1974-04-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Fairweather.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Railton.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a request from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) I should like to table a complete list of the companies to which questionnaires were sent as part of the tax measures review. This list includes, as requested by him, an indication of which firms did or did not respond to that survey.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages a report on foreign-owned subsidiaries in Canada, 1964-1971, and the terms and conditions for the venture capital exemption under the Foreign Investment Review Act, Part I of which was proclaimed at one second after midnight today.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the commitment expressed by the government on a number of occasions to ensure and in fact to encourage public participation in the production of urban development plans, and in view of the reluctance of the National Capital Commission to provide the information concerning its development plans which is required for the proper production of an official development plan for the centretown area of Ottawa, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House directs the Minister of State for Urban Affairs forthwith to table all studies and plans produced by the National Capital Commission concerning future developments in the centre-town area of Ottawa and further directs the minister to ensure that in future the National Capital Commission co-operate with the Centre-town Citizens' Planning Committee in the preparation of the official development plan for centretown.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put to the House.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether, in light of the statement that imports of beef from the United States containing DES are going to be banned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that we are on motions, not on questions. There is no provision under the Standing Orders for a question period during motions.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very great importance of such a decision to the total industry in Canada, I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether a statement will be made on motions to outline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not in order. The hon. member can ask during the question period whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wishes to return to

April 9, 1974
Use of DES
motions for the purpose of making such a statement, but he cannot ask that at this time.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-3, an act respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicle tires and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicle tires imported into or imported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-277, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the riding I represent from Huron to Huron-Middlesex in order that it will more adequately represent in name the area that the constituency encompasses. I trust that with the co-operation of the House leaders it can receive passage at an early date in private members' hour as have other such bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Rodriguez:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I presume it is because I sit so far back that you did not see me standing during motions, but I have a motion to present to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member. He is right; I did not see him. I am sure hon. members would have no objection if we returned to motions for the purpose of allowing the hon. member to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43.


PROPOSED TOTAL BAN ON USE OF DES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the approval of the House under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion in respect of an urgent and pressing issue. In view of medical evidence implicating DES as a possible cause of cancer, in view of the fact no legislation exists to prevent the prescription of DES to women for various medical uses such as "morning after" pills, and in

view of the government's rapid banning of imported meats treated with DES, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to impose forthwith a total ban on any and all uses of DES in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   AIR TRANSPORT STRIKE BY FIREFIGHTERS AT BRITISH COLUMBIA AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter, namely, the illegal strike of firefighters in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South has given due notice in the usual and proper manner to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of debating what he refers to as "the illegal strike of firefighters in the province of British Columbia". The hon. member has been helpful in providing background information which the Chair has found to be very useful. There are several facets to this problem which have given deep concern to the Chair.
The first consideration is whether the appropriate labour legislation should be allowed to operate without the intervention of the House at this time. Another difficulty relates to the status and effect of the injunction issued by the Federal Court in the dispute. These factors, in my view, cast some doubt on the advisability of allowing an emergency debate at this time.
On the other hand, the Chair is required by the Standing Order to consider whether there will be another suitable or early opportunity to debate this important and urgent matter. I must take note of the notice of motion which would provide an adjournment of the House until April 22. That being so, it may be the sense of the House that a debate of some kind should take place before we adjourn. This suggestion has to be reconciled with the necessity to debate and dispose in due course of the important legislation before the House to be called for consideration later this day under government orders. In the hope that this difficulty can be resolved, the Chair would like to reserve its decision until after consultation on whether

a debate should take place and, if so, whether it can be arranged at a suitable time and subject to acceptable limitations. Therefore I seek the co-operation of hon. members to allow the Chair to defer its decision on the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South until later this afternoon after I have had consultation with the several House leaders.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can he now give the House a specific date when he will be bringing down his budget?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Minister of Finance give the House a specific date when he will be able to give the House a specific date for the presentation of the budget?


John Napier Turner: Within a week after the House returns following the Easter adjournment I will give a specific date.


SUPPLY-REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF OPPOSITION DAY IN WEEK BEGINNING APRIL 22
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary. I should like to ask the government House leader whether he has had an opportunity to confer with his colleagues about the question I asked him yesterday, that is, the designation of a specific day during the week of April 22, the first week of our return following the recess after the adjournment that I presume will take place at some point. Has the minister had an opportunity to confer with his colleagues, and is he now able to give a more positive assurance that a date will be set aside as an opposition day during that first week of our return than he was yesterday?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with my colleagues and I am not in a position to undertake that I will call an allotted day in that first week. It may be that I will do that, but I am not giving any undertaking.


DATE OF PRESENTATION OF BUDGET
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the answers of the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact it is much more in order, much more traditional, to have the budget in the month of March or in April, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a government decision that the budget not be brought down in the month of April?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has not been an announcement of a date. Therefore I cannot confirm or disaffirm the hypothesis stated by the hon. member. I would remind him there is no traditional or fixed month for the budget. It is usual that our sessions have started in October and, as the hon. member knows, this one only started in February.


David Lewis: Do I understand from the Prime Minister, that the government has not yet come to any decision with regard to the items in the budget? Is that the reason for the delay or is there some other reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might surmise that a budget is not something which is fixed months in advance but something which is prepared and developed over a period of time to respond to the economic necessity of a particular period. If the hon. member has any particular ideas about the budget, or if the Official Opposition has, we will be very happy to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: He is waiting for another telephone call from you, David.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to send the Prime Minister some serious suggestions as to what the budget should contain, if they have not already been brought to his attention, but I do want to ask him or the Minister of Finance this question. In view of the necessity to deal with the cost of living and the excessive profits being made by industry, despite what the Minister of Finance says, how long does he intend to delay bringing a budget before parliament so that something can be done in some of these areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Finance answered that question in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. He will announce the date in the week following our return after Easter. But I repeat that there is still time to get your ideas in if you have any.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that it will be at least a month before a new budget is brought down and in view of the escalating cost of living and the high rate of inflation currently running in the country, which according to all indications, will be confirmed by the consumer price index tomorrow, the date of the proposed adjournment of the House, may I ask the Prime Minister what interim measures the government is prepared to announce to provide some relief to Canadian consumers?

April 9, 1974
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on two facts which are not verifiable. One is that it will be a month before the budget is brought down, which the hon. member does not know and neither do I. Second, we will only know tomorrow when these figures are made public.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the indications in the wholesale price index that we can expect substantial increases in the price of food tomorrow, the proposed date of the adjournment of the House, may I ask the minister what proposals or what measures to bring relief to Canadians the government is prepared to bring before the House before the adjournment?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend is basing his question on something that is still hypothetical. In any event, it is based on figures that were gathered over a month ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the Chair will be allowed to proceed to the question of the hon. member for Temiscamingue, but I appreciate that the hon. member for St. John's East wishes to rise on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question was not based on a hypothesis but on the facts contained in the wholesale price index and in all the readings to which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs seems to be blind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I most sincerely thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their warm greetings. I hope that, this time, I have come back for good. The accident is over with and I do intend to take part as much as possible in the proceedings of the House.
I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did he receive representations from organizations, either in Montreal or anywhere else in Quebec, concerning the admission of 5,000 Chilean marxist immigrants to Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any such pressures. There have been suggestions from all over the world that some Chileans should be allowed into Canada.


