was better to have ministers on this side of the House than from his party.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Solicitor General on a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I want to reject very strongly the insinuation that because I received an election contribution from the SIU I was tardy or negligent in my responsibility. The only time someone asked me to investigate the SIU was last week and it was from a distance, in Ontario. The very next day, through the Minister of Labour, we carried out that investigation. There was no tardiness and no neglect whatsoever.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, in response to the remarks made-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: This is a question of privilege. Have they not heard of that over there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been the habit of the House to hear both sides of an alleged question of privilege. The Solicitor General was listened to a moment ago; I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to be listened to now.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, they may have won the government but they do not occupy the chair of the House. I say, in response to the question of privilege which the Solicitor General raised, that it is clear the Solicitor General or Minister of Labour were involved in a conflict of interest-


An hon. Member:: Make a charge!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -in accepting contributions when there was reason to believe that a matter might come up in their departments in connection with the contributions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Earlier this afternoon I asked the Minister of Labour when he first learned of the matter which his predecessor claimed to have dealt with satisfactorily. I did not obtain a definite answer from the minister. I say to the Solicitor General and to the Acting Prime Minister that if I were Prime Minister of this country, I would have grave doubts-and I do not cast aspersions on any individual minister-whether the minister who had received a contribution from the union in question ought to be in charge of the investigation.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. You know, by his statements, the Leader of the Official Opposition has impugned, by implication, the integrity of a minister of the Crown, when he knows full well that members of governments and members of provincial legislatures-he was a provincial premier-receive contributions from companies, unions and individuals during election time.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Why did you send your contribution back?


John Carr Munro: These contributions have never been regarded as involving the substance of a conflict of interest. Persisting in this way with innuendo and implications to question the integrity of a minister of the Crown is cowardice. When, I ask the Leader of the Opposition, will he have the courage to make a charge? If he has the courage to make a charge, let him make a charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: And let him take the consequences if he cannot substantiate that charge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are discussing the question of privilege raised by the Solicitor General. I see the minister rising. I am not disposed to hear from the same hon. member twice on the same question of privilege. I understand that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands wishes to contribute.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on this question of privilege. It seems to me important for parliament and the whole parliamentary process that the government not only be deemed by itself to be right but that it appear to the public to be right. Previous answers indicate that the RCMP are carrying on an investigation. We have confidence in them to do their duty. The point at issue, however, is this: When the report of the RCMP becomes available to the government, the very people whose integrity has been called in question will be deciding what disposition will be made of that report.


Mr. Fairweather:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: submit, through you, Sir, to the government that this matter can be cleared up if the government were to assure the House that when the report of the RCMP has been completed and all the facts have been gathered, the report will either be made public or placed before a committee of this House so that the public can be assured that evidence adduced by the RCMP will be the basis for an unprejudiced decision as to whether further action and investigation is required.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is considering the question of privilege raised by the Solicitor General concerning, as I understand it, some insinuations against him in respect of the carrying out of his duties. Certain questions raised by hon. members may involve insinuations. However, all the questions, and I have listened carefully, have, in my opinion, been orderly questions concerning the inquiry into an important subject. In situations like this there are always insinuations of some sort
1966

December 5, 1974
Oral Questions
connected with questions. It seems to me that the questions asked have been to the point, as have been the answers. The situation is being clarified as the questions and answers come forward. It seems to me that this is good parliamentary exercise, but I cannot recognize in it the ingredients of a question of privilege respecting the rights, conduct or the ability of a member to function as a member of the House of Commons. When the Solicitor General rose on his question of privilege, there were about 12 minutes remaining in the question period, and I was about to recognize the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further question of privilege. When the Leader of the Opposition responded to my remarks, he said something which I feel raises another question of privilege and which I should answer. He said he felt that I, as Solicitor General, was involved in a conflict of interest in the carrying out of my duties as I was in charge of the investigation being carried on by the RCMP. That is completely false, as anyone familiar with the RCMP act and the traditions of parliament will know. The RCMP carry on these investigations themselves. If they see fit to lay charges and prosecute, they can do so without consulting me in any way. They direct their own investigations. I do not direct their investigations. '


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I simply assert, in response to what the Solicitor General said, that in a situation like this the Solicitor General, in my judgment, ought not to be in charge of this investigation and reporting to the government in that regard.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As the Solicitor General is ultimately in charge of the inquiry, both from the point of view of the terms of reference of the inquiry and of his acting upon the findings of the RCMP, will the minister inform the House if he will make public the terms of reference of this inquiry and the findings?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: And the result.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in reply to that assertion, may I say that I am not in charge of the disposition of the findings. The police, if they find evidence on which to lay charges, will see what charges are to be laid. They do not need my permission to lay charges, and it would be wrong if they did, because that might involve a conflict of interest. The hon. member, in the second part of his question, asked if I would make the report, which the RCMP would give me, available to the House. The RCMP do not usually report to me on investigations. They conduct an investigation and, if there is evidence on which to lay charges, they lay charges; if there is no evidence, they will not do so. When I ask them for a report, they usually give it to me, but it is against all tradition to table police reports in the House of Commons.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. In view of the fact the RCMP gave the minister an interim report on the investigation and in view of the fact federal cabinet ministers are involved, I should think the minister would want a report from the RCMP on this. Again may I ask the minister whether he will make the conclusions of that report public so that any suspicion of this House and the country can be allayed that proper investigation is not being carried out?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will give serious consideration to making the conclusions of the report available to the House.


Mr. Fortin:: Deo gratias! Mr. Speaker, I do not remember what I wanted to ask.
As for the question of privilege raised a while ago, I note that there are some doubts in various quarters. If there is nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker, an inquiry should be launched in all honesty to satisfy public opinion and to prove to the Canadian people that Parliament can work quickly to pass legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleagues on both sides of the House who are hurling charges at one another that I feel that innocents are not more numerous on one side than on the other. There are just as many on both. They are both financed by the same sources. If those members came more often in Quebec, they would be aware that we are used to inquiry commissions. We even have a premier who is-


An hon. Member:: Mind what you will say!


André-Gilles Fortin: Oh yes! That has become the main industry in Quebec, Mr. Speaker.
The premier of Quebec who is now in France has spent $500 million of the money collected from taxpayers to buy his welcome there. Nobody says anything. At the House of Commons, Tories and Whigs have the same source of funding, throw accusations at one another, refuse to make investigations while I wait to ask my question.



FINANCE


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. After all, Mr. Speaker, he is the one who administers the governments financed by campaign funds, so he will understand what I
mean.
The Minister of Finance recently tabled a budget that could have very serious consequences for some citizens. Not long ago, I asked him a question about boat manufacturers. I should like to put the same question to him today, with regard to vehicles of more than 16,000 pounds, that are stored in yards and to which the sales tax removal cannot be applied.
December 5, 1974

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, since he already told me that after Christmas holidays we can discuss bills on that matter and move amendments, whether he could give us the report of the studies made by his department and likely to explain the implications of the taxes proposed in the last budget?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think we will be discussing that bill tomorrow, with the consent of the leaders of the House, and that would be quite an appropriate question for the committee of the whole.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Could the Minister of Finance provide us with figures as regards the forecast of his department about the implications of those taxes?


John Napier Turner: I think such a question would be appropriate tomorrow, or when we get to the study of that specific clause of the bill before the House. I will then be ready to answer the hon. member's question.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. It is not with regard to his activities with the SIU.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Yesterday it was announced that the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board was giving notice of its intention to quit CEMA as of 1976. Will the minister advise the House whether any dialogue has been carried out with the minister of agriculture for the province of B.C. to determine whether that province was in agreement with the stand taken by the egg marketing board.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture for British Columbia was here a week ago Monday. At that time I talked with him about this matter. I gained the impression he was determined to see national egg marketing continued in Canada and that the B.C. egg producers and their board should stay in the marketing plan. Since that time I have not seen anything other than a report in the press. I do not know whether to put very much confidence in that report. According to the report in the press, he seemed to be of the same opinion on Monday of this week. However, we will check with him directly as soon as possible. Unless he has changed his mind, he appeared to be very strongly in favour of national marketing.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-PERSON DIRECTING SOLICITOR GENERAL TO DISCUSS RCMP INTERIM REPORT WITH CERTAIN MINISTERS

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It involves the interim report of the RCMP about which we have heard. Yesterday the Solicitor General said, and I believe I am quoting him correctly, that he was asked to discuss the report with the relevant ministers and the Prime Minister and he in fact discussed it with the Prime Minister as it was his responsibility to do so. Will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House who asked the Solicitor General to take that rather extraordinary course of action, on what authority and what responsibility he had to discuss that interim report with the Prime Minister?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that yesterday the Solicitor General corrected his language. lie inadvertently used these words. He did not intend to and he corrected the record.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I might give the Solicitor General a chance to correct it again. My supplementary question is also to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Solicitor General, if he was quoted correctly, called the member of the Ontario legislature a muckraker who has no respect for the truth. In light of the obvious bias in this matter which was demonstrated by those words, is it not rather obvious that the Solicitor General is not competent to undertake this investigation? In view of this, will the government now undertake to set up an independent and public inquiry?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the hon. member, he surely is repeating a question that was put on at least two previous occasions, once specifically by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. In light of the revelations made by Dr. Shulman in the Ontario legislature, can the Solicitor General inform the House whether he has asked the officials of the RCMP if they have taken part in interrogations and determined that a senior cabinet minister is in the bag? Also, has he asked the RCMP officials to supply him with the name of that senior cabinet minister and can the Solicitor General tell us that name?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I tried to explain before that I asked the RCMP to investigate all allegations made by Mr. Shulman in the House or out of the House, wherever he made them. It is up to them. They are trained policemen. They know how to conduct investigations. I do not tell them who to contact or not contact when making their inquiries. If I did that, I
28543-56)4

December 5, 1974
Oral Questions
would be interfering in a political,, way with a police investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already admitted that he has received information from the RCMP involving certain cabinet ministers. Are there any other names than those that have been mentioned? Are there others such as the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance who are involved in the allegations?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I received a transcript of a tape which the RCMP received from the Toronto Metropolitan Police. This is the tape-


An hon. Member:: Why did you receive it?


William Warren Allmand: The RCMP got it and they gave it to me.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: But you are not involved in the investigation.


William Warren Allmand: I am not involved in the investigation. They gave me a report.
Mr. Speaker, this transcript of the tape was leaked by the Toronto Police to a member of the Ontario Legislature who in turn leaked it to the press. I think this is a shocking thing. I would like to remind the House that earlier this year we spent a great deal of time debating the privacy bill and there was much concern shown here about protecting individuals who were the subject of wire taps by the police. As a matter of fact, at that time opposition members wanted to strengthen the measure to protect individuals who were the subject of wire tapping. In this case, the government responded to some of the leaked information-misinformation-which was put abroad, but in principle we are against the release of transcripts of wire taps which are made by the police in their investigations- these should be released, in my opinion, only under the conditions of the privacy bill. I hope the opposition will take the same view, because that was the position they took during the debate.


Reginald Cyril Symes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister said earlier that he did not get involved in the investigation. But a moment ago he said he had received a transcript of the tape from the Toronto Metropolitan Police.


An hon. Member:: No. He said he had received it from the RCMP.


Reginald Cyril Symes: From the RCMP. Did the minister ask for this tape or is it customary for the RCMP to report constantly to the minister on this investigation?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. The House had asked me for a report. I promised to report to the House. I asked the RCMP for an interim report, and with the interim report they gave me a copy of that transcript.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is also to the Solicitor General and has to do with his rather peculiar interpretation of section five of the RCMP Act. It says clearly that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acts under the direction of the minister. Under that direction he has control and management of the force itself. Since the matter under investigation by the RCMP in this instance is one which concerns not only the law but also the propriety of conduct of ministers, will the Solicitor General advise the House to whom the RCMP must look for guidance on this question other than the chief law enforcement officer under whose direction the RCMP must act by statute?


William Warren Allmand: I would suggest to the hon. member that he get a legal interpretation of that section because there is a long tradition in Canada that the Solicitor General, or, before him, the Minister of Justice, the minister responsible for the RCMP, does not interfere in criminal investigations. He does not direct the force to investigate when it does not feel it should investigate, nor does it try to deter the force from investigating when it feels it should investigate. They investigate freely and openly and then they lay charges when they have the evidence. They do not clear with the Solicitor General-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since, according to statements made frequently in the House in the last few days, this is not simply a criminal investigation but is also an investigation into the conduct of ministers and touches the propriety of their conduct-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course it is.


Charles Joseph Clark: -to whom does the RCMP in these unusual circumstances look for advice and direction other than to the minister?


William Warren Allmand: These investigations do relate to certain provisions of the criminal law. There are sections of the Criminal Code which relate to the bribery and corruption of public officials. But those matters, if they relate to federal public officials, are usually investigated by the RCMP. I must repeat that the RCMP, when undertaking investigations, does not seek my advice and direction. They were asked to investigate allegations made by Mr. Shulman and they carry out that investigation independently and freely.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day!


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter on which Hansard perhaps has something incorrect. You indicated that the Solicitor General has cleared up an error. I am wondering whether Hansard has it incorrect.
December 5, 1974

Although the hon. member for Hamilton East indicated that he had read the interim report, the Solicitor General indicated in the first instance that he had only shown him that portion which dealt with the wire tapping but later the Solicitor General said he had shown him the report; the answers in Hansard yesterday indicate that the Minister of Labour had read the entire report. Was the Solicitor General, or was Hansard, incorrect in copying down the Solicitor General in saying he had only shown him that aspect dealing with the taped telephone conversation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the hon. member has asked what would have been a very interesting^ question had it been posed during the question period. However, it does not constitute a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Might I ask the House leader, having in mind the tremendous speed with which the House has been processing legislation, what designs he has on the time of the House between now and the date on which the government decides to recess?


Mitchell William Sharp: Today we shall be continuing discussion in committee of the whole on the Petroleum Administration Act and tomorrow the Minister of Finance will take two of his budget bills, perhaps the Excise Tax Act and the customs bill. If we can dispose of them, we shall revert on Monday to consideration of the Petroleum Administration Act. Tuesday is an allotted day and I hope there can be some discussion of the very popular question of conflict of interest. I trust that at the end of the day we can make the reference I have put down of the subject of conflict of interest as it affects members of parliament including cabinet ministers, and public servants to the appropriate committee.
Basically, there remains on our agenda until the time of adjournment for the Christmas recess, the Petroleum Administration Act and, of course, completion of the consideration of certain bills which are now in the standing committees or at various stages. I hope we can complete some of these bills, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A week ago today, the hon. gentleman indicated in reply to the third or fourth question on the matter, that we would soon see the bill in the name of the Minister of Transport calling on the railway companies to disclose certain freight rate information. Will we get that bill in 1974?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should not reveal what went on in cabinet today, but there was authorization to proceed with this bill so I expect that within a few days it will be before the House.
Oil and Petroleum



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 4, 1974, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last evening it was still considering clause 2 of the bill and the hon. member for Calgary Centre had the floor.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon we were in committee of the whole on Bill C-32 and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, speaking on behalf of this party, outlined the position of our party on this bill. Though it should not need repeating, it evidently does in view of the reaction we have had. Let me make it clear that this party still maintains the position it took in November of last year, namely, that there should be one uniform price for crude oil across Canada. We still take the position that that price should be less than the world price; but we also insist, on legal grounds, ethical grounds and on grounds of maintaining a viable and healthy Canadian unity, that this price and any future increase, as well as the question of revenue sharing, must be resolved by consultation and fair dealing on the part of the federal government and the provincial governments affected. We cannot and we will not accept the kind of confrontation, bad faith and what has been called treachery-and I agree with that word-that have been exhibited hy the government.
Bill C-18, this bill's predecessor in the last parliament, was introduced after the March 27 first ministers' agreement which was heralded by the Prime Minister and all members of the House as an example of Canadian federalism at its best; an occasion when the premiers, the Prime Minister and the interested parties had sat down and worked out an agreement that was recognized across the country as fair and just. On that basis, our party was prepared to pass the enabling legislation, Bill C-18, very quickly.
However, the government chose to throw in a twist: in spite of that agreement and the good will that had overcome some of the bad will that had existed over the previous year, the government chose to throw in a veto clause. In committee this veto clause was described by Mr. Leitch, the attorney general of Alberta, as recorded at page 7 of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for May 7, 1974, as follows:
Far from embodying a term of the first ministers' agreement it stands as a direct negation of the principles upon which that agreement was

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
based. It permits the executive council to terminate an existing agreement between a producer province and the federal government or to decline to negotiate a renewal agreement and to impose by unilateral action maximum prices on a natural resource owned by a province.
This party agrees wholeheartedly. If that clause and the equivalent clause in the section of the bill dealing with natural gas were removed, we could promise very rapid passage of this legislation; we would pass it as quickly as the government would like and we could all get on with the other important legislation facing the country. It is especially galling to have the government introduce legislation like this when in its own document "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase 1" which was tabled in July of 1973, there is advice which the government indicated to the House would be acted upon. This document was the preliminary to the government's energy policy and was considered so important that it was transported from the printers by Brink's trucks. At page 58 of that document the following appears:
That there can be no effective set of national energy policies developed without the participation of the provincial governments is readily apparent.
It then goes on to state:
Obviously, policies developed in isolation in Ottawa hold scant hope for success.
So we have in the government's own publication excellent advice, advice which this party stands wholeheartedly behind. Thus, I question why the government is incapable of following it. At page 60 I find the following:
The federal government has already assured provincial governments that it intends to obtain their views about the impact upon the provinces of possible federal energy policies before any final decisions with respect to them are reached by the Government of Canada.
What a farce! No such consultation was undertaken. Then the document goes on to underline consultation even more:
It is envisaged, however, that the participation of provincial governments in the formulation of national energy policies would involve more than was implied in that assurance.
So the government was going to do more than simply consult; it was going to work out things jointly with the provinces. If that were the case, then how does it rationalize the veto clauses in Bill C-32 which were also included in the previous bill, C-18? This is not the only example of bad faith, Mr. Chairman. Let us consider the question of price. How was the price arrived at in the first place? We all know that the September 4, 1973, price freeze was a unilateral decision, with no consultation. It occurred after a long cabinet meeting over Labour Day weekend. The federal government was forced to introduce the export tax to make this price freeze work, and they were embarrassed about it. There are several quotes in Hansard that I could read to the committee to indicate that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had said, "Don't worry: 100 per cent of this export tax is going back to the producing provinces; it belongs to them".
Then as the export tax grew, the government became a little less generous, but said it would guarantee that the producing provinces would not lose a cent of income. Then it went to 50 per cent that the government would return to the provinces. We then had the budget in which not only did the government take 100 per cent but a good chunk of provincial royalties as well. We want to make it abundant-

ly clear that this party is not arguing the question of royalties. We are not defending the royalties issue: That is for the provinces to decide because it is within their jurisdiction. If they are in fact too high, then indeed the government should engage in consultation with the provinces regarding fair sharing of revenue derived by the oil companies.
Instead of this, what has the government done? A week ago last Wednesday the Prime Minister, in attempting to rationalize or explain away to the House the charges of bad faith and treachery in his dealings with the provinces which had been levelled at the government, indicated that "the provinces had fair warning as to our views on revenue sharing". He then went on to say that in January of this year the federal government had tabled a document illustrating the kind of revenue sharing it would like to see. I went and dug out the file on this, Mr. Chairman, and yes, indeed, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did table a document concerning pricing. I have it here. In his statement the minister said that the attached tables presented alternative ways of describing a distribution of revenue flows on crude oil production and he made the point that annual flows do not include the yield from existing fiscal regimes operating below $4. The table of figures had been presented to the conference as representing the federal government's views on the fair sharing of revenues from oil.
These are the figures on the basis of which the Prime Minister said the government had warned the provinces about revenue sharing. At that time the federal government indicated it would be fair for the provinces to receive 30.75 per cent of the oil revenue including export tax. These are the figures tabled by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at that conference and referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech last Wednesday when he tried to explain to the House how above board and fair the government had been in its dealings in respect of revenue sharing.
What is Alberta's share? The royalties in existence as of April 1, 1974, give the Alberta government 23 per cent of that revenue as opposed to the 31 per cent the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated would be fair and just. In other words, the province of Alberta is collecting 8 per cent less than the minister indicated was fair. Those are the figures the Prime Minister gave us. This gives us an idea of what this government considers fair sharing. How can this government justify its budget of May 6 and how can the Prime Minister justify the statement he made during the budget debate? He said he told the provinces about revenue sharing but the provinces became greedy. According to the government's own figures, Alberta has not been greedy enough. I suggest this whole thing is strictly a smokescreen. What is involved here is not revenue sharing; it is power-grabbing and control. That is all that is involved. Let us not talk about bad faith and treachery. Having tabled this energy policy after bringing it in by Brink's truck, I do not know why the government did not bother to read it. It states on page 9:
No national policy can be contemplated without the fullest of intergovernmental consultations and consensus.
December 5, 1974