HOUSING
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and it is not hypothetical but actual. During the past year the price of housing in Toronto increased by about 40 per cent. I would like to ask if this is the kind of disruptive fact he was referring to in the Speech from the Throne which he said needed to be assented to, and what is the government going to do about this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter that is being attended to, and I would refer the hon. member to the various statements of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


James McPhail Gillies: Again I direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. I have read the statements of the minister and that is why I am directing the question to the Prime Minister. Because this problem is so serious and involves such a variety of ministries, has the Prime Minister or the cabinet designated one minister to take an interest in and be responsible for this problem and instructed him to bring forth, in a priority sense, some sort of program to deal with this enormous escalation in the price of housing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a question about the internal functioning of the cabinet. I just want to point out to him that the ministry of housing and urban affairs was set up to ensure that co-ordination was effected by that ministry. In a sense it is a ministry that is more concerned in influencing policies of the government than in carrying out specific programs which very often are within the purview of various departments.


James McPhail Gillies: I have one final supplementary, again to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he tell the House whether or not the government has given priority to trying to bring in some law, some legislation, to deal with the rising cost of housing in Canada at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is one of our priorities and we realize, as does the hon. member, that this is a problem that cannot be solved by the federal government acting alone. That is why we have tripartite conferences. As the hon. member knows, the provinces and the municipalities, either through their zoning laws or through their response to federal programs, are jointly engaged with the federal government in trying to solve this problem.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It has become apparent that the American banking system is going to increase its prime interest rate to 10 per cent. Has
April 9, 1974

the minister made any representations to the Canadian banks to get them to hold the line?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been in constant touch with the Canadian Bankers' Association and with the governor of the Bank of Canada, but it is not my practice, nor indeed was it the practice of my predecessors, to speculate on the movement of interest rates.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It has become apparent over the past week that government borrowing costs have reached 8.4 per cent. What rate is the government charging Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for advances for social housing?


John Napier Turner: We are charging in the statutory proportion above the cost of government borrowing, but I would have to check the exact rate today and send it to the hon. member.


HOUSING
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the shocking and disgusting increase in the average cost of a home in Metro Toronto, which is now $50,435, an increase of about $15,000 in the past year, what immediate steps is the minister going to take to stop these unwarranted and unjustified price increases?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely with the minister responsible for housing in Ontario to get as much money invested in land assembly for quick start land as is possible.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that one of the main components in the high cost of housing has been the cost of land would the minister impose an immediate 100 per cent capital gains tax on land speculators?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the hon. gentleman's idea.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation. The hon. member for St. Catharines rises on a supplementary.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS TO LOWER COST
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister has told the House that nothing can be done without consultation with the provinces. Can the minister at this
Oral Questions
time not finally take off the 11 per cent excise tax on construction materials to help the housing situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this question has been brought up several times already by the hon. member and other members. Again, it is a budgetary matter. Whether I will be able to respond yes or no will have to await the appropriate date.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I asked the minister a question regarding the Steel Company of Canada increasing wages ahead of the scheduled contract time. He said he had no comment to make on the action of the Steel Company of Canada. Because of his "no comment" comment, and in light of the fact that many labour negotiations have brought about a cost of living clause plus an additional escalation clause in their contracts in order to reduce the effects of inflation, does the minister view this as a common occurrence in future labour negotiations and, if so, what additional steps will the minister take to make sure that real wages keep up with inflation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that question has a lot of speculative content. I had no comment yesterday and I have no comment today.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House whether he is aware of the existence of a series of exercises developed by the Canadian Armed Forces, apparently under the code name of "Neat Pitch", and if so, could he say whether these manoeuvres are aimed at revising army strategy in the event of a crisis?
|English]


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting which was referred to recently in the newspaper Le Jour took place more than two years ago, which would indicate that this newspaper is not very current. It was a normal contingency planning meeting on aid to the civil power. It took place in Montreal because Montreal is the headquarters of mobile command, but it dealt with aid to the civil power in all the provinces. I might add that aid to the civil power is only undertaken at the request of the Attorney General of a province.
1274

April 9, 1974
Oral Questions ENERGY


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF BILL C-18 TO STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources along the lines of the question I asked yesterday. Is it his intention or the intention of the government to refer Bill C-18 for study by a committee of the whole House and treat it as a tax bill? Would the minister agree to have it go before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for study so that witnesses can be called on behalf of provincial governments to assure not only the House but the country that the bill contains terms and conditions in accordance with the agreement made by the ten first ministers of Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary-I was not too sure just what the minister was saying yes to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see the House is in good humour and I am sure the minister will be as well. Will the minister assure the House that the bill will go to the standing committee first for study so that witnesses can be called prior to it going before the committee of the whole House for clause by clause study?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is what I said, but my understanding of the rules is that it will not have to go to committee of the whole if it is referred to the standing committee.


EFFECTS OF PROPOSED EXPORT TAX ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ON REFINERIES IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the proposed export tax on refined petroleum products as announced yesterday, can the minister tell the House whether his department has undertaken a study of the effects of existing refineries in the Atlantic provinces and if new ones planned would be totally thrown out of business as a result of this tax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might respond to the question. The tax applies only to products from Canadian produced crude oil.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the problem of the strike by firefighters at airports in British Columbia. You will recall that yesterday I asked that someone do something to
[Mr. Richardson.1
get the armed forces involved in restoring service in British Columbia. That had the direct result of the firefighters at the National Defence unit in Esquimalt walking out this morning. I am going to press my luck today and ask the government to get involved. Maybe that will have the effect that they will fade away, if they cannot do anything.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver
Kingsway.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has just struck out. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who is also in charge of the status of women. In view of the great expectations raised in the hearts and minds of Canadian women by the promise of the government in the Speech from the Throne and by the minister's speech in the House that there would be legislation this session to provide equal treatment for women, can the minister tell us when the long-awaited legislation to set up a federal commission on human rights and interests will be brought forward?


Mr. Baker:: Right after football!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am taking notice of the question for referral to my colleague when he comes back to the House in a few minutes from now.


Winona Grace MacInnis: As the minister is not available may I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. If he did not hear it I will repeat it. In view of the great expectations raised in the hearts and minds of Canadian women by the promise of the government in the Speech from the Throne and by the minister's speech in the House that there would be legislation this session to provide equal treatment for women, can the Prime Minister tell the House when the long-awaited legislation to set up a federal commission on human rights and interests, will be brought forward?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to proceed with that legislation in this session.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will graciously allow the hon. member for Vancouver Kings way a supplementary.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether I should repeat my question or ask my supplementary first. I will put the supplementary. In view of the fact that hope long deferred maketh the heart sick, can the Minister of Labour tell the House when the amendments to the Canada Pension Plan, the Canadian Citizenship Act and the omnibus bill on the status of women will be placed before the House? If he does not know that, when will the commission on human rights and interests be set up?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned quite a few amendments to various acts, all of which I referred to in my speech in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I indicated then and I indicate today that it is a priority area in terms of the government's program as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and I would hope that the hon. member might soon see the specifics that she is looking for.


An hon. Member:: But after football!