What consensus has there been in respect of the budget? What consensus has there been in this government's dealings with the provinces? I suggest there is no consensus because that is not what the government is after. This government is after control. What will happen if it gets control? Let us look at that matter. We have a constitution which outlines who owns natural resources, but apparently that does not matter much to this government because, notwithstanding the constitution, it intends to exercise control. Let us consider the situation to see whether there are non-legal considerations to justify the federal government taking control of natural resources.
To begin with, the government does have control over federal land north of the sixtieth parallel. This government argues that it has control over offshore resources as well. Certainly it has control over some aspects offshore. In April, 1970, the federal government withdrew land use regulations pertaining to lands under federal jurisdiction. That is over four years ago, and there have been no regulations and no royalty structure pertaining to lands under federal jurisdiction since then. These are the lands from which we will have to produce the oil and gas Canadians will need within a decade.
How competent is this government in administering that land under its jurisdiction? There has been no regulation and no royalty structure in respect of those lands for over four years. What in the blazes is holding this government back? How does it expect industry to operate when it does not explain the rules? How does the government expect anyone to invest millions and even billions of dollars when there are no regulations and the administration is as shoddy as it is?
What has been happening in terms of the industry in the last two years? In 1973 things looked bright and promising. There was great expectation in the industry in terms of exploration. Then we had the initiatives of this government. What have we today? According to a news report of the Canadian Petroleum Association there will be a dropoff to the extent of $900 million in exploration and development conpared with what was predicted at the first of the year. The Prime Minister indicated in January of this year that we would require at least $3 billion capital investment in exploration and development to remain selfsufficient. So far we are down to about one-third of that and evidently this government does not care.
The Minister of Finance says the next move is up to the provinces. Somebody ought to explain to him that these companies are not carrying out exploration on provincially administered land. Imperial Oil indicated it was cutting back $100 million in its exploration budget. Imperial Oil has not explored in Alberta for a number of years: its entire exploration work is being conducted on federally administered land. I suggest its decision was taken as a result of the last budget and this bill; it was not taken as a result of any action by Alberta. Shell Oil and most other petroleum companies have not explored in Alberta for years. The supply of oil and gas other than conventional in Canada will have to come from federally administered land and that is where the cutback in exploration budgets is occurring.
The Minister of Finance is inconsistent when he states that the next move is up to the provincial governments. He
Oil and Petroleum
is totally ignoring what is happening and I think it is time he and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made it their business to find out who in this country is responsible for making sure we have enough oil and gas to remain self-sufficient. Evidently the government does not care. What is more important to the government is who is going to get the biggest chunk of the pie. We can freeze in the dark so far as this government is concerned.
Where does this government expect the 170,000 barrels a day for the Polysar plant in Sarnia will come from, when we have cutbacks in exploration and development such as have taken place? Are we to import this oil from the Arabs? If we do, it will be the highest priced plastic in the world, and where would we sell such a product? So much is happening by way of reduction in the activities of this industry that any Canadian who has the slightest concern for the future of this country has to be deeply troubled and frustrated. Any Canadian with a modicum of intelligence must appreciate that solutions will not result from continued confrontation because the battle will simply be accelerated.
The federal government wants this bill passed so it will have a club with which to beat the provinces. The next thing will be that the provinces will take legislative initiative, then the federal government will do something else, followed by additional action on the part of the provinces. What will happen to the people of Canada? Apparently that is immaterial and the only thing that is important is power and control. That is absurd. It is about time we had a minister who is concerned about the energy supply in this country and it is about time we had a minister who is concerned about the potential of Canada.	.*>
Instead of people being concerned about their jobs in the energy industry, they should be looking forward to a tremendous future. What an opportunity we have in this country, because it is still the only country in the industrialized western world that is self-sufficient and has the potential to remain self-sufficient, yet this is the only country experiencing a decrease in exploration and development activity. What an incredible situation that is. How can this government blithely sit back and say that the next move is up to the provinces? When is the government going to accept its responsibility?
The worst thing we could do to this country is pass this bill with the veto clause. This will guarantee continued confrontation. The passage of this bill will just whet the government's appetite for power and control. It will then have control over oil and gas and the next thing will be coal, then electricity and then everything else. Then we will have the same people in control who have not been able to produce land use regulations for the north for four years. What an absurd situation, to say nothing of the fact that this clause is constitutionally illegal.
Mr. Chairman, any Canadian who is concerned about the loss of opportunity we are experiencing must be frustrated, bitter and disappointed. We as a party and, I think, most thinking Canadians request in the strongest terms, plead with and beg the federal government to stop these confrontation tactics, to stop grabbing for power and to sit down and negotiate openly, declaring everything rather

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
than hiding things in innuendoes and subtleties. We urge the government to put an end to this confrontation so that Canada can look forward to a future of which we are capable and, I believe, deserving.


Mr. Milne:: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in energy, and have been for quite some time. I have followed with interest this bill and other energy measures before the House since being elected. I had not intended to enter this debate but having listened for some time to the discussion I feel I should rise and speak to some of the points about which I feel very strongly.
I understand that hon. members from the producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan speak as they do concerning this bill in an effort to get the best situation they can for their provinces. One would expect them to do this and I respect them for doing so, although I do not agree with most of the points of view they have put forward. I am absolutely astounded, however, at the role played regarding this bill by hon. members opposite who come from eastern Canada. I cannot understand how the Conservative Party has solicited their support in filibustering this bill. The Conservatives have openly admitted they will filibuster it. Their spokesman on energy matters, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, conceded as much in a story written by Victor Mackie in the Ottawa Journal last Monday. When asked if his party intended to filibuster the bill, the hon. member is quoted as replying: "Yes, I suppose, although politicians don't like that word".
I ask the Conservative members from Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes if they really understand this bill and if they truly appreciate the implications if it should not go through. I should like to know how they would react to this bill being withdrawn and therefore letting the price of oil in eastern Canada go up to $11.70 from $6.50, and the price of natural gas perhaps doubling. I ask what effect would that have on industry and agriculture in their ridings, and what reaction they would receive from their constituents. It was not very long ago that the hon. member for Norfolk, on the opposition side of the House, asked a question about a letter from Union Gas saying there was some question concerning security of supply of natural gas for a hospital in Simcoe, Ontario, and raising a question about the price of natural gas to the hospital.
I ask why they would raise such a question and still filibuster this bill, because this is the government's answer to the energy question in eastern Canada. I cannot understand why the Tory members from Ontario have not spoken on this bill, or why in their caucus they have not opposed the filibuster undertaken by the western members. I am sure they must have heard rumblings in their ridings concerning security of supply of gas and what the future price might be, as well as the impact created if the price of Canadian petroleum went to $11.70. Despite these concerns in their ridings, it is obvious that the Tory members will knuckle under to the filibuster tactics of the Alberta members and argue against a bill which would ensure for their constituents and all Canadians, a reasonable and fair price for oil and natural gas in the future.

The basis of this bill is to place the federal government in the position where it can consider the interests of producers and consumers. We are not opposed to raising the price of petroleum, if necessary. We are not opposed to bringing the price of natural gas closer to its value. But we are saying that someone must mediate this argument and that it should be the federal government. If hon. members opposite intend to filibuster this bill, I suggest that before doing so they look at the Toronto Star for November 2 and read what Pan-Alberta Gas is doing in regard to gas, the reserves it is tying up, and some of the marketing policies it would like to have. In fact, it is quoted in the Globe and Mail of November 5, by the same organization, that even in the really energy deficient United States, one could not afford to buy natural gas at the price at which they want to market it.
Again I ask eastern members of the party opposite how they can rationalize their position with their constituents if the bill should not pass? I think the most astounded I have been, as a member of this House, was before the budget when I heard some of the members from Alberta putting their case, and at the same time I saw the Leader of the Opposition calmly sitting there going over his Christmas card list. This was at a time when members of his own party were seriously threatening the industrial base of the maritimes. I cannot understand how that was leadership. He seemed to have no interest in his own part of Canada and sat there working on his Christmas cards while this subject was being debated.
I want to speak a little about what this means, for example, to Ontario. If this bill should not pass, the first thing that would disappear in Ontario is the greenhouse industry. It is a very large and viable industry which grows cucumbers, tomatoes, flowers, and so on. Energy represents 50 per cent of the costs of the industry. It is a marginal business now, which competes with imports from the United States. Are these members saying we should import this food and have food costs go up even further, or do they really care about the greenhouse industry, particularly any member who might have greenhouses in his riding?.
The productivity of agriculture has increased greatly. Agriculture in this country is one of the most productive in the world. One reason for this is the major shift to corn from legumes and hay crops in eastern Canada. Energy, in terms of natural gas and propane, is essential for drying corn. This year the moisture content of western corn was as high as 50 per cent. How will these members answer their constituents when they bring forward questions concerning the high cost of propane and the fact that they cannot be sure they will have natural gas to dry corn? What about the cost of fertilizer? It has already gone up dramatically. Do these members want this cost to almost double again?	>
I will tell the committee what has happened in Ontario. A number of farmers have already cut back on the amount of fertilizer they use and there has been a pretty dramatic decrease in the yield of corn this year on farms where this has been done. Surely the strategy of this government which must be supported by members on the other side is to increase our food supply. If we are to have increased
December 5, 1974

food production, we must have energy because energy is an essential input for agriculture.
There is hardly a town in western Ontario today which does not have a sign welcoming industry to the town and saying there is abundant, reasonably priced energy available.
Let us suppose the Canadian price of crude went to $11.70 in western Ontario, and natural gas perhaps doubled or tripled in price. Some of these industries then might be non-competitive in the export market. I can hear members on the opposite side asking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce what he intends to do about this situation. I do not think that is fair. I think that if members really care about these industries in their ridings, they will say that this bill should pass.
I think, also, that surely members from the Maritimes must have a difficult time in respect of their conscience when they think about this bill. Certainly, if the price goes up to $11.70 for crude it will affect the industrial base of the Maritimes and their employment picture. If this bill is withheld, it will place in jeopardy the jobs of many people in the Maritimes. I believe that members of parliament were elected to do more than filibuster a bill that is in the best interests of all the people of Canada. I am sure that the citizens of the Atlantic provinces who sent Conservatives here expect more from them than that. The hon. member for St. John's East, the Conservative consumer affairs critic, makes a sincere plea on behalf of consumers daily in this House. We can imagine what he would have to say if the price of gasoline and heating oil jumped dramatically. He would be asking for a parliamentary inquiry. But why does he not stand up now and say that this bill is good legislation for Canadian consumers?
I say, again that the government is not opposed forever more to a freeze on the price of western crude. They are committed to do as good a job as possible, in consultation with the producing provinces, to gradually increase the price of natural gas; but this must be done by mediation between the consuming and producing areas. In case of a deadlock in the situation, a mediator is necessary. I would warn members from eastern Canada on the opposite side not to get sucked into the argument that they must feel sorry for the multinational petroleum companies. These companies have made millions and millions of dollars from the resources of Canada. The Minister of Finance has given them as good a-


An hon. Member:: Who said that?


William Ross Milne: -tax position as any industry in Canada. If you want to side with the argument to put them in a better tax position than any other industry in Canada, at the expense of your constituents, that is your prerogative. But that is what is at stake in this bill. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask hon. members opposite to think twice about filibustering this bill. Members from Ontario and eastern Canada have most to lose. On July 8, the voters were concerned about energy in eastern Canada and were perhaps concerned about the representation they were getting, so some seats changed. Voters are not very
Oil and Petroleum
impressed with a party that filibusters a bill, and they have very long memories.
It is interesting to note that the Premier of Ontario and the minister of energy for that province are more concerned about the interests of the people in eastern Canada than the Conservative members elected to the House of Commons. I should think the Premier of Ontario has enough problems and concerns of his own without carrying the argument for eastern Canada on this issue as well. Only two out of 25 Conservative members from Ontario have spoken on this bill. The others have continually yielded the floor to members from the west. Also, the two who spoke did not take a position on the bill. Surely, in fairness to their constituents they should be putting their concerns on record.
The federal government intends to consult the provincial governments on the future price of natural gas to assure a return to producers and not to sock it to the consumers with a tremendous impact. Hon. members opposite should be very concerned about how industries and agriculture in their ridings could absorb a sudden rise in energy prices. The official opposition is on record as saying they will filibuster this bill. I think I can say, on behalf of the government, that we feel this bill is important to the majority of Canadians and we are prepared to tough it out as long as the opposition wants to sit here, because this bill must be passed; we think it is that important, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat made reference to filibustering this bill. This is a very important piece of legislation and I, for one, am not going to be deterred from discussing it because someone threatens that if it is not passed quickly the price of oil and gas will be doubled. In the first place, there is an agreement that the provinces should hold the price to $6.50 until the end of June, so that part of the price structure is already fixed. My concern is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said repeatedly that the price is going to escalate to the international price. That is what the hon. member ought to be worrying about, rather than this bill. When the bill is passed it will simply put into effect the price structure that has been in place for some time and will continue because of the agreement reached with the provinces.
In the budget debate I suggested that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be wise to withhold this bill from the House and committee of the whole until after the meetings of the ministers of finance on December 9 and 10. I still believe that. Until there have been discussions between the Minister of Finance and the provincial treasurers to see if a way can be found out of the present impasse, it will be very difficult to get agreement on the bill.
I stated the position of this party when the bill was presented to the House. The New Democratic Party supported the bill because it believes in a two-price system and in an export tax. This party believes the revenue from an export tax should be used to compensate for imported oil so that there is a uniform price across the country. Any money left in the fund ought to go into a capital fund for either the province or the federal government to search for

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
new oil supplies. There is no doubt, however, that since this legislation was introduced we have entered a new ball game.
On November 13 and 14 we were prepared to give the federal government the powers which it asked for in clauses 36 and 52 to set the price of oil and gas in the event a negotiated price cannot be reached with the producing provinces, but the fact that the government has now introduced legislation to take with the other hand in addition to what they are taking in this legislation creates an entirely different situation. As I said in the budget debate, we have to rethink our position. I believe there is a mistaken idea that the federal government's only revenue from the resource industry is in corporation taxes. If that were true, the federal government surely should not be reducing corporation taxes for oil companies as they have in the budget, nor should they be increasing exploration write-offs from 50 per cent to 100 per cent.
They should not increase exploration write-offs from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. Nobody has asked them to reduce the amount of revenue they will get from taxing oil and gas companies. One must keep in mind the fact that the federal government, through the export tax, gets $5.20 on every barrel of oil exported. That should be taken into consideration because that money is additional to what the federal government receives from corporate taxes imposed on the oil and gas producing companies.
While the provinces, the federal government and the oil industry are arguing about how to cut up the pie, we had better make certain there will be a pie to cut up. The uncertainties of the present, which will probably continue until the finance ministers meet and the first ministers meet with the Prime Minister and come to some solution, may have serious repercussions. I hope the minister will tell us-and the sooner the better-something which will help to allay the concerns of many of us. I hope he will make a statement on government policy.
A great many oil drilling rigs are leaving Canada, particularly rigs which drill for oil at great depths. This morning's newspapers say that Atlantic Richfield Company, which held 30 per cent equity in the Syncrude plant in the Athabasca oil sands, has told its partners that it will pull out of that project. This news follows the announcement by Shell Explorer of Houston, Texas, that it is dropping its 50 per cent interest in the proposed Shell plant which would operate in the Athabasca tar sands. Perhaps these companies are bluffing. Perhaps, as the minister says, they are trying to blackmail the government.
I do not shed tears for the oil companies when they say they are not making a profit. In the last two years their profits broke all previous records. But I think the country wants to know, as does this committee, what the government intends to do to ensure that when our conventional oil supplies are no longer adequate for meeting our needs, additional alternative sources of supply will be on hand. The report of the National Energy Board on availability of supply states that we will not be self-sufficient in oil by 1982. The board pins its hopes almost exclusively on additional oil supplies being available from the Athabasca tar 
sands. The lead time for production of Arctic and offshore oil is between ten and 15 years. The critical period will come in the early 1980s. The National Energy Board feels that our difficulties can be met because it anticipates that three plants will be in operation in 1982 in the Athabasca oil sands and four plants will be in operation by 1983.
If these plants are not in operation, and if considerable drilling is not carried out in Alberta and Saskatchewan in areas which can still be developed, we shall face a most critical situation by 1982 or 1983. I am sure the government must have some plan in mind; the minister must have in his briefcase some policy that he intends to trot out in order to meet this situation. If there is no policy, we shall be in great trouble. For too long we have closed our eyes to the fact that conventional supplies of oil in this country are declining. We cannot afford to behave like Mr. Micawber and hope something will turn up. Does the federal government, either by itself or in conjunction with the provinces, intend to make sure plants will be built in the Athabasca oil sands? Will the government, working through Petro-Can, pour money either on its own or in conjunction with the provinces into the development of areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan from which some drilling rigs have been withdrawn?
It is not enough to say that the oil companies are blackmailing us. We must decide if we are to call their bluff and if the government intends to act in order to ensure that the oil in this country, oil which belongs to the Canadian people, is developed. If the oil companies are not prepared to develop it, the people of Canada, through their federal and provincial governments, ought to develop it. That is what we ought to do. I wish the minister would tell us exactly what the government has in mind. I do not want to be told again that the matter is under consideration, that the government is still thinking about it and will keep thinking about it and some time in the distant future will come to a decision. The graphs accompanying the National Energy Board's report on availability of supply show how close we are to the danger line.
As the oil from the Athabasca oil sands will be our only assured supply, the only supply on which we can count, the construction of the oil sands plants must begin on schedule. Even so, we are placing a great deal of faith in these plants being completed on schedule as their completion will depend upon the availability of materials and manpower. We must do our best to bring these plants on stream when conventional oil supplies diminish to the point at which we are no longer self-sufficient. I hope the minister will give us assurances on these points and tell us what policy the government intends to pursue if the withdrawal from this country of oil drilling rigs continues. If Shell Explorer, Atlantic Richfield and other companies which have announced their intention of withdrawing from the Athabasca oil sands do as they say, who will fill the gap? Who will step in to make sure that the Canadian people are supplied with oil? It is useless arguing about the price of oil and how we are going to divide tax revenue derived from it if there is no oil. We had better make sure that we possess oil, the price of which we can sell and tax.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. gentleman's question, I suggest that an analysis of the fiscal regime proposed by the government in
December 5, 1974

the budget will show that there is adequate financial room for the existing industry to engage in exploration and further development of oil properties, whether involving the oil sands or conventional sources, in this country as they are needed. He pointed out that there is a tendency on the part of the companies-indeed, probably a concerted plan on the part of companies having little connection with Canada, by withdrawal and spectacular announcement to attempt to change the fiscal provisions of the budget.
I deduced from the hon. member's argument his feeling that it is appropriate that the oil industry should bear the kind of share of the national cost which is suggested by the Minister of Finance in his budget. At times the hon. member, in his usual skilful way, seemed to argue both sides of the question. He suggested, I think, that a substantial share of the cost should be borne by the industry in favour of the national government, and I think it is perfectly proper to suggest that a share should be borne by the industry in favour of the provincial government. However, we believe that the return to the companies is adequate in order to continue the exploration and development they have under way. The hon. member made specific reference to ARCO and the reported announcement that ARCO will not be going ahead as a partner in the Syncrude project. I understand the other partners will be meeting with Atlantic Richfield for the purpose of defining their intentions from the standpoint of what we will do about it, I would be very interested in pursuing with the partners and, indeed, the government of Alberta the question of federal involvement in that particular project in the oil sands.
Over a period of time it has been made clear to us by the government of Alberta that participation by the federal government, whether by way of research, assistance in surveying or equity investment, would not be welcome in the oil sands. On the other hand, we stand ready to participate in this way. We will entertain any suggestions that the partners or provincial government might have with regard to the nature of this participation. I would say that for areas that are of significance to us, for example in the development of frontier resources whether offshore or in the north, there has been, and is, an indication of a substantial exploration program for this coming winter. That exploration program will be carrying forward the relatively successful results that have been realized heretofore toward better defining that resource.
We should really be talking about this bill and how oil should be priced in Canada. In terms of pricing, this bill is just as important and, indeed, even more important now, not just for the producing companies but for all Canadians, in terms of making certain that while the producers can over a period of time get a fair and adequate return on their resource, consumers should be entitled, not as the Alberta minister of federal and intergovernmental affairs said, that world prices should be shoved to the Canadian consumers right now but to adjust to them.
At this point we do not know the position of the government of Alberta but we can again make clear the position of this government. We do not think we should go into world prices right away. Canadians should be cushioned
Oil and Petroleum
against this kind of increase. This legislative measure we have put forward is just as relevant now as it was last May, and just as relevant as it was before the budget. It is important and relevant now to provide a balanced regime in Canada to make certain that the supreme reality of the change in international oil prices is cushioned for Canadians to the best extent we can.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I just say to the minister I am glad to hear him say that the federal government is not ruling out the possibility of any involvement either with the partners in the various Athabasca oil sands projects or with the governments of the producing provinces. When the legislation to set up a national petroleum corporation is before the House we will have an opportunity to get more information from the minister and some statement of policy.
The minister talked about my remarks indicating that I am probably on both sides of the question. I want to make it perfectly clear that as far as the budget is concerned, I am not on both sides. I am prepared to support the government having the right to set the price of oil and gas and to collect the export tax which gives them the larger share of revenue from a barrel of oil. They receive about 54 per cent of the revenue. At the same time, I say they have no right, in an underhand and round about way, to turn around and take the unprecedented action of saying to the provinces, "Whatever you are getting out of your oil, whatever you collect by way of royalties, will not be deductible for income tax purposes."
We are not only doing this with oil. We are doing it with reference to gas and minerals. It is only a next step to do it with reference to renewable resources, lumber, stumpage dues and other royalties. In my opinion, this will reduce the provincial governments of this country to little better than glorified municipalities. That is why I object, not to the government having the power to collect an export tax but to the federal government, in an under-handed way, destroying the fiscal capacity of the provinces to run their own affairs and manage their own resources.
May I say one other thing to the minister. He believes the Canadian people should be cushioned against the world price. I certainly agree. If one goes back to the record, I introduced a motion as far back as January 25, 1973, arguing for exactly the same thing. I am not convinced at this moment that we ought to set, as a goal, ultimately raising the price to the international price. We can produce enough energy in this country so that Canadians can get it at a price that gives to those who produce it a fair return on their investment and pays the province a reasonable royalty and still keeps the price below the world price.
We give to our industry a very advantageous competitive position. My hon. friend who spoke before I did was interested in the industries of Ontario. He ought to be interested in keeping the price of energy at the lowest possible level.
I see no reason at the moment, and I do not know whether the minister is talking about 18 months or three years, why we should be planning ultimately to move toward a world price which in the main would take money out of the pockets of the consumers to either pay larger