SIZE OF PLAYING FIELD IN OLYMPIC STADIUM UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN MONTREAL
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. Because of the fact that the Olympic stadium in Montreal is being financed through profits from the sale of Olympic coins and a lottery, can the minister advise the House why the playing field within the track is being constructed in accordance with American National League and, indeed, World Football League specifications?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this matter is so urgent that it should be dealt with now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Otto John Jelinek: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say it is a fact that, in order to accommodate Canadian football in the proposed Olympic stadium as presently planned, a considerable alteration will have to be made at great cost to the Canadian taxpayers after the Olympic games. I simply ask the minister, therefore, if he can assure the House that he will intervene right now to make sure that the Olympic stadium will accommodate the Canadian Football League as well as other leagues?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The minister appears to be anxious to reply to the hon. member's question.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that the Olympic Games financing program does not apply to any specific building but to the over-all Olympic Games, and that the way the funds from the sale of coins are to be spent by the Olympic Corporation is a matter that does not concern the Olympic Games financing program.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a point of order. The minister has said on numerous occasions that the Olympic games are not a federal matter. But we are dealing with the Canadian taxpayers' money in that the Olympic coin program and the lottery program directly involve his department. It should be his responsibility to take care of these things and see that they are done after proper consultation.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister will be allowed to reply to the hon. member's alleged point of order. I would think it is debate but, in fairness perhaps the minister should be allowed to reply to the hon. member's argument.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Olympic Games finance program is a voluntary program. I am surprised the hon. member is not yet aware of it.


TRANSPORT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister remind tomorrow's meeting, when he appoints a boxcar co-ordinator, that there is also a serious shortage of boxcars in eastern Canada and that, therefore, the co-ordinator will have the serious responsibility of seeing that goods are able to move in Atlantic Canada as well?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to underline this problem to the railways.


SHORTAGE OF RAILWAY BOXCARS-POWERS OF CONTROLLER RESPECTING ALLOCATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question just asked. Will this co-ordinator, so called, or controller have the power to direct the allotment or apportionment of cars to the various and several elements in the economy? Will his direction involve penalties, in the event that the railway companies do not carry out his directives?
27451-18)

April 9, 1974
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not think that this man will have this power.


John George Diefenbaker: What power will he have?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman is a lawyer. I do not know under what power I can authorize this man to direct. I think this man will make reports to the department. I will be ready to table the reports here, and if there is any kind of injustice we can intervene. Legally, however, I do not have this power, and the right hon. gentleman would not have it either.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament has the power. I ask the minister, why does he not bring such a bill before parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Why all the pussyfooting around on this matter? Is this another mess such as the minister described in his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the right hon. gentleman's question, he never asked me to bring in a piece of legislation; he asked me if this coordinator would have certain powers and I answered no.


John George Diefenbaker: This will lead to the same mess one now sees in Vancouver in connection with the airport firefighters' strike.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Inasmuch as the minister is going to deny parliament the opportunity to set out the procedures and rules for this co-ordinator, in the event he is unable to function because he will be so restricted will the minister lay his job on the line as a result of that malfunction?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Some time ago I drew to the attention of the minister the fact that pork producers have been losing money in the last few months, to which the minister replied that he was looking into the problem.
Can he tell the House whether this study is now complete and, if so, whether he will make a statement to the House before the Easter recess?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the first official national representation was made today. They were still having discussions in my office when I came to the House. I doubt very much if there will be any announcement before the Easter recess.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since before the House met representations were made to me that feed grain prices had greatly increased this week, can the minister tell the House whether he also received such representations?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have received a brief from the National Pork Producers Association of Canada and they have pointed out all the aspects of the industry. We have had lengthy discussions with them. As I said, the discussion was still continuing when I left my office.


SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS-INVESTIGATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the government, in answer to questions from this side of the House, has admitted that there are difficulties in the payment of the subsidy to cattle producers, can the minister tell the House whether an investigation has been made into the problem and the results of such investigation if, in fact, one has been made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the information I have been given is that the inquiry is still being carried on.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the report of the programming board looking into the Bay of Fundy tidal power potential completed? If not, will he indicate when it is expected and will he make it public?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that it has not yet been completed. Officials were still trying to arrange a date on which they could make final approval. I would have to check the terms of reference-I believe the review was undertaken jointly with the provincial governments-to see whether publication would be intended.


COMBINES
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is the minister aware of a request for inquiry made to his department on January 30, 1974 concerning the situa-

tion which, according to the Federation of Cooperative Family Economics Associations and the IPIC, prevails in the car insurance business regarding premium rates of different companies some of which colluded to maintain premiums at a certain level? Does the minister intend to use his power and will there be an inquiry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, up to now this request has not been brought to my attention. I think this is a matter for the director of combines to handle, and I am convinced that he will take his responsibilities.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister based on a statement he made on October 16, 1970, when he informed the House that he regarded the War Measures Act as an interim and unsatisfactory measure. I quote his words as recorded on page 194 of Hansard for that date:
Following the passage of enough time to give the government the necessary experience to assess the type of statute which may be required in these circumstances, it is my firm intention to discuss with the leaders of the opposition parties the desirability of introducing legislation of a less comprehensive nature.
Noting that three subsequent throne speeches have been delivered and that no mention was made of this commitment and, in particular, in these times of highjackings, kidnappings and so on, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has had these discussions yet, if he has not, when he intends to do so, and whether legislation is going to be introduced along the line of the commitment he appears to have made in 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to verify the exact dates but, if my memory serves me right, when I was speaking thus in the House it was at the time the War Measures Act was in application. There were at that time-I cannot recall whether it was before or after-talks between myself and the leaders of the other parties. The hon. member will recall also that the War Measures Act was replaced by legislation which was fully debated and passed by the House. The War Measures Act was replaced by legislation which lasted well into the first part of 1971. So this is perhaps a follow-up on the action to which I was referring at that time.


Erik Nielsen: That was not the impression which I and I am sure other members got from the Prime Minister's words. Can he say now whether the government is giving any consideration to legislation of a similar nature but less comprehensive than the War Measures Act in order to deal with the kind of crises which may arise in the future and which he obviously had in mind when he made that statement?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat that without checking the dates I cannot say, as the hon. member assumes, that is what I had in mind. There was a piece of legislation introduced and passed, legislation to which the hon. member did not refer in his first question. He is right in saying there was discussion, perhaps then but I rather think at a later date, probably during the month of December, regarding legislation which would eventually do away with the need for any special legislation of the kind we had, perhaps by way of a permanent amendment to the Criminal Code.
The answer is that a great deal of work was done on this by the government at the time. We did not feel any need to bring forth a bill. We do not now, but I will very gladly discuss the matter with the leaders of the other parties and if they felt it would be a good idea to take this kind of action on a contingency basis for some future situation I would certainly arrange such a meeting.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the offer made by the minister on several occasions, notably on March 11 and March 22 in the House and in Winnipeg on March 24, to appoint a commissioner to examine into all aspects of railway pensions, including the provisions for those still at work and the pensions of those now retired, can the minister say whether he is yet ready to announce the appointment of such a commissioner?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. We are not yet ready, and I can tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre precisely why. Discussion with some of the railway union leaders is under way, and I do not believe the matter can be finalized until further talks have been held with them. I hope it will not take too long.


AIR TRANSPORT
John Allen Fraser: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House the minister said that two senior officials of the department had flown to Vancouver to settle the conflict as soon as possible. Can the minister tell us when these two officials are going to work, because as of 45 minutes ago they had not contacted the striking firemen?