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
profits to the oil industry or larger taxes to the provincial and federal governments. We would be better to have cheaper fuel as long as we can, while at the same time paying to those who produce the commodities a reasonable return on their investment, and making adequate compensation to the provincial governments for the part of their public domain which is being diminished, in the hope that they will use all or most of the revenue to search for further supplies of energy materials.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I might just indicate to the hon. member that the touchstone which the government uses in terms of long-range pricing of oil has been the ultimate cost necessary to bring on additional supplies for Canadians. However, it might be formulated, there is not very much difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself. The critical question will be, at the insistence of some of the producing provinces, how quickly we move to the higher price. The fundamental question, and it may be difficult, is what is the appropriate price for oil sands or frontier oil to bring on these additional levels of exploration and development? Of course, there will be attempts-this is the way of the world in some sections of the petroleum industry and I think it is the position of Imperial Oil-to say you have to go to world prices as quickly as possible. That seems to be the position of the Alberta government.
It is said we are engaged in confrontation. Because we do not happen to accept that particular opinion, we are told we are tearing confederation apart. As I said in the throne speech debate and again in introducing this bill, the formulation for pricing in Canada is to have a price level high enough to bring in incremental supplies for Canadians without abandoning our prices, as going to world prices would involve prices that might be set from time to time by OPEC.
There are those who ask, why shouldn't we be at world prices, when we have been before? May I remind the House that we were not on world prices before. For a period of ten to fifteen years the price paid by Canadian consumers was $1, $1.50 or $1.70 above the world price. We have not been on world prices before. If it was appropriate at that time, as it was as a national policy, to ensure a higher return for those producers, it seems equally in the national interest that we should have the same balance in the other direction now that the circumstances have changed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am glad of this opportunity to take part in the debate at this stage of our proceedings. I believe no prophets and no members of the House should be more concerned about the passage of the bill before us than those from Ontario. I say this because we have a government which, through its incompetence and lack of understanding of the energy situation, is placing our fine province in the position of being literally dependent on supplies of foreign fuel in future years. This is a matter about which the 55 Ontario members of the Liberal caucus should be reminding themselves. How will they explain to their constituents the incapacity of their government in this field, a failure which according to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will possibly

result in Canada being a net importer of crude in the early eighties? How will they go back to the electors who placed confidence in them and tell them that a country which has been self-sufficient in oil, and which could continue to be self-sufficient if the reserves under federal jurisdiction were properly developed, is now likely to be without ready access to crude oil supplies? I would point out that for Ontario, especially-a land-locked province-this is an intolerable position.
I suggest there are three important questions which member for Ontario should be asking themselves. The first concerns security of supply. The price of oil is one thing, but surely the paramount question is security of supply to Ontario, bearing in mind that of all current domestic production used in Canada approximately one-half is used in Ontario. We should never lose sight of this fact when considering a bill such as the one before us, which presumably reflects the over-all approach of the government to energy policy. We are the most vulnerable province in the nation, and the government is taking steps which will make sure that energy will not be available in a few years.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Do you want one price?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The second question is, why is the construction of a pipeline still under consideration? Why are we not told the date by which it will become operational? So far, the pipeline has been discussed in terms of its going from Toronto to Montreal. I say it is more important, if hon. members opposite continue to support the incompetent Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that they should be asking the minister when he intends to build a pipeline from Montreal to Toronto to ensure that if we are to be dependent on foreign countries, at least we should have the advantage of a transportation system sufficient to get imports into Toronto.
The third question concerns conservation of supplies. There is probably no federal government which has done less, in practical terms, to conserve energy than the present government. In this connection I would mention that while Americans are striving to lessen their dependence on foreign oil and to work toward self-sufficiency, Canada is in the unbelievable position of drifting from self-sufficiency to dependency on foreign oil. In the United States, President Ford plans to lead his nation to self-sufficiency in oil production by 1980. Here in Canada, the Prime Minister appears to be willing to allow the nation to become dependent on foreign oil by 1982.
The United States is aiming at independence by way of better conservation measures and the development of yet untapped reserves. From being a net importer of oil, they plan to become a net exporter of oil. A few days ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outlined a very different picture so far as Canada is concerned. He released the report of the National Energy Board which showed, in dismal terms, that Canada has only enough oil for perhaps 7.3 years, after which we would be dependent upon imports from foreign countries. Within eight months, Ottawa has changed its position very dramatically. Members who sat on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works will recall that when he appeared before the committee, the minister stated, "We
December 5, 1974

can see a ten-year supply, a ten-year period during which supply will be adequate to meet Canadian demands."
A year earlier the minister said, "For another decade or longer we could continue to meet export commitments and to meet the growth of the Canadian market." In the energy department's policy for Canada, published in 1973, a 15-year reserve of oil was referred to constantly. These figures did not include the oil sands reserves or northern reserves. In the space of less than a year, what has happened to Canada's oil reserves? I suggest the reason the government has shifted to painting a relatively pessimistic picture-and if it is pessimistic for the nation as a whole, it is particularly pessimistic for Ontario-is that previous estimates of reserves of oil took it for granted that exploration would continue to produce new oil finds roughly equal to our annual consumption. In the past year, however, as a result of government indecision and its quarrels both with the industry and producer provinces, the drilling rigs have pulled out. Little new oil has been found, and the authorities are becoming alarmed. Hence the gloomier picture.
As we consider Bill C-32, let us not attempt to shift the responsibility. This responsibility lies with the government whose failures and lack of foresight have placed us in the position of possible dependency upon foreign oil. Dealing specifically with the bill, I note that in clause 36 the government seeks to infringe further upon the control exercised by the provinces. We are being asked to endorse a price-fixing mechanism which is designed to function with or without provincial agreement. Even though the oil producing provinces withdraw from any pricing agreement they may make with the federal government, the federal government is empowered, under clause 36, to establish the price of oil unilaterally. This is a direct encroachment on provincial rights. Similarly, part III of the bill would allow the federal government to regulate the price of natural gas in a producing province and for export, with or without the agreement of that province- another infringement of the right of a province to control its natural resources.
It is very easy for a member from Ontario, particularly if he is a supporter of the government, to be shortsighted. I understand previous speakers have even referred to this bill as some type of consumer bill. What utter balderdash! If you like, Mr. Chairman, it is a consumer bill in the sense that consumers are going to be cut off from their rightful resources in this country due to bungling and lack of co-operation by this government in its relationship with the provinces.


Mr. Foster:: One of the Bay Street boys.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The establishment of price controls must be taken in a spirit of co-operation. Such a move requires broad provincial and federal government consultation. The input of industry in this country and consumer-producer participation should also be an integral part of the formation of such policy. Sole federal control is not the answer, though it is clear evidence of the status quo approach of the federal government. I suggest that the oil and energy resources of this country should not be used by the federal government as a battleground to wrest further
Oil and Petroleum
control or power from the provincial governments. It knows the proper mechanism to use. If the government feels there is some imbalance between federal and provincial authorities, then let it consult the provinces and work out an agreement with them and, if necessary, amend the British North America Act. But let not the consumers of this country, particularly those in Ontario, be victimized by the inept policies of the government.
I say this because without provincial control over pricefixing mechanisms, the producing provinces will be unable adequately to ensure a fair return to the provinces and oil companies which are developing petroleum resources. Without adequate return there will be a marked decrease in exploration activities and a consequent decrease in supply to the consuming provinces. Our main concern is adequate supply for the consumer in Ontario and in the other consuming provinces. The federal government, in its attempts to establish a federal price-fixing mechanism, has created an unhealthy political atmosphere in which the consumer is the ultimate loser. The situation now is that we will be forced to rely increasingly on petroleum imports which, in the proven unstable international political atmosphere of today, can fluctuate and in the end leave the consumer with a shortage of fuel for the winter.
As I have said, Ontario is a land-locked province that is forced to rely on the transportation of petroleum products via pipeline. By failing to ensure construction of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline through the constantly changing attitude of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister, the government has failed to ensure security of supply to the Ontario consumer. This pipeline should be built and it should be a reversible pipeline.
I suggest that rather than engage in a dispute with the provinces over the establishment of a price-fixing mechanism, the federal government should be trying to work with the producing provinces to develop policies to conserve petroleum resources through discouraging needless waste, providing incentives for continued exploration, and researching and developing alternate and renewable energy sources. In this connection, the Ontario background papers to the federal-provincial conference of first ministers on energy, held in Ottawa on January 22 and 23 last, made the following statement in relation to the supply problem the province faces this year:
In Ontario, the supply question is dominated by the province's reliance on eastern refineries. While Ontario received all of its crude oil from western Canada, refinery capacity has not been expanded in about four years.
Thus, eastern ...
That is, mainly Montreal-
. .. refineries provide Ontario with 14 per cent of its motor gasoline, 25 per cent of its light fuel oil and 38 per cent of its heavy fuel oil. The basic supply outlook for Ontario is not known with any degree of certainty. The technical advisory committee of the National Energy Board states that the over-all supply and demand situation for oil products in Ontario this winter will be "in precarious balance".
"This winter" is last winter. The papers go on to say that
the price of petroleum products in Ontario will depend on

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
the price of western oil, presumably to be determined by federal-provincial negotiation. Surely the government should be telling this committee why those negotiations have so broken down that we are now confronted with Bill C-32, which in its present form is obviously completely unacceptable to the producing provinces and, I suggest, to the consuming provinces, certainly to the province of Ontario.
Speaking of the province of Ontario, I presume that the 55 Liberal members in the government caucus who come from that province must be asking themselves why it is that, despite the fact that their membership in the caucus has risen from 36 in the last parliament to 55 in this parliament, their representation in the cabinet has gone down. Surely those Ontario members must go home at night scratching their heads and wondering why in the twenty-ninth parliament there were 11 cabinet ministers from Ontario, the next highest province being Quebec with nine, whereas in the thirtieth parliament the same Prime Minister has chosen only ten cabinet ministers from Ontario and 11 from Quebec.


Mr. Turner (London East):: You would never make it anyway.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Well, it is your caucus. I have touched briefly on the allied question of conversation. I hope Ontario members of the government caucus are asking themselves why the government has not worked out more effective measures to help conserve energy in this country. In the United States, for example, speed limits have been reduced. Not only has this reduction in the speed limit saved a considerable amount of energy, but it has had the collateral advantage of saving many human lives through fewer fatalities on the roads. I checked the situation today and found that, based on 100 million vehicle miles, the number of fatalities in the United States has dropped 20 per cent to 25 per cent since speed reductions were made mandatory in that union. Yet this government has repeatedly stated that it does not intend to take any such measures but hopes, through a $1 million advertising budget, that it can talk people into doing something about conservation.
Conservation is conservatism. We believe in conservation, and we certainly believe that if there is any serious energy shortage we should not only be looking for new reserves in this country but conserving the energy that is available to us. It is only recently that Canada has developed a national set of statistics which relate to our inventory of energy supplies. Until very recently the Canadian government had to depend upon statistics provided for it by the oil companies, statistics which hardly provided a basis for a sound national policy but only benefited individual firms or industries.
We still find it difficult to discover the facts about our inventory of energy resources. Planners both in corporations and in government have had extreme difficulty in producing valid projections. In spite of our lack of knowledge about our inventory of energy resources, there is no doubt that long before the so-called energy crisis in 1973 experts in the oil industry, government and universities were telling us that our energy resources were being depleted at perhaps too fast a rate. They told us we should

seek alternative sources of energy and in some way end our extravagant use of depleting resources; yet this government has chosen to do virtually nothing.
Even today, when the world's economic system may collapse because of the tremendous balance of payments problems caused by the western world's inability to pay for high-cost energy, at a time when the poor nations of the world are starving and have little prospect of being able to improve their position because of the high cost of energy, and in spite of the example set by our neighbours to the south-which I have touched upon-we in Canada are doing nothing to conserve our essential reserves and we are doing very little to develop new sources of power and find other ways to provide energy for our industrial and social life.
At a time when all the developed nations of the world are placing increased importance on the over-all concept of rail transportation and the development of new forms of technology in urban and intercity transportation, we in Canada are still back in the 1950s. We have virtually no research taking place on problems connected with urban transportation systems. We have no leadership from this government to help provincial governments set up urban transportation programs which would end our dependence on the automobile, that extravagant user of gasoline, and get our citizens in the large cities to their places of work efficiently. At a time when most other countries are expanding and improving their railways, we are ripping up our tracks and cutting down the number of rail services, forcing Canadians to use automobiles and buses.
Perhaps it is unfair to blame the situation solely on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Certainly his colleague, the Minister of Transport, has to take some credit: he has set a new record, perhaps, in incompetence and inability to master that portfolio. One hears that a new cabinet shuffle is coming up.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


B. Keith Penner: Is it the wish of the Committee that the hon* member be allowed to continue?


An hon. Member:: He is not saying anything, so let him go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will not go beyond my time except to say I should like an opportunity to speak again on this important bill. Many of my colleagues intend to speak on the bill, and we believe that many members from Ontario sitting on the government side should also get to their feet and speak on behalf of the consumers of Ontario, informing them that our energy problems are due substantially to the incompetence of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I must say that not the least useful aspect of the speech of the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe was getting something
December 5, 1974

out of the hon. member for York-Simcoe who just came out with a ringing appeal for higher prices for the consumers of Ontario. We will make certain that his view, that Ontario people should pay higher prices for gas and oil, is well known to his constituents and to other citizens of the province. This is a critical question and it is one on which the hon. member has just hooked himself. As I said to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the question is whether Canadians should be paying adequate prices to bring about additional resources in Canada, but not world prices, or whether we should go to world prices. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has just hooked himself with the highest price and "sock it to the consumer."


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is obvious to those in the chamber that the minister has absolutely no justification for making a statement like that. The record will show that at no time did I suggest higher oil prices. The minister did not deal with the important point, that is, why we are experiencing a shortfall in Ontario if there is a shortfall.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member specifically adopted the United States program of higher oil prices for Americans.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So have you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, I have not.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are a demagogue.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Chairman, whenever a member from Alberta stands in this chamber to speak on energy, there seems to be the automatic assumption on the other side that he is going to present a narrow focus. I hope the minister will listen for the next few minutes as I attempt to put the bill before us in the wider context which it deserves. I declare with pride, as I stand here as an Albertan, that I am a Canadian first. In presenting an argument in respect of provincial rights to the minister, I think I do more to contribute to national unity than does this type of bill which steamrollers over legitimate provincial interests.
By way of introduction to my remarks, let me say that last Saturday a number of Liberal cabinet ministers went to Edmonton to attend a fund-raising dinner. That was their right. But I think it was not their right to make statements such as the one made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that Alberta members of parliament come down here as demagogues. I reject that statement. What a suggestion, that we cannot stand here as Alberta members of parliament presenting arguments in the best interest of our country! I would ask the minister to give us his view, at the conclusion of my remarks, on whether my remarks about this bill can be taken as demonstrating a demagogic position.
If we do not lie down and allow this Liberal government to steamroller over us, and if we resist with some strength a bill which we believe will do irreparable harm to our country, we are accused of filibustering. It is not my belief that the people of Canada represented here by members of this party, people who have asked us to speak for them here, expect us to lie down. That is why you will hear
Oil and Petroleum
during this debate not only from members from Alberta but members from Quebec, Nova Scotia and the other provinces. What is at stake here is the legitimate regional and provincial development of our country. I laugh when I hear speeches about Alberta and its strong energy position and the suggestion that it is adopting a separatism position, going its own way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from trying to get out of Canada, members from Alberta for years have spent their time here fighting to get into Canada. We have been trying to assert ourselves as real partners. This is what the Western Economic Opportunities Conference was all about. That was the conference which promised us our so-called place in the sun, in legitimate recognition of the fact that we have been victimized by central Canada. That is the conference which is long overdue in accomplishing what it set out to do.
Since this is the first time I have spoken on this bill, I intend to address some questions to the minister. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal with what this bill will accomplish in general, in an effort to show that as an Albertan I am concerned about the total effect of the bill from the constitutional and energy supply aspects. Why is the total issue involving the constitution and supply important to all Canadians and not just to Albertans or westerners? This debate clearly centres on issues of broad national significance. We are discussing whether or not the federal government is constitutionally intruding into an area of provincial jurisdiction. We are discussing the extent to which a province has the right to manage its resources as it sees fit. That is the basic issue.
In this analysis, the vehicles for discussion are crude oil and natural gas, but the issue clearly extends throughout the entire spectrum of non-renewable resources. We are discussing a provincial revenue which may, to a greater or lesser extent, be subject to equalization, which is certainly an issue of more than passing interest to the other provinces of this country. And we are concerned about the condition of an industry whose future success bears directly on the future economic well-being of this nation. Certainly this is not an unimpressive list of national concerns. But even more fundamental is the fact that in this debate we should be concerned about the extent to which the Government of Canada is inclined to penetrate the domain of private and public interests in its effort to achieve what it perceives as social justice. I believe it is fair to say that the traditional purpose of the law has been to assure the legitimate expectations of individuals living in a free yet ordered society. Only if organizations and individuals are free to order their lives and' their affairs with reasonable expectations that today's rules will apply in the future, when their present actions may be judged, can there exist tranquility in the person and peace in his society.
When normal expectations are frustrated, society grows fearful and distrustful and is more prone to lapse into disorder. To what extent can what we might term the natural laws of economics and of human conduct be controlled and even repealed by parliament? To what extent can we comprehensively and logically prepare for tomorrow's oil supply difficulties, in light of today's frenetic political climate? It is difficult to perceive how we will

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
control our destiny if we cannot even discipline ourselves to control today's domestic developments. Is it not reasonable to expect the same standards of conduct in legislatures that citizens expect of one another?
I come now to another question in respect of which I will insert some general comments later on. I ask myself: how is this total issue related to changing world conditions with regard to energy and to the squeeze that developing nations are feeling today with regard to their inability to pay high prices for commodities they need in order to grow food? Well, as commodity prices have escalated and as inflationary trends have worsened in general, we have witnessed a growing tendency on the part of many nations, both developed and developing, to take whatever they can get-a spirit of protecting one's own position whatever the cost to others. There is certainly not much evidence of a philanthropic feeling abroad in the world today. It would appear to me that much of our current debate in regard to non-renewable resources in Canada reflects this politically hostile environment on the international scene.
There is a reluctance on the part of the industrialized nations to provide assistance on a scale commensurate with the needs of the third world; there is a reluctance on the part of the OPEC nations to share their newly-found largesse with less fortunate members of our global society; and there is a reluctance on the part of many developing nations to undertake those social reforms which would be beneficial to improving their own lot. In a time when the need for international co-operation has never been as great, and in a time when the problems of population growth, of food supply, of poverty and of resource development have never been so paramount, there is a conspicuous lack of concern, a lack of willingness to assist.
On the other hand, it is also fair to say that any nation undergoing considerable economic and other problems will be hard pressed to help others. The United States, for example, which will have paid out approximately $25 billion during the course of 1974 to import oil, obviously will be less psychologically disposed toward assisting less fortunate countries. In Canada, to the extent that we can avoid or at least ameliorate our coming problems, whether in the field of oil and gas supply or elsewhere, by means of intelligent, comprehensive and long-term planning, to that extent will we be better placed to extend assistance to the developing countries.
In other words, what I am saying is that our own house must be in order if we are effectively to work beyond our own national sphere and assume our international responsibilities. It is difficult to move promised grain supplies to lands with starving peoples if that grain cannot move across the country or cannot move through the St. Lawrence Seaway because of strikes. It is difficult to talk about entering an international energy agreement when we cannot settle an energy dispute internally. In short, until such time as we repair some of the damage that has been done in this country to the faith of the individual and of private enterprise in the astuteness and leadership of our legislative bodies, it will be most difficult to put together the wherewithal to help those members of our global society who are in mounting need of such assistance and who are progressively less well disposed to wait for that assistance.
I come now to another question: how can these re oon-sibilities at the federal and provincial levels be reconciled, and how can we bring these governments together? At least in the case of oil, this debate will in some ways become academic within ten years. At that time oil exports will presumably have been phased out and the domestic price of oil in Canada will be nearer, or at, the world price. We may not like that prognosis, but it seems to represent what our current appreciation of the supply situation is telling us. At the moment, and assuming that the federal and provincial governments could amicably come together, there is considerable flexibility in the manner in which this issue could be handled. If, on the other hand, this issue should proceed to the courts, one side will to all intents and purposes win and the other side will lose. There would certainly be less flexibility in dealing with such problems if that were to occur, and whatever flexibility there might be would largely depend upon whether or not the winning side chose to be magnanimous in its victory.
This current flexibility of negotiation I regard as an asset. I do not believe that a court decision in favour of one side or the other would result in light and understanding; rather, it might institutionalize a bitterness which we at least at the moment have the opportunity of overcoming. In view of reconciling federal and provincial interests, and responsibilities, I suggest that both levels of government have fair claim to some of these formerly completely unanticipated revenues. They have the responsibility of not making excessive claims in the process; they have the responsibility of ensuring that private enterprise- is not emasculated in the process; and they have the responsibility of avoiding the temptation to legislate everything that they can lay their hands on. I would reiterate my earlier point, that citizens in a democratic society should be allowed to function with the minimum of laws necessary for good governance.
I see it is five o'clock, and I would be willing, Mr. Chairman, to suspend my remaining comments until after supper. I would ask the minister to return following the supper hour because the questions which I shall put in detail will require answers by him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. gentleman. Will he repeat what
he said?