Jean Marchand: The two
officials from the department who were sent to Vancouver were, of course, not conciliators but representatives of the Department of Transport. They were supposed to try to get in touch with the strikers in order to get them back to

April 9, 1974
Oral Questions
work. But those who walked out have refused any kind of negotiations and have said they just want what they have asked for.


John Allen Fraser: If the minister would like to see me after the question period I will give him the telephone number at which these gentlemen can be reached. I assure the minister that they have not been contacted and that nobody has tried to contact them.


STRIKE BY FIREFIGHTERS AT VANCOUVER AIRPORT- AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS IN SEEKING SETTLEMENT
Frank Oberle: I appreciate your recognizing me again, Mr. Speaker. The preamble to my earlier question was somewhat lengthy. I would like to ask the minister a question in light of the situation as it is developing. The strike is spreading. The National Defence firefighters in Esquimalt walked out this morning. Have there been any discussions between the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Labour with a view to ending this serious situation? I should also like to ask whether the people who have been dispatched from his office to settle the strike and investigate the situation in Vancouver have sufficient authority to discuss meaningfully with the firefighters in Vancouver who are waiting to be contacted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply. We are running short of time.


Jean Marchand: My
answer will be brief, Mr. Speaker, but it will be in two parts. First, may I say it was quite inappropriate for a member of parliament to have put a question in the House yesterday which had the effect of pulling the Esquimalt firefighters out from work.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: We have to understand that there is a union called the Public Service Alliance of Canada which is certified for the whole country to negotiate for public servants, including the firefighters, and the government of Canada is bound by its own law. This means that the government has to negotiate with the alliance and not with a group which is fighting against the alliance. I hope the hon. member understands that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have time for a few supplementaries, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Alexander:: I should like to direct a question-


Mr. Reilly:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton West. He will be recognized in a moment. The hon. member for Ottawa West rises on a point of order.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has deliberately attempted on three occasions in the last 24 hours to persuade members of this House that his department has its hands tied by virtue of labour legislation and the requirement to deal with the collective bargaining agent. However, if the bargaining agent, as is the case here, cannot negotiate for its members because they will not obey it, there is a law, and the minister has a duty to enforce the law, which he is not now doing.


Jean Marchand: Cite the law!


Some hon. Members:: What law?


Jean Marchand: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the points of order or questions of privilege. Perhaps this will make it unnecessary for us to arrange for an adjournment or special debate on the question. If hon. members wish to solve the matter in five or ten minutes, we can forget about a special debate. The Minister of Transport rises on the point of order.


Jean Marchand: I simply wish to say that if there were a law which would allow the government to go around the rights that have been given by parliament to the alliance, outside the injunction and the sending to jail of workers, I would like the hon. member to tell me what it is because he would be rendering a great service to the public.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of all hon. members. The hon. member now wishes to rise on a further point of order. It seems to me that this is strictly a debate in which members are engaging. I would hope there might be an opportunity later in the day at some time convenient to the House to engage in further and more enlightening debate on this very important matter. For the moment the hon. member for Hamilton West has been recognized.


STRIKE BY FIREFIGHTERS AT VANCOUVER AIRPORT-SUGGESTION THAT MINISTER OF LABOUR APPOINT MEDIATOR
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour supplemental to those already asked. Is the Minister of Labour playing any role with respect to this dispute? Is he, indeed, aware of the role he could play in terms of the promotion of industrial peace by assigning a mediator? Has this question been under consideration by his department?


John Carr Munro: I think the question implies, as the hon. member is fully aware, that with reference to this particular dispute the Department of Labour is not responsible. Obviously, though, if there are facilities available in the department of which other departments wish to avail themselves, they are available.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. We have reached the end of the question period, but in fairness to the hon. member for Temiscamingue, who had a brief question earlier, perhaps he might be allowed to ask a question at this time.


MANPOWER
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he say why the budget of Opportunities for Youth Program was reduced by 57 per cent in the northwestern part of Quebec and why the department joined the cities of Rouyn-Noranda to that of Hull where the problems to be studied and solved are entirely different?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have on several occasions, both in the House and before the committee, explained the precise basis for the allocation formula. It involves the 33 labour market areas in Canada, the 1971 census of youth population, and an assessment of the jobs available to such people without the skills or experience required. As for the figures regarding the precise district to which the hon. member refers, I will certainly look into them, but that is the basis for the allocation.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think some clarification must be made of the minister's answer to me with regard to the airport firefighters' strike in terms of what his department can do under these very difficult circumstances. It appears to me that the Minister of Labour is abdicating his responsibility in this regard by indicating that it is up to the Minister of Transport and his officials and Treasury Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -to negotiate a settlement with the firemen. I point out to the minister quite emphatically that he has a role to play under section 195-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar rises on a point of order.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I asked earlier this afternoon whether a statement on motions would be made respecting the action of the government in banning, in whole or in part, cattle imported from the United States. I was informed by Your Honour that I might receive an answer during the question period, but it has not been forthcoming. I plead with Your Honour that the minister should make a statement to the House on this important matter in
Petroleum Administration Act
view of the fact that on March 15, as reported on page 556 of Hansard, he told the House:
However, I do not think anyone can guarantee that there are or are not such cattle coming in.
That statement was made by the minister. He has not clarified the position or told the House the circumstances and conditions under which United States cattle will be banned from entering Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I think I would have to classify the hon. member's point of order in the same category as the one raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West. It is more debate than a point of order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-18, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain oil import costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil in interprovincial and export trade be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, last night when I was speaking in the debate on Bill C-18 I was making reference to what the province of Alberta intended to do with the amount of money it would receive from the new royalty rates that had been set up. Perhaps I might clarify what royalty rates the province of Alberta has attempted to place in legislation. According to a ministerial announcement in the legislative assembly of Alberta on March 28, 1974, for all "old" oil the government proposed an average supplementary royalty rate of 65 per cent on the amount of the price increment over the existing price of crude oil in Alberta; and that for all "new" oil the government proposed an average supplementary royalty rate of 35 per cent on the amount of the price increment over the existing price of crude oil in Alberta, corresponding to the average supplementary rate of 65 per cent on "old" oil. The Leduc field, discovered in 1947, happens to lie entirely within the riding of Wetaskiwin.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May we have order, please. It is extremely difficult for the Chair to follow the debate and to hear the hon. member for Wetaskiwin who has the floor. It is even difficult to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who seeks the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I wished to raise was that I was under the impression the hon. member was trying to make a speech, but it was very difficult to determine which member it was who was