Gerald William Baldwin: He was saying he hoped you would have a good supper and come back and reply nicely to him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a meeting with the provincial ministers this evening, but I will put it off in order to be present and hear the hon. gentleman.


Gérald Laniel: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.

December 5, 1974



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs-Proposed increase in pensions of Hong Kong Veterans-government position; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk-Multicultur-alism-Alleged Change in government policy-Request for assurance to minority groups; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Immigration-Possibility of obtaining counsel for persons facing summary deportation-Review of cases by minister.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills. There being no item on the order paper under the heading of private bills and notices of motions, the House will proceed to public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West) moved: that Bill C-215, respecting the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to again speak in this House on my bill proposing that the name "Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation" be changed to "Habitat Canada". I introduced this bill in the twenty-ninth parliament but, unfortunately, because of the length of that parliament and the many bills put forward by private members, I was not able to bring it forward for debate.
In presenting this motion to change the name of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, my intention is to give this institution a designation which will more accurately reflect what it is, what it is doing and what it is becoming. If I am successful, I hope that this bill will effectively focus this institution in the minds of Canadians. Indeed, I believe this is happening now. The present name in almost every respect is inappropriate. It is called Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at a time when it is making a vigorous effort to decentralize, to distribute authority, initiative and decision-making across the country to ensure that this important national institu-
CMHC Act
tion will respond in a more sensitive way to unique local needs and objectives.
The present title emphasizes the word "mortgage". While the granting and insuring of mortgages is an important aspect of CMHC's daily business, mortgages are just an instrument which the corporation uses in fulfilling its broad social responsibility to improve the living conditions of Canadians. This part of its title, perhaps more than anything else, helps to preserve the notion of a purely financial institution whose main function is to make prudent and profitable investments of public capital. In the minds of most Canadians it is a sort of government bank for mortgages.
The next significant word in its present title is "housing", and certainly the creation of reasonable housing that is accessible to all Canadians continues to be a prime function of this agency, by whatever name it is called. But housing alone and housing in its narrow context does not begin to define the role and objectives of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) has often said in this House, it is not enough to be concerned simply with housing without regard to the whole environment in which houses are built. That is a view I have heard from all sides of the House. People live not just in houses but in communities. Houses are just one element in the fabric of community which depends for its life on a whole range of physical and social amenities which must be knitted together in a planned and coherent way if we are to serve the human needs of this country.
The growing concern of the government and the corporation for these aspects of community life is reflected in the latest amendments to the National Housing Act, particularly the neighbourhood improvement program, the new communities program, the increased commitments for the public assembly of land-we heard a great deal about that in the last parliament-and in the legislation which we will be asked to consider later this session with regard to sewage treatment assistance. So CMHC is a housing corporation but not just a housing corporation, not always central and not only dealing in mortgages. It is for these reasons, to rid the corporation of a designation that is restrictive and misleading and to give it a new title that dramatizes its broader, more ambitious goals, that my bill proposes that it be known henceforth as Habitat Canada.
This title, it seems to me, connotes, in both the official languages without translation the real work of the corporation which is concerned not just with mortgages and houses but with the places where people live-roads, sewers, parks, schools, churches and shops, as well as houses, and the way all of these elements relate to each other. I am not suggesting, Madam Speaker, that by changing its name we will change the character of the institution. The fact is that the institution has changed and is changing as the needs of Canadians have changed. I think it is only fair that the people who staff and run this institution should no longer be burdened with a cumbersome name that has outlived its relevance. Habitat Canada has a meaning that suggests the breadth of its duties and obligations to the people of Canada. I believe it will become even more meaningful day by day as the activities

December 5, 1974
CMHC Act
of Habitat Canada continue to change and improve the cities, towns and villages where Canadians live.
In preparation for making this address today I looked up the history of the word "habitat". In the English language it is as old as the language itself. It comes from the Greek word "habere", meaning to hold; to occupy or possess; to have. Even a small child, when developing and learning, has the word "habitat" in his vocabulary-"That is my habitat, the place where I live". That is common to our language. In the same way, its roots are equally deep in the other official language, the French language.
One of the most serious difficulties in our society today as a government and as members of parliament is to make people understand what is available to help them. I suggest that this is a phrase that says, in both official languages without need for translation and in words long based in both languages, Habitat Canada; just what it means. There is some precedent for simplifying the names of federal institutions. TCA was changed to Air Canada, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to Radio Canada. That has surely been helpful to Canadians to know and to identify these institutions of the federal government. I will not continue, Madam Speaker, because I hope for sympathetic support for this bill. There is some indication from the government to that effect. I hope my friends on the other side of the House will agree that this is a simple move to help Canadians understand better what is being done for them in the field of housing.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I was interested to hear the fatherly presentation of my hon. friend opposite where he stressed the role he sees for yet another government organization. By now we should be used to such time-fillers as the bill of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming). After all, he is a member of the government which in the last session had us debating a bill about what kind of football Canadians should be allowed to watch, at a time when Canadians were so frightened by the effect of inflation on their savings that they were going on a huge spending spree, fueling the fires of inflation even more. In that same week, the government-owned CBC was broadcasting American football games in Toronto. This government again illustrates that it is insensitive to the wants of Canadians. If Canadians did not want to watch World Football League football it would fade away without any help from the government and Canadians would have had one more element of their freedom left intact.
The changing of this corporation's name to Habitat Canada will cost the Canadian taxpayer a great deal of money but will not make it one bit easier to obtain a mortgage. But then the government, after interfering in the bargaining process, held off recalling parliament to stop the grain handlers' strike in Vancouver for six weeks, completely ignoring the cost entailed in keeping ships in port. It also ignored Canada's failure to meet overseas grain commitments and the wishes of producers and consumers who are now dangerously short of grain.
But let us look at this bill. The hon. member for York West says that it will provide a shorter name and one that is the same in both official languages. The corporation has
^Mr. Fleming.]
been known as CMHC-you will notice that there are just four letters-for decades. It will take another decade for people to learn that good old Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is the same as Habitat Canada. And for many Canadians the word "habitat" will recall mixed feelings and memories of the housing white elephant built for Expo 67 in Montreal. The hon. member says that it would be the same in both official languages. That may be true, but it would not mean the same thing in both languages. Or would it?
Harrap's French and English dictionary is supplied to members of this House. If we look at the French word "abita" we find that it means "habitat" in English. The Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is also supplied to members, defines "habitat" as the natural home of plants or animals, or as a habitation. It goes on to say that habitation means a place of abode or branch of the Primrose League. The same book says that the Primrose League is a Conservative association formed in memory of Benjamin Disraeli, the Earl of Beaconsfield. Perhaps "Habitat Canada" would be interpreted as the Canadian old Conservatives, a sort of Conservative Senate. Who knows what it would mean!
We have seen much evidence of this government's gimmickry in changing names. For instance, to name a few, we have Sports Canada, Recreation Canada, Taxation Canada, Agriculture Canada and Information Canada, affectionately known as InfoCan. None of these agencies works any better under its new name. In fact, some do not work as well. The Post Office, for example, is known as Postes Canada, but that is backwards for Canada Post, which used to be known as Royal Mail.
These problems, of course, are not related to the two languages. For instance, in the English language version there is a program known as PEP, the Program to Enhance Productivity. That does not apply to the people in the House or to agriculturalists; that is an industrial program. The aims of the program are; to encourage industrial growth and production by supporting studies to determine the feasibility of projects designed to enhance substantially the productivity or efficiency of companies. Well, so much for PEP! And if that description does not boggle the mind, let me refer you to GOMI, which is short for the Grains and Oil Seeds'Marketing Incentives Program. And the list seems endless.
Some huge group evidently sits around all day dreaming up these names. I am sure we can all feel sorry for the fellow who dreamed up the slogan Air Canada. Sorry? Yes, because the name was grabbed up by the airline when he had intended it for the CBC. The poor old CBC had to settle for Radio Canada, which is not too bad except when the announcer says, "This is Radio Canada," you can see him on television and the television network uses the same name. One name which did not cost millions to change over was COJO. The only problem is that it only translates into the French words "Le comite d'organisa-tion des jeux olympiques." In English that would be the Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games, or OCOG. But I suppose that's no worse than PEP or GOMI.
Maybe we should look more deeply into the reasons for this proposed, costly changeover. Maybe it is a plot to expand operations and for the government to get meaning-

fully involved in housing. The Liberal-Socialists on my left would certainly agree with that. To date, certainly, we have all known of this corporation's mortgage business. Many thousands of Canadians have been able to take advantage of the government's mortgage scheme, although many more thousands could not afford to do so. But I am not sure that many Canadians are aware of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's housing operations which, like many other government enterprises, are not models of operating efficiency. Those who really need the government's help find that government housing is unacceptable or unavailable because they cannot afford to take advantage of the government's offers.
Perhaps Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is planning to branch out. Vote 10 of the main estimates relating to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for the calendar year 1974, provides for expenditures on housing research; for the amounts of loans forgiven; for contributions made in respect of loans to facilitate home ownership; for losses resulting from the operation of public housing projects; for losses resulting from the sale of mortgages, and so on. The last item of the vote reads "for the cost of acquiring Granville Island and for the loss incurred in the redevelopment, administration and operation of the island." There is no breakdown of the total of $143.2 million listed under Vote 10. Granville Island, as I say, is mentioned in the last item in the vote.
Granville Island is in Vancouver; thus, CMHC has acquired the 42-acre Granville Island, which has nothing whatever to do with mortgages or housing. This man-made island in the city's False Creek was turned over to CMHC by the Department of Transport's National Harbours Board, which had been leasing it out as an industrial estate for years. It seems that the land, where the leases have expired, has been converted to parks and some $20,000 worth of trees have been planted on it. Most other leases run to 1983, but several have 20 years or more to run; so CMHC will have a lame duck industrial estate on its hands until nearly the end of the century. The government's mortgage and housing corporation had to manage its industrial estate and care for its expensive parks, so it hired a project manager at a salary of $25,000 plus support staff.
It will not surprise members of this House to know that the project manager happens to be the former president of the British Columbia Liberal Association. He was selected, said the former minister of state for urban affairs, because of his business qualifications. Nothing was said of the failure of two private companies with which this man was closely associated, I believe as president. Both of them suffered from fatal financial problems when this man was running the Liberal campaign in the 1972 federal election. Most governments, by interfering in the free market, create problems. The report by the National Council of Welfare on the low-income consumer in the Canadian marketplace, called "Prices and the Poor" has this to say about housing and food. May I begin quoting from page 17:
What are the poor getting in return for this large outlay of money?
The answer is all too apparent: They are getting the worst housing in
Canada.
The report goes on to say:
... it should be noted that the possibility of a low-income family
CMHC Act
buying a home has become practically nil in the major urban centres of Canada.
According to the report, the poor are excluded from housing. I continue quoting:
... the supply of low-cost housing is grossly insufficient to meet demand. And the root of the supply problem is the extremely high cost of land in virtually every Canadian city ...
One traditional response to the low-cost housing problem has been public housing. Public housing has usually taken the form of large complexes set either in the most undesirable urban locations or in the most inaccessible outlying locations. Many low-income families forced out of inner-city accommodation enter public housing. But a great many more are unable to enter public housing because the supply falls so far short of demand ...
The great public housing complexes which only a few years ago seemed to be the solution to the low-cost housing problem are now recognized to be a thoroughly inadequate response.
The report continues;
Unless it is applied only in the short term and tied to a program for generating a major expansion in the supply of low-income housing, rent control in Canada would ultimately result in an even more reduced supply of low-cost housing... If the housing problem in Canada is to be solved, the solution can only come through the development of a comprehensive national housing policy. At present there is no such comprehensive policy, only a collection of ad hoc, often unrelated or even contradictory, specific programs that have been developed over the years.
I think that is sufficient criticism of the past operations of CMHC. I do not think the members of this House should believe that a new name is going to change the operations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Not until we get a new government.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: CMHC has done its share for higher housing costs through some of these actions. It has had extremely stringent requirements on some of its mortgage loans, for example sewers instead of sceptic tanks on all houses which will qualify for loans. CMHC has been the victim of the present government's inflation policies. In the recent budget debate I pointed out the drastic effect of higher interest rates on housing costs. Of course, not even the government is willing to lend its money at a rate much lower than the rate of inflation plus a reasonable rate of return. Finally, I repeat to members opposite that their time, the time of this House and the taxpayers' money could be better directed than in dealing with a bill such as the one before us, and I call for its rejection by this House.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: The explanatory note of Bill C-215 reads:
The purpose of this Bill is to change the name of "Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation" (and in French the words "Societe centrale d'hypotheques et de logement") to "Habitat Canada".
This would have the advantage of providing a shorter name for the corporation and one that is the same in both official languages.
I have never, in my nine years here, experienced such a waste of debating time and money as set forth in this proposed bill. We have a serious inflation problem. We are discussing problems with regard to the high cost of living. We have a serious housing problem and a petroleum problem. Yet the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) brings forth Bill C-215 to change "Central Housing and

December 5, 1974
CMHC Act
Mortgage Corporation" to "Habitat Canada". I would ask the hon. member for York West, through you, Madam Speaker, how many constituents in his riding have asked that CMHC change its name to Habitat Canada. How many people have asked him about the serious housing crisis in his area? How many people have asked him about high interest rates, shortage of supply, high rents and the high cost of housing? I would venture to say that not five people in his constituency have asked the hon. member to change the name Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to Habitat Canada. I would say that hundreds of people have asked him questions with regard to the serious shortage of housing, the high cost of housing and rents and high interest rates. They have asked him this time and again, and this is his answer with regard to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Do you want an answer?


John Gilbert: Yes.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, as both the previous speakers well know, although I am a government supporter I am not the government. In private members' hour I hardly have the ability to move a motion that is going to involve finance, affect inflation or anything else. Hon. members work through their caucus; I work through mine. In private members' hour we try to do something that is useful. That is why I suggested this. I was in communications for 12 years. I have a deep belief that if Canadians understand what they are dealing with, they are ready to approach government and receive the help of government.


John Gilbert: Today we have the hon. member for York West speaking about a change in name. On December 3, two days ago, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) spoke to the Toronto Home Builders' Association. He said:
Almost 800,000 Canadian households spend more than 25 per cent of their gross income on shelter. Even more disturbing is the knowledge that 107,000 tenant families with incomes under $3,000 spend over 50 per cent of their incomes for shelter. These are hardly comforting statistics, nor is the fact that there are some 500,000 housing units in Canada requiring rehabilitation or replacement...
The present shortage of suitable accommodation at affordable prices in Toronto and other cities across Canada is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the people who need housing in communities where the shortages exist. It is not acceptable to the federal, provincial or municipal governments and surely it is not acceptable to builders either ...
I am particularly concerned about the shortage of apartments and other types of accommodation for rent. For this kind of housing, starts declined nearly 60 per cent in the first 10 months of the year. Rents, on the whole, have not increased at nearly the rate of other costs, but the continuing vacancy rates of less than two per cent in major centres could produce pressures on rents that are unacceptable.
Here we have a minister setting forth the housing crisis, and the hon. member for York West wanting to bring about a mere change in name which would have no effect on the housing crisis being experienced in Canada. The previous speaker -set forth the definition of "habitat". I also looked up the definition. It is rather interesting. The Concise Oxford Dictionary states: "habitat; natural home of plant or animal." Are we going to change the name of CMHC to this?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Read on.


John Gilbert: It says "habitation". Now if we look to the definition of housing, it reads: "house; building for human habitation." We now have Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I would prefer that we have Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation. That would set forth the number one item across Canada-housing. It would then set forth mortgages. We would then have Canadian, or Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation. That would make sense. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation commenced on January 1, 1945. It is companion to the National Housing Act. In a great many ways it administers the National Housing Act with regard to housing, mortgage loans, research and many other items.
CMHC has had its name for almost 30 years. In Ontario we have the Ontario Housing Corporation, more commonly called by ordinary folk, OHC. OHC blends in nicely with CMHC. Across the country there are many housing corporations and commissions which go by the short name. Habitat Canada would not fit in with the theme of housing across Canada. If it is the natural place for plants and animals; it has no place in housing. When we talk about housing, we talk about different types; for example, there is single-family housing, row type housing, condominium type housing, co-operative housing, senior citizens' housing and public housing. This is what CMHC is all about. Can you imagine calling it single-family habitat, row type habitat, condominium habitat, co-operative habitat, senior citizens' habitat, and public habitat?


Walter David Baker: "Cohabitat."


John Gilbert: As the hon. member says, maybe we should call it "cohabitat", common law habitat. We associate Habitat with Expo 67. I thought that was an interesting design in housing. It acquired a name with regard to a special type of housing. But it did not catch on. That is the main thing.


Walter David Baker: A high rent district.


John Gilbert: The hon. member has pointed out that, in Montreal, Habitat is associated with high rents. That is not a significant achievement. One should bear in mind the expense of changing the name CMHC to Habitat Canada, as well as the confusion it would create across the country. People have learned that the intials CMHC stand for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Why should they have to change to Habitat Canada?


Walter David Baker: Imagine the difficulty of discharging a mortgage.


John Gilbert: If the government wants to bring about a change in name I think it is the responsibility of the government to bring forward the legislation, not that of a private member.


Mr. Kaplan:: That is not what you say about your own bills.


John Gilbert: Ah, if parliament were to enact my bills we would see a garden of Eden, we would experience the millenium within a very short time. As I was saying, the
December 5, 1974

responsibility falls upon the government, not upon a private member. If the hon. member for York West and the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) had set forth in legislation a change in philosophy on the part of the government they would receive complete support from our party, because we believe that housing is a social right in Canada and that all people are entitled to good housing at a reasonable cost. At one time, I thought this was the philosophy of the Liberal government. But it is not. Apparently, the hon. member is more concerned about making a change in name and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is more concerned about producing more bang for a buck than he is for housing.
About a week ago the minister made a speech before, I think it was called, a property forum. He said, "What we have to give you is more bang for the buck." He claimed the budget contained a number of items designed to achieve that purpose. But at whose expense? It is at the expense of people in the small and middle income brackets across the country. In other words, housing is to be treated as a commodity available at the highest possible price and the highest possible interest rates. This is the philosophy of the government. It has no concern for high interest rates, the shortage in housing starts or land banking. It is all slanted toward the builders, the speculators and the developers.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, you have heard the Minister of State for Urban Affairs talk about the registered home ownership plan under which young people can deduct $1,000 from taxable income yearly for ten years for the purpose of buying a home. What a tremendous achievement! What it really means is that if they buy a home and give $10,000 as a down payment they are left with a mortgage of $40,000 upon which, at the end of 25 years, they will have paid $123,828.
These are the things people are concerned about, Madam. They are not concerned about changing a name. They are concerned about changing a philosophy. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you also heard about the $500 grant for those who purchase homes for the first time. When I challenged the same minister to show me homes in Toronto which cost less than $44,000, the best he could do was direct me to some condominium homes.
He is asking young people to raise a family on the 12th floor of a condominium home. He is asking them to acquire a mortgage of $40,000 at 12 per cent, on which they will eventually pay $123,828. He says, "If you accept this responsibility I will give you $500, which will leave a net balance of $123,328." Isn't this a proud achievement? Is it any wonder that members of my party and people across the country become deeply displeased with the Liberal government and with this attempt which is being made not to grapple with the real problems of housing but to bring about a change in name? What's in a name? That which men call a rose will smell as sweet by any other name, said Shakespeare.
In the last 30 years, CMHC has acquired a meaning. What has Habitat Canada done? What will it do? Nothing. Will it strike at the housing crisis? Will it lower interest rates so that ordinary folk can buy a home? Will it increase land banking operations?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This is your third time around.
CMHC Act


John Gilbert: Will it improve the quality of homes? Never. All it will do will be to create confusion and impose unnecessary expense. On the other hand it might expose the lack of policy and principles of the government with regard to housing.
I should like to touch lightly on what the Minister of State for Urban Affairs said with regard to interest rates:
He said:
We want to make it possible for even more people to be helped, but considering the whole range of the government's operations there are limits to how much taxpayers' money can be committed in this way. I intend to encourage private investment more heavily, which is essential if we are to continue to grow.
In order to unleash the major sources of private mortgage funds, we intend to bridge the gap in interest rates between the minimum rate at which private lenders can economically lend and the maximum rate at which lower and middle income Canadians can afford to borrow.
The assisted home ownership program provided interest rates at roughly 8 per cent, and the minister wants to increase the funding of AHOP. He does not want to spend more government money; rather he wants to attract private investors. He is prepared to say to these private investors, and more particularly to the financial institutions, "If you direct some money to AHOP at 8 per cent, we will pay you the difference between 8 per cent and the going rate of 12 per cent. In other words, we will subsidize you".
This is a private enterprise principle that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is now going to attempt to apply. Rather than attempting to decrease interest rates, he is attempting to maintain them and to subsidize private investors. I think that is shameful, and I certainly oppose this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before recognizing the parliamentary secretary, the Chair would like to remind hon. members that the purpose of Bill C-215 is to change the name of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Therefore the Chair would greatly appreciate it if hon. members would stay within the scope of the bill.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think that your correction is quite proper, owing to the remarks of the members for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and Vancouv-er-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) who both have shown complete lack of sincerity as well as stupidity and bad faith. The member for Broadview has even criticized his colleague for taking steps suggesting that only the government can do so. I think that it is rather paradoxical for a member of parliament-


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order, or is he going to talk about the bill that he is complaining other people are not talking about?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised
by the hon. member's protests. I realize how right I was

December 5, 1974
CMHC Act
when I said that the previous speakers did not want to deal with the subject of this debate.
I want to repeat to the hon. member who is trying to interrupt me that it is my turn to speak, and that I do so frankly, openly, like those who have preceded me.
First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) for his initiative in presenting this motion. I agree totally with him when he says that the present name of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does not describe appropriately the role this Crown corporation is playing and will play in the life of Canadians. "Habitat Canada", in both official languages, indicates more specifically to what extent the corporation is concerned with the living conditions of the people in all parts of the country, in villages and small cities, in urban areas and surrounding regions.
While advocating the adoption of the new name, I should not however want to give the impression that the corporation will be less concerned with basic housing questions, and mortgages which are fundamental if all Canadians are to be given a chance to buy proper housing within their means. There is no doubt that the top priority of the government and the corporation in coming months will be to increase considerably housing construction especially in the lower-price bracket, and to make sure that these are accessible to those in greatest need of them. We trust we will be able to find a solution to housing problems which confront us now and which are essentialiy-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I have asked hon. members to try, as much as possible, to stick to the subject of Bill C-215, that is change of name.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, with regard to the private bill of the hon. member for York West I want to say on behalf of the government that we totally approve of its intent. I remind hon. members that if you can identify this federal agency in Engligh by the four letters "CMHC", in French that is not possible. I have never heard anyone identify "la societe" with the combination of letters "SCHL"; in French you have to say "la Societe centrale d'hypotheques et de logement". In English you can identify Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation by the capital letters "CMHC"; in French you must give the total title.
The initiative taken by the hon. member for York West represents, in my opinion, more fully the new role of CMHC, which no more looks upon itself only as a banker, as it did 20 years ago. For 20 years CMHC has been an instrument in the federal government's social policy.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: You are getting out of order again.


Pierre De Bané: You shut up and listen to me-O.K.? [Translation]
Therefore, I think, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member's project fully reflects the role played by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has been very beneficial in Canadian history, especially since the last war.


For all these reasons the government welcomes the initiative taken by the hon. member for York West, and on behalf of my minister I commend the bill to hon. members for their support.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I should like to say, first of all, that I agree with the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) on one point. Habitat Canada sounds to me like a new environmental group.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the desirability of having names equally understood in both languages. As a philosophy in terms of naming new institutions this is admirable, and I am wholeheartedly in favour of such an approach. But what are we going to see now-a whole string of private members' bills wanting to change the names of all Crown corporations, such as the CNR, the Polymer Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Northern Transportation Limited, and so on and so forth?
I think I can speak for the majority of my party when I say that we recognize that some of our predecessors in this institution did not pay as much attention to being able to identify government operations, departments or Crown corporations in both languages as they should, and thus did not choose quite as wisely as they might have. But surely this is little reason to go altering all these names, or at least to alter this name.
I associate habitat with some form of architecture. As the dictionary indicates, it is a word that means nothing. I very often get the feeling that members on the government side think that a change in name is almost as good as a policy. I am not going to get off on to the subject of housing-though Lord knows there is ample room to talk about that subject for several days, not to mention just the few minutes available to me-other than to say that the hon. member is paying attention to historical precedents in this House. I have heard a rumour or story circulating, that I have not had a chance to check out personally, about a current member of government whose claim to fame is a private member's bill that accomplished something along these lines.
The housing problems which exist in Canada are enormously severe. In the last three months the cost of a serviced lot in Calgary went up 12 per cent. What is being done in that regard? I do not know how many employees there are in CMHC, but I suggest the worst thing we could do right now is send them scurrying around the country changing all the literature and hanging new signs on their buildings. Surely what they should be doing is concentrating on housing problems. If we need a new name, Housing Canada would make a lot more sense than Habitat Canada.
I recognize the difficulties in respect of the nature of the two languages to which the parliamentary secretary has alluded, but this does not seem to have hurt IBM, CIL, the CPR or a lot of other companies. At this stage of the game I think it would be reasonable on our part to save the government a lot of money by refusing to order employees of CMHC to run around changing the letters on their stationery and on their buildings when they should be
December 5, 1974

addressing themselves to the serious housing problems in Canada. I could carry on but, in view of the fact that others of my colleagues would like to contribute, I will leave it at that.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, on rising to speak on Bill C-215 presented by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) I cannot help but emphasize the cost involved. At a time of rampant inflation, and excessive and uncontrolled government spending, we should be bringing in bills with ideas to cut down on government expenditure. As the previous hon. member has stated, the cost of the proposal in this bill would be fantastic. Clause 1 of the bill states in part:
Wherever, in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, or in any other statute of Canada or in any regulation, order, deed, contract, lease or other instrument, the words "Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation" appear ... there shall be substituted therefor the words "Habitat Canada".
Just imagine the fantastic cost involved in carrying out this suggestion at every CMHC office across Canada. I have just received some translation cost figures in respect of one airport tower at the new Mirabel airport. The cost involved there in a similar change is $1.6 million. Costs are astronomical in respect of name changes. Just imagine the cost of changing all the fancy gold lettering on all the office doors across the country.
It would seem to me that, as a result of this proposed change, considerable confusion would develop. Canadians are used to seeing CMHC on the letterhead of this corporation and on its office buildings. If the name were changed to Habitat Canada they would perhaps think that CMHC had moved or that they were in the wrong building. I am sure there would be a tremendous amount of confusion.
The abbreviation of this corporation's full name is not difficult, and it is one that Canadians have been accustomed to for years. There has been no problem with such abbreviations as CMHC, CPR, CNR and others.
I would be happier had the hon. member brought forward a bill with some ideas to correct the many housing problems in this country. When one reads the recent statistics released in respect of housing he will see where the real problem lies. This is the sort of thing to which the hon. member should be directing his attention.
Let me state my reasons for suggesting that hon. members should be concerned about housing in Canada. House building activity continued to decline in October. The seasonally adjusted annual rate of housing starts for all areas dropped to 173,700 units during the month as compared to 192,500 units in September and 206,600 units for the third quarter of this year. One can see the seriousness of our housing problem with housing starts dropping at that rate.
Another interesting sidelight is the number of new homes which cannot be sold. Many Canadians are trying to find homes but cannot manage to obtain CMHC mortgages. Interest rates are way out of line, yet there are thousands of housing units sitting empty. This is where the real problem lies. I do not believe there should be a priority at this time in respect of changing the name of any government department, agency or corporation. We
Oil and Petroleum
should be finding ways and means of cutting down on government expenses. More concentration should be placed on providing housing at reasonalbe cost with lower mortgage interest rates.
There is a great deal of confusion today in the housing industry. One prominent industry spokesman stated
recently:
I wonder if the government's intent was to cajole house buyers to defer their purchases or to line up today at real estate offices.
There is little doubt that a supply increase is needed, particularly as it affects the lumber and construction industry. The finance minister's proposals as they relate to housing do little but reflect the naivety and uncertainty of the government's economic policies. On the one hand with the $500 grant, the opening of high ratio mortgage loans and the reduction of the sales tax on building materials, the minister appears to be attempting to increase demand. On the other hand with the registered homeownership savings plan, it would appear that his aim is to defer demand.
It is too bad we cannot go back to the days of the Conservative government when anyone could buy a three bedroom bungalow with a down payment of $350 to $1,200. In those days bus drivers, truck drivers, clerks and others could afford to buy homes. This is where the real problem lies, not in respect of the changing of the name of government departments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour provided for the consideration of private member's business has now expired.
Perhaps the House would agree that we resume consideration of Bill C-32 in committee before calling it six o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
B. Keith Penner: Order, please. House again in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-32. When the committee rose at five o'clock clause 2 of the bill was under consideration. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister returning. 1 know he has other meetings tonight. I shall put to him a couple of questions. I do not intend to recapitulate the part of my speech I gave before the supper recess, but I shall sum up what I believe Canadians want as they look at the federal government and its desire for petroleum legislation that will make this country grow. What we want is the existence of laws which do not change at a whim. We want laws that may be relied upon at all times.
We want to be able to have expectations that, within reasonable tolerances, are predictable with regard to exploration and development. These are conditions which are far from being met in Canada today. Perhaps I might sum up the feelings of the people in Alberta. The minister knows I began by trying to give the wider perspective from a Canadian point of view, before the Albertan point of view, that there are merits and demerits in respect of this legislation.
I wish now to consider the Alberta viewpoint which I think is in harmony with the views I expressed before supper. I shall quote a couple of paragraphs from the Edmonton Journal to give the minister some of the feeling that has been caught in these paragraphs about the situation existing in Alberta today. I quote:
Given the irony of the situation one can readily accept the outrage of Alberta's premier. Logic, obviously, plays no great role in the formulation of federal energy policies, which appear suspiciously like hastily constructed frameworks designed to cope only with short term political expediencies.
The new federal budget includes provisions that will remove provincial royalties paid by oil companies as deductible business expenses. Last summer Mr. Lougheed warned the federal government against taking such a step on grounds the action would 'damage the confidence and strength of the petroleum industry in Canada.'
However, the federal government does seem bent on a course designed to force the oil industry out of the exploration business all together. That is a source of concern in Alberta today. Now I come to a very specific reason in a speech made by the Hon. Don Getty, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Province of Alberta, a man who has taken part in negotiations with the federal government, a man who is very modest not only in his views but in his expression of them.
After I read a small section of the speech made by Mr. Getty on Tuesday night in Edmonton, I will ask the minister to respond to the charges that are made in it concerning the ways in which the federal government has deliberately injured the development of the oil industry in Alberta by its conduct and by its failure to consult. We do not need to go over once more all the conferences, accords, meetings and technicalities. Let us look at it the way Mr. Getty looked at in a very sharp focus.
Mr. Getty makes a number of points. He says that the federal government has, over the past 18 months, taken what you could call seven steps. The first step was as follows:
(The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
The Federal Liberal Government is so oriented to protection of the Central Canadian power base and so dependent upon it it couldn't stand to have something as important as oil and gas not under their control.
I remind the minister that I am quoting Mr. Getty, who is saying that the philosophy of the federal government is such that it fails to consult, and is dominant in the discussions it does hold. The second step mentioned by Mr. Getty was that:
Alberta was told, regardless of what your oil is worth in the world markets, you can't sell it to Central Canadians at world prices. You will still buy from Central Canada at world prices or more but by God you will sell them your oil in the name of Canada, at a lot less. Why? Well it's for the good of poor old suffering Central Canada.
The third step in Mr. Getty's analysis was that Alberta was told it could not even sell oil to people other than Canadians at world prices, even though those other people were willing to pay that price. We cannot do that in Alberta, according to this philosophy, because the money, the $1.5 billion, is needed for central Canada.
Then there is the fourth step. There may be an oil supply emergency, so the federal government is setting up a federal petroleum administration act to give it authority to set prices for oil. It also tells Albertans where the oil must go, and when. This is needed to protect central Canada, or at least that is what we are told in Alberta. Mr. Getty calls this a piece of outright larceny, proposed in the same name of an emergency.
Next comes the fifth step. In Alberta we might get a petrochemical industry, but only after one is established in Ontario with a federal Crown corporation and guarantees that it will get Alberta's oil at subsidized prices to compete with the petrochemical industry Alberta is trying to develop. That is because central Canada needs the jobs.
Step No. 6 is that the federal government is envious about the provinces' natural resources starting to be really valuable. It wants a greater share of the results of this production. So it uses the federal budget not only to gouge more money from the sale of provincial resources, but in a manner that controls or stops the provinces from deciding how much they should get for selling their assets. Alberta is told, "If you don't play along, we'll kill your industry if you don't allow Ottawa a greater share."
Step No. 7 is that there is no longer an oil supply emergency. We realize that following last winter. There is no oil'supply emergency at the moment. But not only will the government proceed with a federal petroleum administration act that controls the price and allocation of oil, but it decides to expand it, so now it can control the price of natural gas too, and also determine to whom it can be sold. There is to be no more letting Alberta use those resources to bargain for fairer treatment in confederation. Central Canada says, "We don't expect you to like it, but we're doing it anyway for Canada's sake."
That is the spirit in which the federal government has approached the problem of petroleum legislation. I put these questions to the minister, asking him to respond publicly to Mr. Getty. We can say that the view in Alberta is in harmony with the national interest-with provincial resources systematically being dragged into the federal grasp, with the constitution being literally changed before
December 5, 1974

our eyes. Albertans are seeing their future heritage and hope being taken from their control. A federal government stomping on Alberta will feed on its own power, and other provinces will also feel its tentacles. That is what this struggle is about; that is what the fight is going to be about, and that is why I feel, along with Mr. Getty, that Alberta must stand and fight for its heritage and its future, and the future of our children.
Premier Lougheed's call is not just to Albertans or even just to western Canadians, it is to thinking Canadians everywhere. But whether they rally to Alberta's side or not, unless there is a change in federal actions and policies the result is a resistance that Alberta intends to maintain. It is a resistance that the province of Alberta can carry on in another way. It is a resistance that members of parliament from Alberta feel committed to, for the good of all Canada. I submit it is a resistance by members of parliament on this side of the House from all provinces, who are concerned that the future development of this country and the future national unity of this country depend upon a square deal for the development of regional resources. I submit that Mr. Getty has made very serious public charges against the federal government, and I think the minister ought to respond.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At the outset of his remarks, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman said that perhaps when his colleagues address themselves to these questions they talk with a violence that causes them to have a narrow viewpoint, and he said that he would not emulate them. I would have to say that he has followed through. Indeed, in the two years that we have mutually sat in the House at the same time this has been characteristic of his approach, and perhaps uncharacteristic of his colleagues.
I think the hon. member's was a thoughtful approach, but I wonder if he cannot see in the speech made by Mr. Getty some of the basic contradictions he put to himself. In particular, the hon. member started off by saying that he felt Alberta had been victimized by central Canada, just as Mr. Getty did in his speech, through uncharacteristically, I would agree, and dripping with venom he expressed such a terrible antipathy to central Canada. Both gentlemen used the expression "victimized by central Canada," in regard to Alberta.
I remarked earlier today that there had been programs operating in both directions, both in favour of Alberta and in favour of the consuming provinces. Indeed, programs have been operating for the Atlantic provinces and right across Canada to deal with their different circumstances. But "victimized by central Canada"-is that correct?
To deal with Mr. Getty's second point, when he says that, "You can't sell oil to Canadians at world prices", I would point out that there has not been a tradition of selling oil to Canadians at world prices. For ten or 15 years oil was sold to central Canada at about $1.25 or $1.50 above world prices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: That is not true.
Oil and Petroleum


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is true. It certainly is true. I pay no attention to the hon. member for Calgary Centre, but address myself to the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona because he has taken an intelligent approach. The Alberta industry developed on the basis of a series of federal policies, not central Canada policies, but federal policies which substantially assisted the development of that industry and from which at that particular time the producers of Alberta benefited.
That was due to the fact that Ontario in particular, instead of taking the offshore oil which could have been landed more cheaply into the Toronto and Sarnia refineries, developed industry on the basis of western Canada oil. There was no question of victimizing anybody. It was a good policy, and it assisted the development of the Alberta industry.
I have difficulty when I address myself to a member like the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona in finding how he can speak with antipathy about a part of the country which I happen to represent, and in which I know he was educated. The hon. member for Crowfoot is an Albertan and he has a particular viewpoint, but may I suggest that bringing out this particular attitude-


Mr. Horner:: Why bring me into it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -is not going to assist us at all. When the hon. member talks about a particular part of the country being victimized, and Premier Lougheed talks in such vicious terms as he did in September, 1973, about central and eastern Canada, then I would suggest to the hon. member that he might reflect and think about the attitude behind that point of view.
Let me deal with the questions one by one. On the question of world prices I have pointed out that Alberta has not been getting world prices in the past but has been getting better than world prices. Indeed, in relation to natural gas which was a system put into effect through federal policies, gas which would have had to be flared at the wellhead was marketed to the advantage of both those who were consuming it and those who were producing it. Federal policies were in force to achieve this. It was not victimization. It is very much the reason why there are skyscrapers today in Calgary and Edmonton-because there were national policies which gave advantages to that particular industry.


Paul Yewchuk: The victimization is not by central Canada, it is you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not what the hon. member said and it is not what Mr. Getty said. If the hon. member for Athabasca means his remark in a personal way, that is all right; I do not care.


Harvie Andre: The minister sounds like Portugal rationalizing the colonies.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman
referred to Mr. Getty taking exception to the petroleum administration bill. It is not clear in his speech whether he takes exception to the fact that there is a single oil price in Canada, and that we are using part of the economic rent
1990

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
from the export charge to cushion the price of oil in eastern Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What are you doing to bring about more supply in central Canada? That is the question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We are dealing with what Mr. Getty appears to be professing and what hon. members are holding up in the House. Members representing the Atlantic provinces, parts of eastern Canada, as well as other parts of Canada, would be very much prejudiced if the price of our oil were forced up to world price levels. I think they should consider again whether they agree to step number four, Mr. Getty's proposal that the federal petroleum administration bill should not go through.
Item number five raises the question of a petrochemical industry being established in Ontario. I hope the hon. member for Lambton-Kent does not have the notion that the Petrosar project should not go to southwestern Ontario because-


Harvie Andre: But where are you going to get the oil? That is the point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The notion that the federal government wants to build such a plant in Ontario first is not true. The petrochemical projects have not gone ahead in Alberta as a result of a provincial decision. The planning decision as to where to put the Dow-Dome project has been outstanding for several years. Negotiations are in process with CIL, Dow-Dome and others, but the decision on where the petrochemical industry will locate, and what it will do, is a decision for the Alberta government. It does not rest with this government. This is a matter for provincial decision, and it is unfair to suggest otherwise.
If the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona considers this bill from the standpoint of its entailing antipathy to central Canada-and I see the hon. member for Lambton-Kent is sitting in front of him-does it not strike him that his argument is a contradiction in terms? We are talking about policies which exist at present and will exist in future in order to assist all parts of Canada. Does the hon. gentleman really wish to found his policy on that kind of antipathy to the part of the country which I and others in this chamber represent? I suggest the hon. member is far too intelligent to support a policy stemming from that position and I am sure that if he considers that, he will appreciate the contradiction inherent in his argument.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Chairman, we have just witnessed a typical performance by a Liberal minister who uses divisiveness as his main weapon. He began by attempting to divide me from my Alberta colleagues, by suggesting that I am possessed of a much superior view, which he would be willing to discuss with me. Let me tell the minister that everything I have learned about oil and gas I have learned from my Alberta colleagues.


Mr. Faulkner:: That is the problem.


Douglas Roche: If the minister knew as much about oil and gas as members from Alberta do, the government would be in much better shape.

The minister also used the weapon of divisiveness characteristically to divide and conquer. He tried to make it look as if in some way I am opposed to central Canada because I referred to Mr. Getty's position. Let me say that Mr. Getty can speak for himself; he is perfectly capable of it. I used the words I did, in the context of the Liberal government's domination of this country from a position of central Canadian strength. That is the issue. We, in the west and the maritimes, must keep on resisting this government, so that we can develop. That development will not take place under the centralist philosophy and domination of a government run by Liberals in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Roche: I urge the minister to refute the charges made by Mr. Getty and myself. He has tried to make it appear as if we are opposed to the interests of central Canada. I am not opposed to the interests of central Canada, but I am opposed to our entire country being dominated by a philosophy which protects central Canada at the expense of the development of jobs and resources in western Canada as well as in the maritimes. That is the issue.
I went to the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, as did many of my colleagues, and I could quote chapter and verse what happened, but I will not take up the time of the committee. Oh, yes, the Liberals went in with a list of proposals which looked as if they were committed to the well-being of western Canada. Yet 18 months later we know what happened. The result of the conference is zero, less than zero if you consider the lifting of the rail freight freeze.
In his response the minister did not deal with the central problem, which is how we are to ensure supplies for central Canada through strengthening our resource base in the west. We want to develop those resources for the good of all Canada. That development and exploration will not take place unless our people have confidence in the government, unless the government is credible, and unless it is prepared to negotiate. My chief witness is Mr. Getty, a man of great repute in this country. He has given up on private negotiations and made a public attack. That is what the minister must respond to now.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, as this debate is to continue on Monday, tomorrow is to be devoted to the consideration of a ways and means motion connected with the budget, and as the minister wishes to propose several technical amendments which must be explained, could the minister not present those amendments now, so that members can study them over the week-end? That way we could express ourselves more cogently. Is the minister willing to accept this suggestion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, over a week ago I provided hon. members with amendments; there are to be a number of additional amendments. I will be glad to go into them on a clause by clause basis.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is filibustering his own bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at all. I want to help.
December 5, 1974


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak on the point of order, I find it amazing to note that although the minister presented to the committee some 32 pages of amendments, he now says there are to be more amendments. Quite probably he will present even more on Monday.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to do what is obviously in our best interests. We have become involved in a strong political argument, and that is good, but we have work to do. We should be aware of the contents of the amendments. I suggest, after the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has spoken-I understand he is next-that the minister might stand up and explain some of the amendments he will propose. That will help us in discussing the very serious points at issue here.