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
making the speech. I think Your Honour has clarified the matter already.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken. I have to call for the co-operation of hon. members to give an opportunity to the hon. member who has the floor, and who has been recognized by the Chair, to be heard by all members of the House who want to follow his speech and take part in the debate.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to make my speech as interesting as possible so hon. members may listen to my words of wisdom. The Leduc field, discovered in 1947, lies entirely within my riding, and the people in that area are becoming concerned that in
10	or 12 years' time this oil supply will be entirely depleted. Many of these people depend entirely for their livelihood on production of this oil. They are raising families and would like their youngsters to stay in the area. Therefore, it is essential for the government of Alberta to provide alternative sources of employment, to provide industries for the area when this oil runs out. I think the province intends to use some of this revenue to establish industry that will keep these young people in the area.
If I may return to the bill, I should like to make some comments on Part IV. As provided in the bill, the import subsidy is indiscriminate. It seems that the subsidy is paid to the importing oil companies no matter what this refined
011	is used for. I think it would be far better for the bill to provide some mechanism whereby we could apply a discriminate subsidy so that people who use petroleum products for luxury items, such as cars, boats and similar vehicles, would not be subsidized. Only oil used for essential purposes should be subsidized. Surely, it is not beyond the capabilities of the minister or his department to devise a mechanism whereby a more discriminate subsidy, rather than the wide open one now proposed, is applied.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is a notable exception made in the bill. I refer to the fact that individual oil importers are not required rationally to compete in the purchase of offshore oil. According to my understanding of the bill, it is left up to them to buy offshore oil at whatever price without first trying to make the best possible purchase. These companies know they are going to be subsidized at the expense of the taxpayers so that the cost of the oil is brought down to $6.50 a barrel. I suggest that when the bill goes to committee this part of the bill should be carefully scrutinized and perhaps amended with a view to being fair to both parties, and so the oil companies will rationally compete for oil in the market.
Parts II and III of the bill give me the most concern since the government is being given a wide range of powers. In fact, an attempt to document them verbatim from the bill required almost nine full pages of foolscap. Why do they need these powers and are they really necessary? It seems to me we are looking at the same type of powers we were asked to approve in the oil allocations bill. I hope this party will not allow the government to again force this big brother attitude on the Canadian public.

Among the powers required by the government in Clauses 2 and 3 is the freedom to establish the export price of oil at any level at any time. Basically, then, what we would have would be a flexible tax subject to government whim and variable from month to month. The government has also asked for freedom to grant exemptions from the tax to anyone should it so desire. If these powers are granted, surely it is not too much to ask that they be scrutinized by a parliamentary committee, with its findings presented to the House.
Furthermore, the federal government would be in a position under Clause 36 of this legislation to fix the price of oil within provincial boundaries if it so desired. We feel this is a provincial responsibility, and that provincial governments should be brought into the picture in order that they would be at least consulted and asked to grant approval of the fixing of such a price, should it be necessary. Powers of the sort to which I have alluded are just not necessary, but could quite easily lead to a precedent whereby other industries or resources could be brought under similar legislation, such as our coal resources or perhaps even hydro electric power for that matter.
This bill also gives the government the power to unilaterally establish the price of oil in any province should that province wish to withdraw from the agreement. Let me refer in Hansard to a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) just after the Federal-Provincial Conference. He stated on March 28:
-the pricing and other arrangements I will now outline will last for a period of 15 months, beginning on April 1 and therefore going to the end of June next year.
I went to the Alberta Hansard since and this is the only way we can tell whether this bill is in line with the conference decisions, and I found that the Premier of Alberta stated immediately following that conference:
I made one interim undertaking-but only one. I agreed that in the interest of stability of the Canadian economy, we would ask the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to hold the average price of $6.50 per barrel to that level for a period of one year. The request was made by the Federal Government and it is our understanding that they-for their part-agreed that any proposed Federal legislation involving the interprovincial trade and movement of petroleum would be enacted in such a manner as to complement and not conflict with the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission Act.
Looking at the bill, I fail to find any clause that states there is to be a 15-month termination date. Instead, I find a clause which states that the government has the power to unilaterally set the price of oil if at such time a province wants to get out of this agreement. In other words, the government has the power to say that it is sorry, but if things change within the next year or so that is too bad; they will have to keep the price at the same level. That is the power this government wants, and I think we should thoroughly look into it to see whether these agreements were in fact made. The provinces should tell this parliament whether this bill is in line with the discussions that took place at the conference.
Other clauses, in particular Clause 60, give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) the power to appoint people to look at the records of any company or province importing or exporting oil. It seems to me that under this clause the government is asking for
April 9, 1974

the authority not only to go to the companies but to the provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular, or their marketing boards, and ask for the records kept and the reasons they set certain prices, or anything of that sort.
As I stated earlier, we do not know whether this power is in line with discussions that have taken place or is just another one of those foxy items placed in the bill which the opposition should scrutinize thoroughly before approving. On reading between the lines, perhaps this part of the legislation is intended to be all-encompassing so as to include domination of these particular marketing boards. We should recommend the establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the proper usage of this legislation should it be passed.
It is interesting to note that we had long discussions about the energy allocation board which was to be responsible for administering the oil allocation bill. Apparently it did not have too much to do and we now find, according to this bill, it is given some work by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In his speech yesterday the minister stated three reasons for this bill, and I think they are important. The first reason was that the price of Canadian crude oil should move upward to encourage exploration and development in Canada and thereby ensure further availability of our resources. The second was that approximately one-half of Canadian crude oil production which is exported should be sold at a fair and reasonable opportunity price in the United States markets. The third was that the proceeds from the sale of oil in the U.S. at a price higher than the domestic Canadian price should be employed in order to reduce the exposition of consumers in eastern Canada. I suggest those are practical reasons. Although some of us may disagree with some of the principles, at least those are the practical reasons the minister had in bringing this bill forward.
The question I have been trying to place before this House is: Does the minister require all the powers in Clauses 2, 3 and 5 of this bill? There are nine pages of powers documented here. For this reason it is necessary that the bill be sent to a standing committee of the House for further study and amendment in order that it will really embody the principles discussed at the Federal-Provincial Conference.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words in respect of this energy bill, Bill C-18, designed to impose an export charge on oil products. In addition, the bill will put into law the agreements of the first ministers regarding energy prices which was settled on March 27 of this year. It also gives the federal government the power to set the price of oil if the first ministers do not reach a voluntary agreement in connection with oil prices by June 30, 1975. In addition, it proposes to compensate oil companies in respect of the price paid for oil imported into eastern Canada.
Bill C-18 is the latest plank in the ongoing saga of this government's attempt to offer a national energy policy. The structure so far has appeared very fragile, resting on weak foundations. One wonders who the real architect of
Petroleum Administration Act
this so-called ongoing national oil policy is; the minister of energy or the oil companies themselves.
A number of bills were introduced in the last session, and this is the latest in this session, in an effort to formulate the kind of oil policy that would benefit Canadians. It seems to me if we are to have an oil policy that makes any economic sense there are three key components which must be contained in it. First, we must ensure that Canada has control of the oil industry in this country. Second, we must move in the direction of self-sufficiency in oil for Canada. Third, we must have the ability to set and control prices of oil in this country. Let us look at those three elements as they exist today and what the New Democratic Party would like to see develop in these areas. First, regarding the control of the petroleum industry in Canada, it is shocking to recall that 91 per cent of the oil industry in this country is foreign-owned and that 99 per cent of all petroleum refining capacity is also foreign-owned.
We all know this foreign ownership means that decisions are being made by multinational companies whose primary interest is to maximize their own profits, not necessarily for the benefit of the Canadian economy. This means that decisions in respect of energy development, exploration, export of energy and price to a large degree are made outside this country and outside the parameters of the government of Canada. It also means that profits in terms of billions of dollars flow out of the country into the coffers of the multinational companies, most of which are located in the United States. It also means that to date exports have been designed primarily to serve United States markets. This has meant we have used up our inexpensive reserves of oil and natural gas which will mean that when Canada needs these commodities we will have to pay more because we will have to get oil, for example, from the expensive oil sands or from the far north. While we have been exporting our cheap energy to the United States and the American industry has been benefitting, the Canadian economy is now faced with high energy costs.
On the issue of control, the New Democratic Party called for export controls in this 29th Parliament as early as January 1973. Finally, much later the government decided to cut back some of our oil exports to the United States but nowhere sufficient to really bring about selfsufficiency or control of this vital commodity. If we are to have an oil policy which makes sense, it seems to me that we must move in the direction now of controlling the multinational oil companies through a national petroleum company. I do not mean a national petroleum company as hinted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). A Liberal national petroleum company would be created, it seems to me, just to compete with the private sector. I should like to have a national petroleum company that would have the power to be the only purchaser of domestic and imported oil. By being the only purchaser this national petroleum company would therefore be able to set the price of oil and determine policy in the interest of Canada so far as oil supply and development are concerned. The policy which presently exists is