B. Keith Penner: The Chair will not raise objections to the hon. member's suggestion. We are discussing clause 2. With the unanimous consent of the committee the minister can be allowed to refer to other clauses and to amendments. Is that the unanimous wish of the committee?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have a correction, Mr. Chairman. All I want to do is use the same precedent I used earlier. The minister can take some of these amendments and explain them, but he cannot move them during this discussion on clause 2. If he wants to explain some of these amendments which are of a technical nature, we can still stay on this clause. He can then table them so we have them on the record and can study them over the weekend.


B. Keith Penner: I appreciate the point the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is making, because we did that in the case of certain amendments that he brought to the attention of the committee. That, of course, was done with agreement. The only point the Chair is making is that this can only be done if the committee so agrees.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. I find that highly irregular from the point of view that the minister would be the only one speaking to the amendments today. This is why I say we need the opportunity to have an exchange. I think it would be better to follow the normal practice.


B. Keith Penner: Consent has not been given.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He might take note of them as I go along, and answer when I have finished.
As I mentioned last night, we cannot look at this bill in isolation. We must look at it in the context of the National Energy Board report and the problem of supply and demand. I wish to sound out the minister on his views of partially meeting our supply problem by means of a method of conservation. The minister talked about the federal government introducing an energy conservation
Oil and Petroleum
program. I would like him to elaborate on that, and answer some of the questions I will be putting to him.
In its most recent report the National Energy Board predicts an annual demand growth rate for oil at 3.2 per cent over the next 20 years. I find that rather low considering the historical growth rate in the demand for oil. Perhaps the minister can elaborate on how they arrived at that figure.
It is predicted there will be a shortage by 1982 and we will have to become a net importer. This not only means a problem of supply. Studies indicate that the world supply situation will be very tight in the early 1980's. The cost of foreign oil will probably be higher. In light of our tight supply situation in the next few years, it seems advisable for the government to begin now to institute a strong oil conservation program.
The energy demand growth rate for all forms of energy during the fifties was 4 per cent per year. In the sixties it was up to 5.5 per cent per year. The trend is to increased demand, rather than a levelling off as predicted by the National Energy Board over the next 20 years.
Have the minister and the government developed a conservation program embodying some of the following points? If we are to reduce consumption of fuel in Canada because of our tight supply situation, there should be a revision of the building codes to demand more insulation in our homes and office buildings. Has the minister discussed revising the national building code with his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or any other institutions involved, with a view to upgrading insulation standards for buildings across Canada in order to conserve fuel?
Second, has the government considered more mass transit systems in Canada, with a view to getting people away from using automobiles for their transportation to work and getting them to use train and bus systems? I know the budget imposed a tax on high energy consuming cars. However, most of those cars are not used by the average Canadian. They are a minority. Therefore, it will not affect automobile fuel consumption very much.
The Minister of Transport is very anxious to go ahead with his short take-off and landing program, STOL, emphasizing airplanes over rapid trains and buses. We know that in terms of passenger miles planes require 10 times as much fuel as buses, and six times as much fuel as trains. In light of the energy supply situation, has the minister urged the Minister of Transport to press ahead with mass ground transportation plans rather than STOL aircraft and similar programs?
Third, has the federal government taken any initiatives in urging provincial governments to reduce highway speed limits to 50 miles an hour? I believe only British Columbia has done this. I point out to the minister that by driving a car at 50 miles an hour rather than 70 miles an hour, there is a saving of 15 to 25 per cent in gas consumption.
Fourth, has the minister considered and will he urge the Canadian public to turn down their thermostats in homes and office buildings? By the way, do government offices still have their thermostats set at 68 degrees as was the
28543-57%

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
case last winter, or have they gone back to more normal temperatures?
Does the government intend to ask Canadians to turn down their thermostats in order to conserve fuel? I believe the average thermostat is set at 72 degrees. If it were turned down four degrees to 68, each year we would save the equivalent of 900 million gallons of fuel oil, about 10 per cent of the energy used for heating.
Fifth, is the government considering higher prices as a means of enhancing conservation of energy? I hope not. I do not look upon fuel as a luxury. I do not believe that if we raise the price, people will immediately cut back consumption. I draw to the minister's attention that farmers are the largest fuel consumers in this country. They cannot cut back on fuel consumption. They must still drive their tractors and combines. If the farmers' fuel prices increase, food prices will rise dramatically.
One study indicates that if we doubled the price of gasoline, initially the demand would go down 20 per cent, but would be back to normal in six months. If we doubled the price of home heating oil, initially the demand will go down 10 per cent, but in six months it will be back to normal. Is the government considering higher prices as a conservation method? I do not think it would work.
Also, has the government carried out any studies to ascertain the effect of last year's price increases on general fuel consumption? The minister has talked about introducing a conservation program. Has he considered the five points I mentioned? When may we expect a conservation program to be announced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member has asked me about the report of the Energy Board. I do not have a copy with me this evening to refresh my memory as to the bases upon which the board arrived at its predictions of demand figures. The question might be pursued with the officials of the board. We have under consideration a program of conservation, both in terms of the government's own use of energy and in terms of persuading the community as a whole to be more economical. In due course we shall be making this available. The questions the hon. member has posed are the obvious questions one would consider when devising such a program. I shall be in a position later to go into detail as to what measures have been adopted, and why; I am not in a position to go into these details this evening.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Can the minister tell us when this program will be announced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I doubt that it will be announced before Christmas. It is more likely to be announced in the New Year.


Reginald Cyril Symes: We shall await the program with interest. Now I have another question to ask on a different topic, that is, the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. Would the minister advise the committee as to the current stage of the negotiations with Interprovincial Pipeline? Who will build the line, and who will own it? If the private company will not build it, will the government do so, and under what
[Mr. Symes.J
terms? Also, will the pipeline be reversible in the light of possible supply problems in the years ahead?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The intention would be to put in the capacity to make the line reversible, although the machinery would not necessarily be put in place in the early years. Negotiations are under way at the moment with regard to the construction of the pipeline. I do not anticipate that an announcement will be made this week, but I do expect that perhaps next week I will be able to make a more definite statement.


Mr. Balfour:: Mr. Chairman, I believe it is of fundamental importance in the context of this discussion that we recognize that the critical energy problem confronting Canadians today is not the one-price policy. That is common ground between us. It is not the mechanics of payment of the price shelter or the levying of the export tax. Those were accepted in principle months ago, and the enabling legislation could be passed by this House in an afternoon.
The critical problem, the one which the government stubbornly refuses to acknowledge and come to grips with, is that of security of supply of petroleum and natural gas for Canadians, not for the year ahead but rather for the last half of this decade and the first half of the next.
I ask the minister, point blank: can he assure us that Canada's marketable oil and gas reserves will bridge the gap before new and expensive frontier resources can be brought to market? The answer to this question will determine our ability to fuel our industry, heat our homes, power our transport and co-operate internationally before presently available supplies run out.
I suggest to the minister that there is a distinct and present danger that our domestic petroleum supply situation could become desperate before 1980. Evidence continues to mount that future productive capacity in the presently accessible producing areas is falling short and, furthermore, that our hopes and expectations with respect to tar sands production might be met with disappointment. This morning we learned that one of the participants in the Syncrude project has withdrawn, and that the remaining partners feel obliged to re-examine their position.
The evidence with respect to the availability of adequate natural gas supplies from the existing producing areas is even more clear and it is expected that these will fall far short of national requirements before the end of the decade.
Specific policy decisions and new initiatives at the national level are clearly called for, and the host of present policy uncertainties relating to the oil and gas industry must be resolved so that the monumental task of assuring adequate energy supplies for the future can proceed. The resolution of these problems and the formulation of the policies required call for the highest degree of co-operative action and consensus between both the provincial and federal levels of government and between both levels of government and the industry itself.
The situation cries out for the re-establishment of an atmosphere of trust and confidence, an atmosphere now sadly lacking as evidenced by the hard-line belligerent
December 5, 1974

statements originating from government leaders in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and from right here in Ottawa. I suggest the time has passed when recriminatory statements, regardless of their source-and I do not suggest that the minister is solely responsible in that regard-serve any useful purpose. Such statements make no contribution to resolving our problems.
I further suggest that the legislation we are considering here, encompassing as it does a massive assault on what have hitherto been considered exclusive provincial prerogatives, will inevitably lead, if allowed to pass in its present form, to further bitterness, confrontation, and to the disastrous supply crisis referred to earlier.
Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of the minister, his colleagues in cabinet and his officials, to develop by the process of negotiation a consensus with the provinces, a consensus that will lead to a restoration of that atmosphere of confidence and entrepreneurial spirit which, during the years following the Leduc discovery, resulted in creating in Canada the potential capacity to become self-sufficient for decades to come in oil and gas supply.
I listened yesterday with amazement as hon. members from the Province of Quebec derided the comments made by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain concerning the attitude of provinces other than Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the constitutional confrontation that the federal government seems hell-bent on creating. I say I listened with amazement, Mr. Chairman, because on November 12 last I listened to a speech delivered by Mr. Guy Saint-Pierre, the Minister of Industry and Commerce in the Liberal government of the Province of Quebec, and I would like to quote for the benefit of those hon. members opposite some of the things that Mr. Saint-Pierre had to say on this very question we are discussing today. He said, and I quote:
In 1974-at these crossroads at which the Canadian state finds itself-Quebec supports the claims of Alberta. After all, we consider it as a fundamental principle of confederation that a province has the exclusive and ultimate right to dispose of its natural resources as it sees fit and to take the necessary steps to organize its industrial development unhindered by external pressure. If we do not live up to such a principle, it does not appear to us in Quebec that confederation can be maintained for very long.
He went on:
Having said that, it will not shock you to hear that the centralizing tendencies of Ottawa in the area of the distribution of these resources and the revenue sharing which flows from it, do not appeal to the Quebec government. In fact, we abhor them.
Having watched closely the attitudes and policies of the Ottawa government, we have concluded in Quebec that for some reason or other the federal government wants to circumscribe provincial initiatives insofar as the distribution of energy resources and the use of the revenues derived therefrom are concerned.
Later in his speech, Mr. Saint-Pierre went on to say:
We sometimes have also wondered in private whether the federal government has not accepted the objective of limiting provincial involvement in resource development in order to give to itself the time to establish a strategy of partial nationalization of the resources.
We said it privately, as I pointed out. But I wonder if our doubts have not been confirmed. Quebec wanted to become a shareholder in Panarctic Oil. The federal government has decided that we have not the right to do that on the grounds that there could emerge a serious conflict of interest.
Oil and Petroleum
Having said all this and after having consulted widely and wisely, the Quebec government accepts the position of the governments of Alberta and British Columbia.
Mr. Saint-Pierre went on to say:
Federalism must be more flexible. Mr. Trudeau endorsed the need for this flexibility at the opening of the energy conference in 1973. However, recently he seems to have acted as if he had come to reject this principle which demands interprovincial consultation and federal-provincial agreements freely entered into.
I say to hon. members opposite that Mr. Saint-Pierre's excellent speech deserves careful study if we truly want to understand the attitudes and aspirations not only of the people in the producing provinces in western Canada, but of the people in all of Canada.
I suggest to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, that he is in real danger of making a serious and tragic miscalculation concerning the mood of the people of Canada in respect to their historical provincial prerogatives and attitudes to confederation. I suggest that the minister reconsider his present determination to usurp to the federal power the unilateral price fixing mechanism embodied in the legislation before us.
I have listened carefully to what hon. members opposite have had to say about this legislation and about energy policy generally, and there have been many interesting views and opinions put forth. But instead of opinions I invite members opposite, and the minister, to reflect on a few facts. Nine hundred million dollars have been carved out of oil exploration budgets for 1975. In a report published today, Statistics Canada predicts that a reduction in exploration expenditures of $800 million will result in the loss of 54,800 jobs for one year, and a sales decline of $973 millions in other industries through spin off effects.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his colleagues in government must shoulder their share of the responsibility for these results, results which, I suggest, it is not exaggeration to describe as catastrophic. We have finally arrived at a point where the industry's calculations regarding future supplies and proven reserves of oil and gas approximately match those of the government's own National Energy Board. Instead of responding in a positive fashion with policies of encouragement and incentive, designed to ensure that the industry will be able to provide for the future, the government has'created a situation so intolerable that industry is taking flight.
I feel genuine concern-and I hope my remarks reflect that Concern-for the Canadian consumer who will be most affected by a prolonged federal-provincial conflict over the resource industry. Negotiation, conciliation, consultation and co-operation between the two levels of government has always been a policy of my party and, indeed, of the minister's own party. Damage to the intricate workings of the delicate balance of our confederation that has taken decades to achieve would be tragic and possibly irreparable if the government continues on its present course. It is not just the interest of the producing provinces that is at stake; rather, clauses 36 and 52 of this bill endanger the rights of any province that prizes its provincial prerogatives.
That he retreat-and I do not use that word in a derogatory sense because it would be an honourable withdrawal

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
having regard to the important constitution issues at stake-from his present posture of "my way or no way," reopen the doors of negotiation with the provincial governments concerned and seek a solution by consensus and consultation rather than confrontation, is a policy that I urge most sincerely upon the minister.
The bill before us in its present form should be withdrawn. Our party stands ready to co-operate in the fullest sense to provide the minister with whatever legislative authority he requires to maintain the petroleum price and shelter system he has developed, and to levy the export tax necessary to implement it.


Mr. Firth:: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Douglas (Bruce):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, in speaking about STOL aircraft, would not like to mislead the House. I think he mentioned that STOL aircraft required six to eight times as much fuel as trains or buses. I should like to put a couple of things straight on the record.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. The hon. member for Bruce is not rising on a point of order but entering into the debate. He will be recognized in due course if he wishes to participate in the discussion.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are very few members of the committee who know what it is like to have to pay $2.25 a gallon for fuel to run their motorized toboggans. Likewise, very few members of the committee know what it is like to have to pay $1 a gallon for fuel in the Arctic, especially when you have to use 25 to 30 gallons a day at times when the temperature reaches 50 below. A lot of fuel is flown in to many parts because it is a necessity of life, especially in the high Arctic. Neither do I think there are many members here who know what it is like to have to pump their own fuel and have gasoline burn their hands while pumping gas into an aircraft that is going on a very important mission, and pay $2.25 a gallon for 80-87 or 110-30. I do not think those terms register with many members here, but they are common in my constituency.
The average price of fuel in the high Arctic is in the area of $1 a gallon and up, and that is a very sad situation. I am happy to see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in the chamber tonight because I am sure he is aware of a certain program in operation in Old Crow in the Yukon. This is a program that makes use of alternative fuel supply, since it is impossible to fly fuel into Old Crow to run the nursing station and school at all times of the year.
This program, which has worked very well, utilizes wood as fuel to run the school, and this in itself creates an industry in a little village like Old Crow. The people there go out and fell trees, and use their own labour and resources in providing fuel to run the school. This is a very good program that I think should be considered for some of the smaller villages in the Arctic, especially along the tree line.
I think this point should also receive serious consideration. We have airlines like Pacific Western that charge a

higher rate per passenger mile and a higher charge for freight in and out of the Arctic compared with elsewhere. Their aircraft refuel at the wellhead at Norman Wells. The company uses 737's and other kinds of sophisticated aircraft, but charges a much higher rate than Air Canada or other common carriers in the Northwest Territories compared with other rates across Canada.
Why do we allow companies like Imperial Oil to rip off the public by refueling Pacific Western Air Lines' aircraft and charging a higher rate than is charged similar equipment elsewhere in Canada? This does not make sense to me, and I do not think it would make sense to anybody else. North of Norman Wells bulk barges are used on the river to transport fuel further north. Sometimes we pay higher rates north of Norman Wells than south of Norman Wells, even though it is the same company doing the transporting. I suggest these questions should receive serious consideration.
Aside from that, I should also like to make this point. How many people, in this House or in the southern part of Canada generally, know what it is like to have to pay from $2.25 to $3 per gallon for fuel for their motorized vehicles which they require to make their living? These people in the north have to pay that amount and there is no tax rebate, whereas farmers in the southern part of Canada do get a tax rebate on the cost of the fuel they use to produce food.
The Innuit or the Indian has to pay upwards of $2.25 per gallon to run his motorized equipment in order to go out and fish, or hunt cariboo to feed his family, and he gets no rebate whatsoever. He is not even considered to be a farmer, yet he is working his land by fishing and hunting for cariboo or moose just as the farmer down here works his land, yet the farmer here receives a tax rebate and does not have to pay as much for low-grade fuel.
This is something hon. members of this House should consider. There are only about 40,000 people in the whole Northwest Territories. They are not all hunters and trappers, but these people must pay these high prices for fuel to harvest their crops in that area, and I think they should be considered for some kind of tax rebate.	*


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in a debate on a bill which has, I think, a great importance. To start my remarks, I would like to read its title once
more:
An Act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade
I imagine that the minister responsible should aim at ensuring the necessary supply of those products at the best possible price for all Canadians. It is not the basic objectives of the government that concern us but the means it intends to use to reach them. As many other members, I believe there are acceptable means that, in the name of federalism of which we talk so often, could give much sounder results than the means proposed in this bill. It is also clear in this bill, Mr. Chairman, that there is no agreement with the provinces. If there is no agreement between the provinces, the federal government will have
December 5, 1974

the right to decide that its authority to set prices for oil and petrochemical products will become permanent. And if we extrapolate a little and take into account the objectives of the National Energy Board, I think that this bill does not apply only to two provinces but to the ten provinces that make up Canada.
We feel also this centralization spirit which is unfortunately unacceptable if we respect the right of the provinces. I do not say that the government has no responsibility concerning the oil supply in Canada or a better service for Canadians.
The government has responsibilities, but it must assume them in consultation with the provinces. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the comments of several ministers and members of the opposition. The whole campaign promoting extraordinary powers is conducted in the name of national unity and interest. Whether we are to realize national interest or unity, I could not care less. I think we should rather realize national harmony. We are aware of the marked differences that characterize each of our provinces. We have a typical example of this with Alberta and Saskatchewan. There have been hundreds of examples in Quebec for 104 years. Every time a major problem rises, it is in the name of national unity or interest. That is not true, Mr. Chairman, we are wasting our time. To my mind, the time has come to recognize that our major national problems are caused by the different needs of each part of Canada. We have tangible proof that it is national harmony we will have to seek by recognizing the differences between the provinces, and attempting to harmonize them in such a way as to better serve the voters in each region.
We have the proof that it is unthinkable to introduce a bill of national scope which corresponds to the needs of each province. So, it is also impossible to achieve national unity if that objective is to be reached. And it is also impossible to reach that objective, to the extent where the provinces will not feel at home within a federal regime. And once again, with regard to this bill, and many other acts to be introduced which we have already seen, the provinces will not feel at home. The fiasco is already recognized, when the provinces cannot feel at ease within Confederation. The federal government therefore has a responsibility-that of motivating the provinces towards an acceptable consensus, that of co-ordinating the actions of some of the provinces through a form of management acceptable to them, for the greater good of our country; but not by giving the federal government powers which, in the final analysis, belong to the provinces and are recognized as such.
Some provinces already have reacted to the legislation before us. And I think sufficient comments have been expressed in newspapers. Dealing with the province of Quebec particularly, they have already mentioned the position of the minister, Mr. Saint-Pierre, who bluntly urges the provinces to unite against those extraordinary powers.
I think this is clear enough and I believe Mr. Saint-
Pierre implicitly expects to get the support of the members from the province of Quebec in this House.
Oil and Petroleum
Of course, the premier of Quebec has not yet made any statement, but he will do so as usual when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) gives him the opportunity to express his views on that matter. But Mr. Saint-Pierre has a very defihite opinion, and his remarks are fairly justified indeed.
Moreover, Mr. Saint-Pierre made a very clear point when asking every province to unite and prevent the federal government from assuming such extraordinary powers.
Quebec, has some hon. members pointed out, has a historical background has a defender of rights. It has always somehow complained, and often with just reason, about the federal government encroaching on some powers. And we could recall the days of the hon. Maurice Duplessis and his successor Mr. Lesage who put up some rather extraordinary fights in the matter of taxes. We also heard Mr. Johnson's representations. We are concerned by Mr. Bourassa's silence. Private members from Quebec might hopefully rouse him and invite him to voice his opinion has other premiers outside Quebec already have in that matter. Today, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with oil, but next will come mines and electricity. And I am worried about the Quebec premier's silence. That is why I am raising that point. I hope to challenge him into answering at least his minister of industry's invitation and joining other provincial premiers to force the government in Ottawa to act as coordinators and not has centralizers.
I therefore dare hope the hon. members in this House whom the people of Quebec have greatly trusted will also depart from their silence and support the invitation by Mr. Saint-Pierre.
It is not the first time indeed that Quebec ministers invite Quebec members to give a yes answer. Mr. Cho-quette did so not long ago, Mr. L'Allier very often, and so did Quebec Immigration Minister Bienvenue. It has been done for quite some time.
It is my definite impression, Mr. Chairman, from what I hear, that ministers representing the Quebec government find absolutely no support here, although we have 60 Quebecers. If separatists only will defend the province's sacred rights and oppose the centralizing of such powers, I wonder if Quebec members from the other side could say today they are meeting Quebec's needs.
Let us give examples. By their silence on this bill and on others, as well as by their failure to act on Quebec ministers' requests, they show they have non inkling that they are being taken. So did Mr. Bourassa feel in Paris. I wonder if he was being short-changed, because it appears the deep sea water port will not be forthcoming for Gros-Cacouna, judging from the silence kept by our members and Quebec's premier. There is a direct link there with the energy issue. Not a word is being said on the matter. I would however, Mr. Chairman, recognize the efforts made by the member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron), who made representations; but nothing was heard of other members on the subject.
The member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata did not get the support needed. And the ministers responsible for the project are unfortunately too silent too. The proof that this government is getting powers that will be not only

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
embarrassing, but harmful to the provinces, can be found in the statement made two days ago in Paris by the Quebec premier, when he dealt with enriched uranium.
And, right away, the minister responsible in Ottawa immediately said: In any case, they cannot pass that agreement with France until I give my approval. We know that the premier of Quebec had the courage, while very far away from Quebec, to accuse the federal government of playing the role of a customs officer with respect to that project. I hope he will repeat that in Quebec, for example. I also hope that our members when they sit here will urge him to do so.
So, the stakes, the objective, is respect for the provinces. I think the government must set the prices and distribution with them in the interest of every citizen. And that is possible. Through many additional meetings with the provinces we will be able to make the distribution to the extent that some provinces will be able to do so. The redistribution of our wealth with the other provinces, to the extent that it is acceptable, must be done. It is not because the federal government would have all the powers that it would be the only one capable of making that redistribution. Why, if we were able to have an agreement a year and a half ago on that oil issue with the co-operation and the participation of the provinces, would it be impossible in the future to have prior negotiations within the spirit of the constitution. Indeed, the powers of the provinces must be respected. I am happy to see, Mr. Chairman, that this time the province of Quebec is not necessarily directly involved. But, indirectly, in a general way and in the long term, all provinces will be embarrassed if this bill should ever be passed. Indeed, there are signs and statements from our ministers in Quebec that are disturbing. I read recently a speech by the Quebec Minister of Communications who was concerned-


An hon. Member:: Another separatist.


Mr.   La Salle@: Another separatist. Because one is not a Liberal in Quebec, Mr. Chairman, it seems one is necessarily a separatist. That opinion is not worth much.
The Minister of Telecommunications, who has a lot of problems with his counterpart in Ottawa, recently showed his discouragement about federalism and its future in a speech before the Chamber of Commerce. I believe this is a warning that our members from Quebec in Ottawa should seriously consider when they hear people like Mr. St-Pierre, Mr. L'Allier, Mr. Choquette and so many others. And the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is aware of this from his recent discussions with Mr. Choquette. He always receives negative answers and Mr. L'Allier goes on by saying that he is concerned and sad that this support is not sufficient.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we must force the government to respect the rights of the provinces. For my part, I refuse to support such a bill which puts the provinces in a straight jacket. And it is not the first time that this government is tempted to do so. I therefore say right away to the provinces: Wake up and unite or else you will soon be considered unimportant entities by the federal government. Those are, Madam Chairman, the few comments that I wanted to make about this bill which is vitally important for the future of our country. I believe that all

those who respect the rights of the provinces wish that this national harmony be realized fundamentally in each of us.
It is not with coercive measures like the one under consideration that we will reach this goal. I recognize the good intentions of the minister, but I do not accept the means he suggests. I regret that I do not have more support from my colleagues from Quebec since this bill is essentially against the federalism principle. People will regret the silence of these members and I invite all of them to prove to the government that there is a way to help Canadian citizens. But we must take other means than those suggested.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr. Bechard:: Madam Chairman, I am not answering the invitation of the hon. member for Joliette, but I would just like to know if he would answer a couple of questions.


B. Keith Penner: Would the hon. member for Joliette accept a question?


Mr.   La Salle@: Yes, Madam Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Madam Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette said earlier in his remarks that he did not care about Canadian unity. I should like to ask him how the bill before us tonight deny any right over the provinces' natural resources, as he said so well in his speech? I put the question to the hon. member for Joliette.


Mr.   La Salle@: Madam Chairman, I am pleased to answer the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. First of all I said I could not care less for national unity, because it is an aim that has not been reached. I am talking about national harmony. Admittedly the provinces are different.


An hon. Member:: It is quite different.


Mr.   La Salle@: Yes, it is quite different. On one hand, we refer here to national unity, but there has been too much sermonizing about it, Madam Chairman. Then I am asked where the bill provides clearly that in case of disagreement among the provinces, the federal government will go to great lengths not to butt in. I say that we have no right to make any decision about those measures for the provinces.
Thus the provinces are deprived of rights acquired according to the spirit of the bill now under consideration which explicitly states that if there is disagreement, the government will decide. The government should not decide, but call together the provinces and co-operate with them. The provinces have control over their natural resources. It does not rest with the federal government to abolish their rights.


Albert Béchard: Madam Chairman, the member did not answer my question. Would he answer another question. Can he say whether his speech or those he has delivered in the House during the past few weeks are drawn from his daily reading of the separatist newspaper Le Jour ?
December 5, 1974


Mr.   La Salle@: Madam Chairman, I am pleased to say to the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine that I read during the day, because I do not read at night. I also read other dailies to be informed, but I do not read only the Liberal newspaper published each month. I would ask the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine to read clause 36: Where no agreement is entered into pursuant to section 22 with the government of a producer-province ..."
Clause 36 answers adequately the question he asked me a while ago.


Albert Béchard: Would the hon. member allow me another question?


B. Keith Penner: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allowed to the member for Joliette has now expired.


Mr. Reynolds:: Madam Chairman, the comments by the hon. member opposite directed to my friend from Joliette point out that the hon. member for Joliette does read every paper, separatist or anything else. At least he knows what is happening in Canada today. He has a better idea than the hon. member opposite or the latter would not have asked the first question. Quite possibly, since we are not getting much reaction from the other side, he may have been asleep during the debate.
First of all let me point out that in light of the fact that on Monday there is to be a very important meeting of federal-provincial ministers of finance to consider budget implications, particularly implications surrounding the deductibility of provincial royalties for tax purposes, the timing of the presentation of this bill is most inept. To even consider this bill by itself, apart from the federal budget, is virtually impossible as they are completely interdependent. Also, since this bill was before the committee on November 13, the National Energy Board has indicated the very unhealthy state of our oil and gas industry, and has pointed out that in a relatively short time our country will not be able to meet its own oil needs.
The confusion and confrontation between the provinces and the federal government have placed unnecessary strains on exploration and development of yet unfound oil sources. Last night, for example, the CBC carried a report indicating that exploration plans of roughly $2.1 billion have been reduced by some $900 million. Can anyone in this House deny the implications of a loss of $900 million to the future of Canadian oil exploration? Quite obviously no company or corporation wishes to become involved in what can best be described as a declaration of war between the provinces and the federal government. We find that the budget on November 18 has reiterated the stand of the May 6 budget in making provincial tax and royalties non-deductible.
Bill C-32 is not simply ratification of the March 27 agreement between the provinces and the federal government, but an attack on provincial rights of ownership. The government has made its stand through this bill crystal clear. That stand is that the federal government is determined to intervene in the provincial governments' rights to land, forest, mining and oil. Let us not be so naive as to think that only one, two or three provinces are involved.
Oil and Petroleum
The entire country is involved, each province is involved and every Canadian is involved.
It is clear, also, that it is not only the petroleum industry that is involved, but the same format holds for the mining industry. In my own province of British Columbia this continuing confrontation and the lack of serious negotiations have seriously upset the entire natural resource exploration and development industry.
This royalty situation is indeed a most critical one, and resource industries throughout my province are finding themselves forced into a system of double taxation, economic chaos and certain closure.


An hon. Member:: Let the Liberals in. Get rid of
Barrett.


John Douglas Reynolds: I could not agree with the hon. member that at this time we should get rid of the premier of my province. Although I disagree with his philosophy, he has a tough job when dealing with this federal government.
The very fact that the provinces and the federal government are increasing taxation of the resource industry has very simple and straightforward consequences. When thousands upon thousands of jobs are involved, and millions of dollars invested in exploration, how long will it be before these companies simply cease to produce, or until the provincial governments are forced to adjust or cancel their royalties which, of course, form one of their most important tax bases?
It is quite obvious to most people in western Canada that if we do not get these royalty payments we will not be able to build up a secondary industry base like that which is so strong in eastern Canada. If the federal government insists on going along with this measure, where is western Canada going to be ten years from now when its natural resource is depleted?
We have heard much rhetoric about the voluntary agreements reached with the federal government and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan regarding subsidization of oil products to the benefit of all Canadians in the amount of roughly two and a half or three billion dollars a year.
All parties praised the efforts of those involved in considering their fellow Canadians. But what happened to that faith in bargaining? Again, very simply, the Liberal government destroyed the agreement, broke faith with those provinces and, through its proposed budget of May 6 and its new budget of November 18, declared an invasion into traditional provincial rights.
There was never an attempt by the Liberal government to sit down as an equal with the provincial governments and negotiate responsibility and fair terms and conditions.
If the members of this House do not feel that the unilateral action of the federal government in the petroleum area is not a power play aimed directly at our constitution, then they are sadly mistaken. If they do not feel that this is only one more giant step in an attempt again to increase centralized control of this country, then they are greatly mistaken. If they do not feel that this attitude of confrontation rather than negotiation will seriously jeopardize the true meaning of federalism, then they are seriously mistaken.
1998

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
Based on this bill and government's intention to have even greater control of our petroleum industry, the Canadian consumer can soon expect the same result that has been occasioned in other areas where government has taken control.
We have seen the disastrous effects of government sponsored marketing boards and, in spite of government's attempts otherwise, we are looking at the highest prices for eggs in our history.
The federal government got into the food industry and appointed Beryl Plumptre to the Food Prices Review Board. What a waste that was.
If the people in this country are prepared to pay a dollar to a dollar and a half for a gallon of gasoline, or if they are prepared to anticipate major shortages during our energy crisis, then by all means let us continue with the confrontation, let us continue to detract exploration capital from Canada, and let us continue to press for even greater federal control of our economy.
If, however, we are to have a truly viable resource industry, which will provide not only for our own immediate needs as well as our long term needs, but assist in supplying some of the needs of our American neighbours, then stability and encouragement must be returned to this industry. The very future of our own industrial expansion is at stake.
I should like to read into the record an extract from a press release I issued during the last election campaign. It concerns something about which I felt very strongly, as I think did a lot of people in western Canada. The results of the election in that part of the country endorse this. In the second paragraph of this release, dated May 13,1 said:
One of two things is painfully apparent in Finance Minister Turner's proposed taxation changes for the resource industry.
1.	His preparation was based on absolutely no investigation into this area (which one can assume is doubtful) or
2.	He is deliberately encroaching into an area which is primarily a private taxation reserve of the province.
If one disregards the first point, then one must assume that a select group of senior civil servants have taken it upon themselves to invade an area of provincial domain and have convinced their minister that such action would be beneficial to increasing the ever-growing federal power base and pressuring those provinces into reducing their royalties if their resource industries are to remain even slightly economically sound and they are to provide substantial employment opportunities.
Under the new budget proposals, by not allowing the deduction of provincial royalties before computing federal tax, confusion in the resource field to companies both large and small will result, and the resource industries will find themselves forced into a system of double taxation, economic chaos and eventual closure.
Consider, for example, Company X, which should net $18 million in 1974, pay a basic royalty of 2.5 per cent on their gross, amounting to $1,025 million and pay a subsequent super royalty of $6,805 million and 50 per cent federal and provincial tax of $9 million profit. Total taxes and royalties then would amount to $16.83 million, leaving a profit of $1.17 million on an original investment of $63 million. The effective rate of return would be 1.85 per cent.
Consider Company Y, which should net $38 million in 1974. Their basic royalty on 2.5 per cent of the gross would be $2.3 million, the super royalty would amount to $21,025

million, and federal and provincial tax on profit would be $19 million. The total tax and royalty would be $42.35 million, or $4.35 million more than they net. Therefore, on an original investment of $138 million they would be operating at a $4.35 million loss.
I point out that companies X and Y actually exist and operate in Canada.
Now consider the oil industry in Saskatchewan. Oil is sold for $3.08 a barrel by the company concerned. There is an additional $3.42 royalty to the province concerned, to bring the total to the agreed price of $6.50 per barrel. The cost to the company to produce this barrel is roughly $2.50, representing a profit of 58 cents per barrel. Add to this the royalty of $3.42, which under the new budget will not be deductible, and you arrive at a figure of $4. At a 50 per cent tax rate the federal government will collect $2 for every barrel produced from a company which is only making 58 cents per barrel. The net loss to the company, therefore, will be $1.42 per barrel. Surely this must pose some very serious questions to the provincial premiers and to the people of this country.
With thousands upon thousands of jobs involved and millions upon millions of dollars being invested in our exploration provinces, how long will it be, under the proposed budget, before these companies simply cease to produce, or until the provincial governments are forced to adjust or cancel the royalties which are one of their main tax bases?
Let me close by saying that members of this House representing provinces of western Canada think of Canada as a unified country. They always have Madam Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: For years western Canada has paid more than its share in making sure that the provinces of central and eastern Canada can get oil. Year after year we have helped in this way. We did not object last year when the government introduced a bill to ensure that all Canada could get oil at a preferred price. But we do object to the fact that the people in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba must pay more for automobiles and manufactured goods than the people of central or eastern Canada. And, by introducing this bill, the government is saying it will not allow the western provinces to make the money which is necessary to make the west strong and to allow it to establish secondary industry. Such industry is necessary if we are to survive, if we are to remain a strong force in Canada in years to come.


Mr. Nystrom:: Let me begin by saying that, as a western Canadian, I want to see this country stay united. Maintaining national unity is important, as we all agree. If it were not for certain portions of the budget I suggest that much of Bill C-32 would not be controversial.


An hon. Member:: Who are you kidding?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suggest that we shall find in Bill C-32 many principles which all parties can accept, as two or three Conservative members suggested earlier this afternoon. I think we all support the idea of a single, domestic price for oil across Canada, transportation and handling
December 5, 1974

costs being considered apart from the price. I think all members of the House accept the idea of the subsidy to cushion the price of oil in our five eastern provinces. I also think many hon. members believe that the export tax was justified, as it helped the country during the past winter. We do not quarrel with these ideas.
I think what concerns hon. members is that the federal government through this bill is proposing unilaterally, without consulting the western provinces, to go behind the agreement of March 27 and 28 last. The government began this process in the budget of May 6 last, in which it said that royalties paid to provincial governments for oil and gas could not be deducted from income. That was done without consulting the provincial governments concerned, even though an agreement had been entered into last March.
It goes without saying that we were able to surmount the difficulties of last January, February and March because of the consensus which had been arrived at, which was possible because of the compromise arrived at by the western premiers and the Prime Minister. Great credit is due to Premiers Lougheed and Blakeney for agreeing, on their part, to hold down the price of oil to $6.50 per barrel. Yet under this bill the federal government, without consultation, has decided to force its way into the provincial field and take a greater share of provincial revenues. It has done this by telling the provinces that royalties paid on oil and gas will no longer be deductible from income.
Then, the Minister of Justice said that if provincial governments try to out-manoeuvre the government by nationalizing industries in the provinces or turning them into Crown corporations, the federal government will consider taxing such Crown corporations. Such threats, following a voluntary agreement, make it very difficult for hon. members to grant speedy passage to this bill.
As the Ministers of Finance are to meet on Tuesday-I think the Mines Ministers met today in Ottawa-and as it is not reasonable to expect speedy passage of this bill, would it not be sensible to let them discuss this measure before we finally deal with this bill? If they do this, ' perhaps some questions that are of concern to hon. members can be clarified, and perhaps this bill could pass. Certainly as things now stand many questions remain to be answered.
The ways and means motions to be considered in connection with the budget have raised many questions in the minds of provincial ministers. How can one consider Bill C-32 without considering what is in the budget, and without referring to negotiations and statements made by the federal government about what is to happen to oil in this country and to oil coming in from outside?
I suggest that the federal government must be given the right, after consultation, to set the domestic price of oil. Ultimately the federal government will be given that right. I wonder whether the government is prepared to consult the provinces on this question. I am referring not only to Saskatchewan and Alberta, but also to Ontario, Quebec and other provinces. Is it ready to negotiate with them and arrive at a position on the basis of consensus and compromise? These are things which I, as a western Canadian representing a constituency in Saskatchewan,
Oil and Petroleum
am very concerned about at this stage when we must contend with many difficulties in the field of oil.
There are problems regarding the movement of drilling rigs out of this country. We face problems in terms of long-term supplies of oil. So long as the federal government chooses to act unilaterally it will be difficult for the industry, whether owned publicly or privately, to develop satisfactorily. My party, of course, supports public control and ownership of oil and gas; nevertheless, whether the industry is owned privately or publicly, it will not develop satisfactorily unless the federal government can sit down with the provinces and hammer out some kind of agreement. This must be done to let the industry know where it stands, and to let us all know where we stand.
When I look at statements that have been made at the budget and so on, I wonder what the government has up its sleeve. I have here a press clipping from the November 13 issue of the Regina Leader-Post. It quotes the federal minister as saying he had a deal with the oil and gas companies. The article was headlined "Promise broken", and it reported that "Some oil companies broke a promise to the federal government by not pressing the provinces for a reduction in royalties," the Energy Minister was quoted in Ottawa as saying on Thursday. "The oil companies said in meetings before the budget was brought down that if Ottawa reduced its tax burden, they would turn their attention to the provinces. The minister said he regretted that they have not followed through with their promise."
Until I read that article I did not know that a nice cozy little deal had been made between the federal government and the oil companies. If Ottawa were to back down a little-the Minister of Finance says it has-the companies would turn their attention to the provinces. Why was this type of arrangement cooked up?
I have often heard Eric Kierans, a former member of this House, say that multinational oil companies liked to work with this government. They could control this government, but they found the provinces were getting tough and difficult to deal with. I now see a Canadian Press story quoting the minister who said he had cooked up a deal with the oil companies prior to the budget. I wish he would cook up a deal of some sort with the provinces. He should bring the provinces into his confidence and negotiate with them. If those types of things were done, the bill before us today and other energy legislation we are going to deal with in this House could be dealt with in a positive and expeditious manner.
All of us are concerned about unity. We are concerned about the supply of gas and oil. We know we are running into some long-term difficulties. We must sit down with the provinces, lay our cards on the table and be open and frank with each other. If that is done we can look forward to a very positive future for our country in terms of energy in the long term.
These are some of the concerns that I have. They are some of the concerns of my province and, indeed, of all Canadians. I conclude by warning the minister that if we continue in this fashion of unilaterally doing and saying things, all the provinces will be up irf arms. The govern-
28543-58%