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
primarily designed in the interest of the multinational oil companies.
The second element in a national energy policy must be self-sufficiency. Why is that? Well, without self-sufficiency in oil we are at the mercy of the international oil market which, it now has become very evident, was manipulated by the multinational oil companies in order to raise oil prices. These world prices for oil now bear no relationship to the cost of production. Indeed, some of the Saudi Arabian oil which sells at $10 or $14 a barrel costs the oil companies four cents a barrel to get out of the ground and into the tankers in the Middle East. We can see what has happened insofar as the manipulation of price in the world market is concerned. Indeed, a spokesman for Imperial Oil in Canada said that his company will charge what the market will bear and that not necessarily does the price of oil have to be related to the cost of production. It is also very important that we have self-sufficiency in order to insulate ourselves from the manipulative world market.
It is very important as well to have self-sufficiency because of what lies in store for us within the next decade. From recent reports I have read from all sources, including the oil industry and independent analyses, it appears that by 1980 this country will be short of oil to the extent of 720,000 barrels a day. The situation now is that we produce in round figures two million barrels of oil a day, one million barrels of which is exported to the United States. In addition we import one million barrels a day into eastern Canada because there is no pipeline to the east. Projections show that the demand for oil in Canada by 1980 will increase by an extra one million barrels a day. We have no pipeline to the east. Although we have the proposed Sarnia-Montreal pipeline and the proposed production of the oil sands by 1980, the maximum production from the oil sands will be 380,000 barrels a day which will leave Canada short to the extent of 720,000 barrels a day by 1980 if we continue to export to the United States.
Because of an oil policy initiated in 1961 by the Conservative Party which did not provide for extension of the oil pipeline to eastern Canada we have this problem today. The minister announced the extension of the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal with an initial capacity of 250,000 barrels a day and a future capacity of only 500,000 barrels a day. In light of this extension of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline I wonder whether we will ever have an allCanadian route designed to supply eastern Canada. From reading the literature of the oil companies it would seem that they are quite unhappy about a prospect of an allCanadian oil pipeline. They see it as a danger to their markets in eastern Canada in terms of manipulating prices which I will explain later. It seems to me that over the past few years, because of international development, the oil companies have boxed the minister into a corner. He needs to export oil now in order to collect the export tax which he will use to subsidize consumers in eastern Canada. But we all know he will run short of oil by 1980. The oil companies argue that they need to charge the world price for oil in Canada in order to obtain sufficient funds to explore for new oil and to develop the oil sands.
It is a myth that there is a need to have world prices on oil in Canada in order to have sufficient funds. I remind

members of the House that in 1973, before the freeze on crude oil was introduced in Canada, the oil companies received an increase of 33 per cent in the price of crude oil and the oil companies in Canada benefitted to the extent of some $700 million a year. This recent agreement which was reached on March 27 gave then another $528 million a year. In light of that windfall, in light of the profits they have been making so far, I think their argument that they need even higher prices to stimulate exploration in Canada does not hold any water, or oil, if you want to put it that way. It seems to me that the priority for a Canadian energy policy is to serve the Canadian market first. Unless we do this, we will have a real crisis by 1980. It seems to me imperative that we begin to phase out oil exports to the United States in order to meet the Canadian demands by 1980 because he will have to import 720,000 barrels a day and then we will be more and more in the hands of the international oil companies and subject to their manipulation of world prices.
The third element of a sensible national oil policy is one whereby the Canadian government can determine the prices of oil and oil products in this country. Many months ago the NDP called for a two price system for oil when oil prices began to rise. We advocated the use of the export tax to accomplish this, and the government finally agreed. One half of the revenue of that export tax was to return to the producing provinces. The price freeze on western oil was to come off on January 31 last, but again under pressure from the NDP, the government, which was quite afraid of an election at that time, said they would extend the freeze over the winter months until this spring.
Then, of course we had the fateful federal-provincial conference on energy on March 27. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said: "This is a great day for Canadian federalism" and both he and the premiers of the provinces emerged from the conference with smiles, each claiming a victory. When I read about the results of that conference and listened to the statements of the federal and provincial authorities, I thought to myself that George Orwell's "1984" had finally arrived. We have been used to double talk around this House, but now the circle is complete-we have double think as well.
I remind members of the House that in 1972 crude oil in Canada was selling at $3 a barrel. By 1973, it was up to $4 a barrel. In 1974, this year, it is up to $6.50 a barrel. It has doubled in two years. Who is the chief beneficiary of this doubling of the price of oil in Canada? Is it the Canadian consumer who will be paying eight, to ten cents more per gallon for gasoline?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie permit a question from the hon. member for Calgary North?


Reginald Cyril Symes: I think the hon. member for Calgary North would benefit from listening to my arguments. I will be glad to answer his question at the end of my remarks when he has heard how I have argued my points.
April 9, 1974

As I was asking, is the Canadian homeowner the chief beneficiary of this doubling of the price of crude oil in Canada? The Canadian homeowner who heats his house by oil can expect to pay some $80 more next year to heat his house. Of course, all Canadians will pay more now. Because farmers will have to pay more for fuel, it will mean that the cost of food will go up. Because transport companies will have to pay more to move manufactured goods, the goods in department stores will be more expensive as well. So who is the chief beneficiary of this doubling in price? Not the Canadian consumer. Is it the producing province? Alberta, which is the chief producer of oil in this country, will be getting a great deal of revenue from this new price increase. But I notice that when you compare the amount that Alberta will be getting with the amount which the oil companies will be getting, the province comes out second best. When the price of oil was frozen at $4 a barrel, the Alberta government was taxing at the royalty rate of approximately 22 per cent. Of the recent $2.50 increase per barrel, the Alberta government will get $1.62 and the oil companies will get 88 cents. Therefore, of the $6.50 per barrel of oil the oil companies will now get $4 a barrel. That is not bad when you realize that the production cost of a barrel of oil is approximately $1.53.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: I hope you never teach math.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That is the last figure I have. It may have gone up a couple of cents since then. The province of Alberta is getting more, but the oil companies are getting much more out of this recent deal. The province of Saskatchewan, which produces a minimum amount of oil for Canada under this new formula gets 10 cents a barrel less than when it was sharing under the old export tax formula. But the difference between what happens in Alberta and Saskatchewan-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -is like night and day.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Yes, it is like night and day because all of the difference between the price increase and $3.38 a barrel which the oil companies are allowed to take for their crude oil and the $6.50, which is the new price, goes to the provincial treasury in Saskatchewan to be returned to the people of Saskatchewan in terms of the future development of energy and other provincial programs. This is an example of what a national petroleum company could be doing for all Canadians. If we had a government with a will to do so, it could follow the Saskatchewan example.
The oil companies have reaped a bonanza from this new pricing policy. In 1973, oil company profits were up over 1972 by 45 per cent for Imperial Oil; there was an increase of 43 per cent for Shell Oil over 1972; and in 1973 an increase of 58 per cent over 1972 for Gulf Oil. I can just imagine what the profit increases will now be for 1974! The consumer pays and pays, and meanwhile the oil companies want more with no guarantee that the increased profits will be re-invested in Canada in exploration and energy development. Indeed, Gulf Oil, as I mentioned earlier, in a January publication calls on all Canadians to be willing to pay the world price of $10.50 a barrel here in Canada. This price rip-off is made legal by this bill. It is
Petroleum Administration Act
the result of a lack of a national energy policy. We will be examining Bill C-18 clause by clause in committee, and I hope it will be in the Committee on National Resources and Public Works and not in Committee of the Whole.
I should like to make a few comments on some clauses in Bill C-18 before we deal with them in greater detail in committee. As I mentioned, the export charge will now be legitimized by this bill and will apply to all Canadians. I think it would have been much better if we had remained with the old formula of a fifty-fifty split in the export tax between the province and the federal government. But here we are presented with a fait accompli. The March 27 federal-provincial negotiations decided the issue. Bill C-18 will also legitimize the March 27 price agreement for 15 months. It gives the federal government power to set prices if there is no agreement. Again, we will see more of these ad hoc solutions to a national problem.
But the one part of the bill that gives my colleagues and myself the most concern is that part which is designed to compensate oil companies in eastern Canada which import oil. What a beautiful set up! The oil companies in eastern Canada have to import high priced oil because there is no pipeline there. They import the high world price oil, and thus provide the argument for western oil producers to up the price of the cheaper western Canadian oil so that there is one price for all of Canada. Meanwhile, the eastern oil companies are being subsidized by the federal government so that the price will not rise to the world level.
The question then is: how do we determine the amount of the subsidy to go to the multinational oil companies? The minister says that the price difference is common knowledge; that the companies pay the posted price. He may be a trusting soul. He may accept the word of the oil companies, and we saw evidence of that recently when the government agreed to that roundabout deal to purchase Roumanian heating oil at $1 a gallon. But I am more suspicious than that. I wonder how the Canadian government will know the real price of this oil that is being purchased abroad.
The Canadian government does not have access to the financial records of the international oil companies. We have difficulty in finding out the real transportation costs of the multinationals because of their system of selling to subsidiaries. We have seen this take place time and time again in eastern Canada with Exxon, the parent company of Imperial Oil, buying Venezuelan oil, selling that oil to its subsidiary, Creole Oil, at a mark up, and Creole Oil in turn selling it at a mark up to Imperial Oil. Of course this shows as an increase in price to Imperial, but all the time the profit is going back to the parent company, Exxon. It is all one big happy family, and the Canadian government will be subsidizing it.
It is here that we need a guarantee that there will be a thorough investigation of the books of the Canadian subsidiaries, and also access to the pricing policies of the multinationals and of the foreign governments from which they buy oil. We also want to know what guarantee there will be that the foreign oil companies, the multinationals and their subsidiaries, will purchase oil at the lowest price when they know in advance that they will be compensated

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
by the Canadian government. The NDP members on the committee will be proposing amendments to tighten up this part of the bill.
This is not the occasion to go through the bill clause by clause, Mr. Speaker, but one thing I would like to reemphasize is that until the government comes up with a comprehensive oil policy to control the Canadian oil industry, to set forth the goal of Canadian self-sufficiency and to move toward it speedily, and to set up a system whereby we can control prices in Canada, we will have a series of these ad hoc bills arising out of crises that will develop in this very important sector in Canada. When we see what lies ahead of us in the next decade it seems to me more and more crucial that the government must move in the direction I have suggested, in the direction of government control and regulation of this precious source of energy on which the whole nation depends.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North, on a question to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member talking about the price of crude petroleum now being $6.50 a barrel. Didn't the Premier of Saskatchewan agree to that price, and did he not ask for a higher price, because he felt he should have the international price for Saskatchewan because a lot of its oil is exported, with Saskatchewan of course using a considerable amount of crude from Alberta? Didn't Blakeney agree to that $6.50?


Reginald Cyril Symes: The situation of the province of Saskatchewan cannot be compared with that of Alberta. It is like trying to compare apples and oranges because of the amount of oil produced by Saskatchewan and because it is a have-not province. Nevertheless, in the circumstances, and under the guidelines with respect to the negotiations set out at that time, of course Mr. Blakeney had to agree to the best deal for the people of that province.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions then before I recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) perhaps I could present what the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has suggested to the House by way of a point of order, and that is that this measure, if it passes second reading, be considered in a committee outside this chamber rather than in the committee of the whole.
Usually such questions have been reserved until the end of second reading and debate thereon, because sometimes the Chair can then sense whether such a change would be acceptable or not. But in fairness to the hon. member, and to all hon. members, perhaps I could put the suggestion now. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is suggesting that this measure go into the committee on National Resources rather than into the committee of the whole. On this point of order, which I gather we could best deal with now, I will recognize the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite agreeable to that. The actual name of the committee is National Resources and Public Works, and perhaps by unanimous consent the motion before the House could be

amended so as to delete the reference to the committee of the whole and make a specific reference to that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We certainly agree to that, and that is the reason we asked the question today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All right then, it is agreed and ordered that the question be on second reading with referral to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on Bill C-18 I must comment on the seriousness of this debate and on the lack of attendance by government members. It is they who are changing Canada's constitution one more time through this particular piece of legislation. As I say, this is a major debate on how we Canadians shall go forward from this day on if this bill is passed. This is the second major change in Canada's constitution that has been implemented by the government. I will not take the time now to deal with the first one, but the third one still to come has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board.
In the case of the first change, enabling legislation was passed by the provinces. That is not the case in this instance. No enabling legislation is necessary. The federal authorities are taking absolute control of the oil resources of the provinces, which at the moment happen to be concentrated in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the negotiations at the energy conference on March 27 once again western Canada was taken by the ear to the woodshed by eastern Canada. I have no doubt that that is what happened. Why did Lougheed make what he said was the best deal possible? Why did he say that $6.50 was the best deal possible? The answer is quite simple. What happens in the woodshed? The wood is put to the person brought to the woodshed. What was the wood on this occasion? The wood was section 92(10) (c) of the British North America Act which reads as follows:
Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
The federal government threatened, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to use that heavy hammer on the provinces. Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Blakeney bowed to the heavy pressure. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they could foresee the huge constitutional legal crisis confronting Canada.
In Alberta we saw through the scheme of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Canada a short while ago in relation to the Supreme Court. The obvious choice for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was a gentleman by the name of Martland from Western Canada. But no constitutional crisis in this country was going to be fought with something like a fair break in the Supreme Court with a chief justice who originally came from the province of Alberta. We do not have the same constitutional setup as the United States, so the Prime Minister can put anybody he likes into the Supreme Court without his action being ratified by this House or the Senate. He put a junior
April 9, 1974