December 5, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
ment will have a difficult time in keeping the country together, having it as a meaningful federation where wealth and opportunities can be distributed to help all regions. If the federal government does this sort of thing with only certain industries, it will have the premiers down on its neck. They will naturally be concerned because there will not be balanced growth and balanced development. Unless the government changes direction, we are in for some real trouble in the years to come.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Chairman, I take pleasure in rising to speak on this topic. We are not simply discussing the matter of oil but the right of future Canadians to design their own destiny. Last week I listened to a half hour speech by the Prime Minister which he recycled twice. He discussed what he said was the policy of how best to serve the Canadian people. Over and over in that speech one word kept ringing out. That word was "control". It was not so much the concern of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about what is best for the Canadian people but rather about whom will control the resources of the provinces in the future. Control is the operative word on the government side of the House at this time. This is the concern of the central government.
I believe in a strong central government. If we are going to have an orderly dispatch of business in Canada, we must have a strong central government. What I fear is a pervasive strong central government, a government that is not only strong but moves into areas that up to this time have been the concern of the provinces.
When the government takes it upon itself to move into the area of taxing energy in this country, it is moving into an area rightfully belonging to the provinces. We have to fear this kind of pervasive strong central government which moves into areas not hitherto considered within its purview.
There may be two possible reasons why the government feels justified in doing this at this time. First, it thinks it has the right to do it. If the government feels it has the right to move into the energy resource field at this time, it has already decided it has jurisdiction over offshore resources.
The west coast and the east coast have another resource. That is the fishing industry. Here is a resource which the federal government has already indicated it has the right to control. Does the minister in the future intend to exercise control in that particular industry which is one of our vital natural resources on our east and west coasts? Is the minister prepared to project himself into the future and foresee a time when he wants to control that particular industry? The minister is not listening. He does not want to answer that question, so I will move on.
This pervasiveness of the government is characterized by that very homey, heartwarming, almost heartrending phrase which the Prime Minister and the minister talked about, "benefits for all Canadians." That always sounds so appealing. It has a paternalism about it, a care and a concern. I would like the minister to describe how this works in with co-operative federalism.
Paternalism always carries with it an aura of social concern. It has the ring, but not the heart of social con-

cern. The heart of social concern allows people the dignity to choose for themselves. That is precisely what the government is cutting off with this measure.
How can we talk about social concern for all the prople of Canada when we take away from them the right to decide the destiny of their natural resources? If the government is really concerned about benefits for all Canadians, it will let the government of each province decide what is right for its people.
Let the government of each province distribute the benefits of the natural resource of that province. After all, it is closest to the needs of its people. Provincial governments know the needs of senior citizens and the deprivations of their people. Let them distribute the benefits of their natural resources. The provincial governments are a little closer to the scene. They know a little bit more about the needs of their provinces. In this way the benefits of these natural resources would be distributed to all Canadians.
The problem is that the benefits will not go to all Canadians if this government is handling them. Chances are they will go to ever-expanding Canada Council grants, LIP programs and bureaucracies. That is where the benefits will go. If the benefits actually went to those who need them most, we could see some sense in what the government is proposing at this time. Far be it from me to want to take away this kind of resource from the benefit of all Canadians. If we had that kind of assurance, we would be loathe to thwart the government in that area.
This kind of paternalistic control is wrong because the government is incompetent to handle the situation, if the report of the National Energy Board is to be believed. We recognize that the government is not readjMo handle our natural resources. We recognize that the government is not handling with competence the resources which are already available to us. How can we entrust to it the resources of the future? The government is at fault in even bringing this bill forward. This legislation asks us to disregard the needs of our people by moving into an area which is far better left to the provinces.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: In my efforts to understand the import of this particular bill, I spent a fair amount of time going through it carefully and I have broken it down into its various components. The bill is divided into five parts. The first three clauses are preceded by paragraphs. They are designated first, as Short Title; then Interpretation, as is normal, after which we come to clause 3. I think it would be useful if I were to read clause 3 into the record:
This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province.
Hon. members will see that it is short, but to the point. I was struck by the words of this particular clause. In fact I could not believe that parliament would ever be asked to consider such a provision in this context. Disallowance has gone out of style, but we have now invented something else which is called an override. Clause 3 appears in this bill to override any regulation which a province might bring into force in this area.
December 5, 1974

It so happens there are four other sections of this nature on the statute books of this country. Incidentally, all were passed under Liberal governments. All these sections do not read in exactly the same way, but the import is always the same-overriding rather than disallowing. One of them deals with international river improvements. I think that is acceptable. An international river is a river which flows along a border or which crosses a border and if something is done in Canada to affect such a river, something which affects people on the other side of the border, Canada is responsible under international law. A clause of this kind makes some sense in those circumstances.
Another such clause is to be found in the Fisheries Act as amended in 1970. I refer hon. members to the Statutes of Canada chapter 17. It has to do with deleterious substances and marine plant harvesting, presumably beyond the limits of provincial jurisdiction. Fair enough.
The third example is interesting. It is very topical. It has to do with nuclear liability. We have been hearing lately about a particular premier who has undertaken to negotiate contracts in the international field for the sale of uranium products or for the enrichment of uranium products in Canada for sale abroad. In this particular act there is a section which reads very much like section 3: "Subject to subsection (2) the Crown in right of Canada or the province is bound by this act." I think this particular premier will receive a rude shock when he returns to Canada from his tour abroad to find that section 33 of the Nuclear Liability Act, Chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes, may make it a little difficult for him to export enriched uranium.
The fourth of these sections on the statute books I find difficult to understand

I have still to examine its full implications. But it appears as part of the Explosives Act, chapter 15. It has the same kind of implication.
So there are four sections of this kind already on the statute books. A fifth is before us this evening and we are asked to do something about it. If I am not mistaken my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain will be proposing an amendment in an effort to make this a little more palatable in federal terms because this overriding feature is one which I do not find acceptable, and I am sure the provinces from east to west would agree with me.
May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on Friday, November 29, as recorded at
Adjournment Debate
page 1798 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) a question regarding the recommendation concerning Hong Kong survivors made recently by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I believe it was my third time of asking when we might see the recommended legislation. The minister indicated in his response that the matter was under consideration both by him and by his department. He said that a matter like this takes time, but that if something is decided he would be glad to inform the House.
I am sure that all members of the House who are interested in veterans affairs will agree with me that one of the particularly decent and humane results of the Woods committee study, the report that followed it, and the legislation that came out of that report, was the fact that significant improvements were made in the pensions of Hong Kong veterans. My particular interest in this matter stems from the fact that there were many from my city of Winnipeg in the Winnipeg Grenadiers who were in Hong Kong, and spent years as prisoners as a result of that expedition. Any of us who know these veterans, these survivors of Hong Kong, are aware of the tremendously difficult experience through which they went.
As a result of the Woods committee recommendations legislation was passed which provided that any Hong Kong veteran or any Canadian who was a prisoner of the Japanese in that part of the world is to be regarded as being disabled at least to the extent of 50 per cent. This has the advantage of providing a little better pension for some than would otherwise be the case. It also has the very real advantage of providing that the widow of any Hong Kong veteran is guaranteed a full widow's pension as a matter of right. As I say, Madam Speaker, we regard this amendment to the Pension Act which dealt with Hong Kong veterans as one of the very decent and humane results that came out of the Woods report.
Even so, it is a fact that there are quite a few of these Hong Kong survivors for whom the going is still very tough. I am thinking in particular of those who are on pensions at rates between 50 per cent and 100 per cent. If I may use round figures, there are about 1,165 survivors of the Hong Kong experience. A hundred and seventy-five of these are on pensions of 100 per cent, and approximately 530 are on pensions of 50 per cent; as I say, no Hong Kong veterans are below 50 per cent. But in between these two groups there are roughly 460 whose pensions vary from 55 per cent to 95 per cent.
Many of these Hong Kong veteran survivors are finding it extremely difficult to hold jobs and stay in the labour market. It was on that background that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, at its meeting of Tuesday, October 22, 1974, adopted a first report to the House of Commons, which was presented that afternoon, and which reads as follows:
The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has the honour to present its first report.
While considering its Order of Reference dated Thursday, October 3, 1974 relating to the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975 under Veterans Affairs, your Committee agreed to report the following to the House:
Your Committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of introducing legislation to provide for full pensions to all Hong Kong veterans forced out of the labour market.

December 5, 1974
Adjournment Debate
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (Issue No. 2) is tabled.
The whole case is right there in that report, Madam Speaker. We welcome the fact that there is a 50 per cent floor, but we feel that for those Hong Kong survivors who are out of the labour market, whether because they cannot find employment or because their health does not make it possible for them to work, this suggestion is one this House would like to see implemented. We are really talking about only 460 survivors of that Hong Kong expedition.
I know that no one in this House is more sympathetic toward those survivors or feels more deeply about them than the honourable and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). If he is having trouble with his Cabinet colleagues some of us are ready to back him up. We do hope he will soon be able to bring in the legislation that the standing committee recommended. I would remind him that he was there when that recommendation was made and he seemed to be in complete sympathy with it. I hope he has good news tonight.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: As indicated by my colleague opposite, there was legislation passed to assist the Hong Kong veterans and other Canadians who were prisoners of the Japanese. Anyone who was a prisoner received 50 per cent pension. This was very beneficial at the time of passage and continues to be so. The widows of Hong Kong veterans continue to receive the pension.
If I recall the motion by the committee on veterans affairs, and I have not got it before me, it was that all those who were prisoners of the Japanese during the war and not employable or not able to obtain employment should have their pensions increased to 100 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I would submit, as I have done previously, a day or two ago, that this whole matter requires a considerable amount of work and detail. The pension commission of my department, in conjunction with others, is presently studying this matter and I hope to be able to come forward with a report on it before too long.


MULTICULTURALISM-ALLEGED CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICY-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE TO MINORITY GROUPS
Paul Yewchuk: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few comments about the subject of mul-ticulturalism. I think it is fair to say that since at least the turn of the century minority groups in this country have contributed greatly to the progress and development of the country. It is also fair to say that there has been a great deal of progress made in terms of these minority groups being accepted socially, economically and otherwise by Canada's majority groups.
When the multiculturalism policy was announced a couple of years ago it appeared at the time that the government of the day was taking cognizance of the fact

that Canada's minority groups had a real and genuine desire to maintain their own particular individual identities, the reason being that any individual or individual group if they were to compete successfully in society and make the maximum contribution to that society must feel confident and proud of their own identity.
We can look back even to debates in this chamber at the turn of the century and find examples where blatant outright prejudice was expressed against minority groups coming into the country at that time. As I said before, I think the situation within this country certainly has improved as these groups have been more identified as part of the Canadian entity, and as they have proven themselves to be as productive, as useful, as intelligent and so on as anyone else in Canadian society.
The policy of the past two years stirred a genuine hope and feeling among Canada's minority groups that finally their status had been elevated from third class to second class citizens, and that it will be elevated in due course even to that of first class citizens.
It is interesting to note that following the 1972 election, when the Liberals came back with a narrow margin and were groping for support in the hope that they might get back with a majority, they were very interested in multiculturalism and appointed a full-time minister, although he was not given any authority. He was sort of like the fellow who operates the gas pump at the gas station while the real manager is inside, in this case the Secretary of State.
At that time we had a full-time minister who was dedicated to the concept of multiculturalism and thought it was a good thing for the country. He probably tried to do a sincere job. He thought he could promote the concept and make it more acceptable to society at large. I think it is fair to say that, having appointed this man, the government of the day did improve its position with regard to its relationship in political terms with minority groups, in that some of these people decided to support the government in the 1974 election for that reason.
It is difficult for me to understand why, when a majority government was returned, suddenly these people were no longer important. It seemed that suddenly they were not needed any more because a majority government was returned. We were back in the old arrogant days of the twenty-eight parliament.
I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question in the House, and he said he did not think the situation was upsetting anybody or that it meant a downgrading. The Prime Minister suggested that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is so intelligent and competent that in 5 per cent of his time he could do more for multiculturalism than the hon. member for Parkdale was able to do on a full-time basis. I find that argument difficult to buy.
I have received responses to a question I asked of ten major ethnic groups in the country. I asked what they thought about the appointment of a part-time rather than full-time minister, and whether they thought this would increase the status of multiculturalism. One group said that it was confusing, that they felt labour was far removed from multiculturalism and they wondered what would happen. Another group was disappointed and did
December 5, 1974

not think the government was taking multiculturalism seriously. Another group said they were confused and angered. They were involved in certain programs but now doubted whether multiculturalism was going to continue.
Still another group indicated that they wanted a full time minister with a full time department. The fourth group said they felt they had been deceived because promises had been made and broken. Another group was afraid that grants would be slowed down. There was one group that had no position. Another felt that multiculturalism was being phased out, whilst yet another felt it was being denigrated.
I think this is pretty good evidence of what the groups feel about this matter of firing the former minister and tagging the job on to another minister who has a full time department, and who is also responsible for women. I am not sure what he does in that role, but that is his responsibility.
We have a situation where one-third of Canadians ffeel they are being suppressed, their status threatened, and that they are being downgraded from nearly equal to another category of subjugated Canadians who are not supposed to be proud of their identity.
If one looks at the report tabled by the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism it will be found that it expresses in a straightforward manner what the minority groups of the country expect from their government. On other occasions I asked the minister whether he would consider implementing any part of that report, but he simply said he was studying it and was waiting for yet another report. This type of answer does nothing to allay the fears of Canada's minority groups that they and their languages are being suppressed, and that the government is not taking action to retain their culture.
I see the parliamentary secretary is sitting on the edge of his seat so I will conclude and listen to what he can tell us about these serious problems.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I concur with the observations of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) about the sometimes sad record of minorities in Canada in the past, and about the importance of assuring that their future is brighter. Of course we must observe that the discrimination to which they have been subjected has not usually been discrimination in law-certainly not laws made by this parliament, but rather discrimination in fact. Naturally the law has to take cognizance of this and do its best to try to raise to the status of first class citizens all who belong to minority groups.
I wish I could say that I agree with rest of the statements of the hon. member for Athabasca. I find it unfortunate that he has thought it necessary to indulge in political posturing tonight. He knows better than to say that people in minority groups are no longer important to the government merely because there has been a change in ministers. That is nonsense. In fact, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) is not only one of the senior ministers in the cabinet but is one who is assisted by a parliamentary secretary. However, he is no longer responsible for the status of women as that responsibility has been
Adjournment Debate
transferred to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde).
Under the aegis of the present minister the Canadian Advisory Council on Multiculturalism has been extremely active. In the last several months regional meetings have been held across the country, and the annual meeting will be held in Ottawa on December 13 and 14.
Contrary to evading the questions of the hon. member with respect to the first report of that council, the minister has pointed out that the report has to be confirmed by this forthcoming meeting, after which it will be presented to the government. In addition, the Ethnic Studies Advisory Committee has also been extremely active under the minister's direction.
I would conclude, Madam Speaker, with a short quote from a speech the minister gave in Winnipeg to the Canadian Ukrainian Committee Congress on October 12.
. .. concern has been shown over the most recent Cabinet restructuring. Let conjecture stop right here. Multiculturalism is a permanent government policy. The programme requires further attention and development. I am committed and determined to giving it both.
The federal government considers multiculturalism an integral part of Canadian society and therefore a cornerstone of real and lasting Canadian unity based on mutual respect and understanding. Our government naturally believes that multiculturalism can operate fully within the context of bilingualism and both are part and parcel of the reality of Canada.
Government policy in this area rests not on the convictions of the minister who happens to be responsible at the moment; it rests on the firm policy and conviction of the government itself. This has been amply demonstrated in the last several years and is being demonstrated at present.


IMMIGRATION-POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING COUNSEL FOR PERSONS FACING SUMMARY DEPORTATION-REVIEW OF CASES BY MINISTER
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, on October 21 of this year, as a result of a case in which I had a particular interest, it having been referred to me by a former chief of police in the constituency I represent, I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) if he was prepared to take the initiative and permit individuals faced with deportation procedures time to obtain and properly instruct counsel.
The minister indicated in his reply that the whole matter of immigration procedures, policy and legislation has been under investigation since 1952, and that the government was going to do something about it. He also indicated that if I would give him specific instances of people who were treated unjustly by special inquiry officers he would ensure a thorough examination of these practices.
I am taking the minister at his word and using this opportunity to elaborate upon the case of which I spoke earlier, involving a man named Richard Eddy, an American citizen from Miami, Florida. I emphasize, in fairness, that since the date I asked the question, the minister has written to me. His letter, dated October 17, reads in part:

December 5, 1974
Adjournment Debate
With regard to the future, Mr. Eddy is prohibited from visiting or working in Canada until such time as it is possible to seek relief from the prohibition against him. If, in the interim, there is good reason to admit him to Canada for short periods of time, I can authorize a minister's permit to facilitate this. My decision, of course, would be based on the circumstances prevailing at the specific time he would wish to come forward.
That is fair enough. Unfortunately it is a little late to do anything, as I first got in touch with the minister in a letter sent by hand on July 22, when the matter was pertinent.
I have received today, by coincidence, a letter from Mr. Eddy in which he gives me an up-to-date assessment of what has happened to him as a result of the delay in having this matter, which occurred on July 17, of this year, dealt with before now. His letter is lengthy. I shall quote briefly from the last part and indicate that I am willing to send it to the minister or to his parliamentary secretary, so that the entire document may be available to them. His letter says in part:
. .. My next statement should probably be better left unsaid, but I now, in my depressed state of mind, find that fairness is as difficult to obtain in Canada as it is here. Most people go to Canada to escape some of the hypocracies here, only to find myself chastised so intolerantly by that immigration executioner. I find myself again a victim to political misuse.
Perhaps the man is exaggerating, but the point involved here, Madam Speaker, is that despite my efforts to intercede for this man he has suffered irreparable damage because of the procedural delays involved. Had he had even a few days to instruct counsel adequately and prepare his defence, I am sure the minister could have made time available in which the man could post a bond or make such arrangements as would permit him to fulfil his contractual obligations.
It is probably too late to help this man now. To demonstrate what type of evidence was used against Mr. Eddy, that evidence forming the basis for his expulsion from this country, may I quote from the sworn statement of an American attorney who has been involved in the case. The circumstances set out by the attorney form the basis for Mr. Eddy's alleged unsuitability for remaining in Canada, even though he had come here for many years and posted a bond each time.
The sworn deposition I am about to refer to comes from Richard G. Taylor, of Miami, Florida, who writes as follows:
Pursuant to our conversation of this day, I am happy to give you a recapitulation in writing. Richard Eddy had occasion approximately 3 years ago to help provide entertainment in a raffle for a Chamber of Commerce men's meeting in Hollywood, Florida. This is a small municipality north of the city of Miami, Florida. Towards the latter part of the evening the Hollywood municipal police department, acting upon an alleged call of a person on the wanted list and being present, surrounded the place. The call turned out to be quite without merit. The police were a bit chagrined and thereafter and incidental to their unsubstantiated call, they arrested Richard Eddy and either one or two other girls for selling chances on prizes, originally, allegedly conducting a lottery and thereafter changed those charges to the principals of the Chamber of Commerce, and, due to the fact that the girls or girl had worn negligees they modified the charges to lewd and lascivious or pornographic of that type and nature.
Actually, the whole matter was totally out of proportion to reality and without any real merit. I disposed of the matters for Mr. Eddy on a nolo contendere basis paying some nominal fine which was much less

trouble and easier and accomplished a disposition for everyone involved.
I am utterly amazed that your country should have heard of the matter inasmuch as this did not in any way involve a state or federal offense. Again, I repeat that the matter was truthfully an unwarranted resultant disposition in a small municipality in southeast Florida.
He goes on to say he knows Mr. Eddy and can vouch for him. I see I am just about out of time, Madam Speaker. I have never met this man. It is the principle that is involved that concerns me.
To make the matter even more ironic, Mr. Eddy had an assistant who was with him at all relevant times when he was in Canada, who underwent the same experience and was treated in the same way, and yet this assistant was not disturbed and was allowed to remain in Canada. I think this says something for the thoroughness and consistency of the procedures used by the particular immigration officers in question.
I have other names and incidents involving people who have been treated in a high-handed way by immigration officers, and I trust the minister will be as good as his word and investigate seriously the attitude and the actions of those people in his department who exercise what amounts to a judicial function, and that he will provide people who are affected some of the traditional judicial safeguards.
I am satisfied on the basis of what I know about this case, and I have gone into it in considerable detail, that at no time was Mr. Eddy given adequate time to instruct counsel properly. The consequences have been very serious. I am sure this is the case with many other people as well, which is why I raise the matter at this time.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question on behalf of my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Rompkey), who is absent on official business.
I was not aware that the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) was going to concentrate on a particular case. Therefore I am not able to respond with any details of the particular case. However, I wish to place on record the kind of deportation proceedings and procedures at the point where an immigration officer considers that, for one reason or another, a person should not be allowed to come into, or remain in, Canada. At this point he prepares a report, as required by the Immigration Act, in which he outlines the statutory prohibitions relevant to the case in question.
The person is informed of the contents of the report, given an appointment to appear at an inquiry, and told that he may be represented by counsel should he so desire. Counsel may be a lawyer, clergyman, or in fact any person whom the applicant feels may be of use. The special inquiry officer who conducts the inquiry is an immigration officer whose responsibility it is to inquire into and bring out all relevant facts in the case before him.
Before the fact finding portion of the inquiry begins, if the applicant does not have counsel with him, he is again
December 5, 1974

informed that it is his right to have counsel should he desire. If he is not represented and does not wish to be, the inquiry proceeds with only the applicant, the special inquiry officer and stenographer present, but if, as sometimes happens, during the proceedings the applicant has second thoughts and wishes counsel, the special inquiry officer will adjourn the inquiry to allow such arrangements to be made. If required, a competent interpreter is provided by the department and is of course present throughout the inquiry.
Before the special inquiry officer arrives at his conclusions, the applicant and/or his counsel are given every opportunity to question, probe, expand upon, and deny, every allegation, statement, document, etc. presented to the inquiry. In arriving at his decision, which is based on all the facts that have been presented at the inquiry, the special inquiry officer is bound by the parameters of the Immigration Act. In other words, only legal considerations, as opposed to humanitarian or compassionate ones, can be considered. If the decision is to admit the person, he is admitted immediately. If the decision is to deport, then deportation is carried out as quickly as possible, taking into account of course human considerations. Naturally, if
Adjournment Debate
the applicant has the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board no action is taken until that right has been
exercised.
I would like to add that from time to time allegations and complaints are received from persons who feel that they were unfairly or unjustly dealt with by a special inquiry officer. When such information is received a complete investigation is carried out, and invaluable in such an investigation is the complete and "certified correct" transcript of the proceedings. This allows the department to examine in detail everything that transpired.
In addition, I must repeat that if information comes to light during an inquiry which makes a person prohibited under the act, then the special inquiry officer has no alternative but to order deportation.
In conclusion, I would like to reassure hon. members that our special inquiry officers are experienced officers, knowledgeable in the law, who have a tremendous task to perform in the interests of this country and, although not infallible, generally speaking they do a very fine job. Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

Friday, December 6, 1974