member of the Supreme Court in this superior position and thus the Supreme Court was loaded against western Canada. Mr. Lougheed, the premier of Alberta, knew it and Mr. Blakeney, the premier of Saskatchewan, knew it.
Some people might suggest that I dreamed this up but an article in the Montreal Gazette of March 29 puts it rather clearly as follows:
More generally, Wednesday's agreement amounts to a major constitutional concession by the two producing provinces that their natural resources are not subject to exclusive provincial jurisdiction as traditionally maintained. And because they have been persuaded to put their mounting oil revenues into capital rather than current account, these dollars will not distort the existing federal-provincial revenue equalization program out of all recognizable shape.
The Montreal Gazette knew what was going on in the woodshed. So did the Globe and Mail on March 28, in an article which read:
However, several premiers said that the agreement on price was reached only after a federal ultimatum threatening to set the price unilaterally.
An article in the New York Times of March 24 pointed out the same thing. The United States is watching our situation very closely. This article reads:
. .. Canada's oil-producing provinces and the federal government are trying to negotiate their way out of a legal dispute that involves the confederation that holds this country together.
The Prime Minister came out of the woodshed and said it had been a great day for federalism. Any time you have to take the children into the woodshed and whip them over such a serious case as this, you can rest assured that when they become of age or when they have the means, they might retaliate. You may rue the day you took them to the woodshed.
I just want to issue a word of caution to this House, Mr. Speaker. Who am I to say that one slight change in Bill C-18 could not add electric power in the preamble and thus impose a charge on the exports of electrical power? Why could that not be added now that we have broken precedents? Why could the James Bay Power not be taxed by the government as well? I say to all members of this House who are worried about confederation, do not think that federalism was served well by that particular act in the woodshed, because it was not. There may be serious consequences in the days ahead.
There is no question in my mind that Premier Lougheed fought a violent fight and did the best he could for Albertans.


An hon. Member:: He was satisfied.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Was he satisfied? My hon. friend can look at the mathematics. Before March 28 they were getting something like $4 a barrel for crude plus half the tax of $6.40. That gave them $3.20 plus $4, making $7.20. That is what Alberta was getting before April 1. After April 1 it was getting $6.50. Were they satisfied?


An hon. Member:: He said so!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly. He took his licking like a man and came out smiling. Many a time a boy was locked into the woodshed with the school teacher and had to come out smiling before the class. The cards were
Petroleum Administration Act
stacked against him and the teacher had the strap. The strap was the constitutional weapon.
What is going to happen now? Hon. members can ask if Albertans are greedy. An increase of $2.50 per barrel will mean revenue of $900 million per year for the province. They might ask what we are going to do with it. For one thing, we could build the new railroads that we badly need. We could give some help to the oil companies if we want them to continue exploration. But on all oil produced in Alberta there remains a tax of $4.20 under this bill, which applies for one year. What it will be after that is open to question, but $4.20 on every barrel of oil that is exported comes to about $3.78 million per day and that is pretty good money.
In a case before the National Energy Board recently, there was an application for permission to export more oil to the United States. It was said that it would be necessary to export the oil because in order to establish one price for oil all across Canada, money would be needed to subsidize the provinces east of the Ottawa line. That is no secret. Everybody here knows that the tax will be used to subsidize consumers in the provinces east of the Ottawa line. What does that $3.78 million per day mean over one year? Well, it amounts to $1,400,000,000. Albertans realize that they will get $900 million more under this contract but the province of Quebec will get even more. Will it serve federalism well for Albertans to realize that? I do not think it is going to lessen the alienation that exists in western Canada when these figures are understood. Our educational system is pretty good out there and people will be able to make the calculations.
The most significant thing about this payment is that it does not affect the equalization payments so Quebec continues to get 50 per cent of that, whatever that might be. I grew up in a large family-


An hon. Member:: Do you approve of them?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, I approve of large families, but my parents could not have shown that much favouritism and have kept the other eight happy. My friends over there can laugh, but if they think this is a great day for federalism they may nod their heads with approval today because tomorrow they might not be able to nod. That is how bad a day it is for federalism. One wonders what Alberta and western Canada might do with the money. Well, they could give the oil companies a better shake or build a new railroad through the mountains in order to get their products to the west.
We see the NDP saying that there must be an export tax on all products such as refined oil products and lumber. Of course, we could build an empire and completely isolate ourselves from the world with a tax like that, but we cannot afford isolation.
Recently the government said it wants to see a 513-mile pipeline built from Sarnia to Montreal. That pipeline is to satisfy Quebec's needs. We are supposed to defer additional sales to the United States in order to solve eastern Canada's oil difficulties. If the government really means what it says, it would not advocate the building of a
200,000	barrel a day capacity pipeline from Sarnia to Mont-

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
real. It would build a pipeline from Winnipeg, or from the tar sands. Then, we could really assure oil for Quebec and eastern Canada. But what has happened? The superport will still be built on the St. Lawrence, up by Quebec City. Why should it not be built there? After all, as things now stand that is the only way the government will be able to guarantee oil for the eastern market. The mechanism for bringing oil from the west to the east does not exist. The pipelines from Sarnia will not provide for all eastern oil requirements, even by 1980. So, this government proposal is nothing but window dressing.
The Prime Minister on March 28, after the $6.50 per barrel price and the single price across Canada had been agreed on, said that that was a great day for federalism. He said that Canadian oil reserves are limited, so we must encourage further exploration and development if we are to enlarge our reserves. He said that a huge investment is necessary, to guarantee adequate future supplies and that, therefore, a higher domestic price was justified. Then, he said that he was dead against windfall profits accruing to multinational oil companies.
A long time ago a newspaperman asked me, "What do you think of Americans coming to Alberta and finding oil?" I said that if an American wants to come and clean out my barn, let him bring a pitch fork, and I will tell him where to pile the manure. There is little difference in principle between an American coming over to clean out my barn and an American coming over to find oil. They have come over and found oil, and now the Alberta government says, "We, the government of Alberta, will take 65 per cent of your take as royalty." Mr. Speaker, 65 per cent is a fair hunk. That is the size of the royalty paid on conventional gas and petroleum taken from Alberta. To encourage new finds, the Alberta government has agreed to take only 35 per cent on newly discovered reserves. I would not be suprised if the multinational oil companies think these royalties a little steep. They could easily say to us, "Keep your oil; it is pretty expensive. We will go somewhere else." For that reason I was not surprised to read in the April 8 edition of The Albertan that:
Harold McKenzie, president of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd., says that even now oil exploration activity is swinging away from Canada to the United States where the relative return to producers is higher.
The article goes on to say;
It's a simple fact of economic life, says the president of Shell Canada Ltd. that the industry needs to achieve a fair rate of return as an incentive to further investment... unless petroleum companies are encouraged to explore in the Arctic and off shore, Canadian supplies from present commercially available reserves will fall below total domestic demand by 1977 and make Canada a net crude importer.
We have been told over and over again in this House that we can do one of two things. If we cut off oil exports to the United States, we will have enough oil for our own use for about 11 years. If we continue to export oil to the United States and so expand the foreign market for Canadian oil, our oil will last about another six years. So, the Liberals can chuckle all they want about the Prime Minister's statement that March 28 was a great day for federalism because oil prices had been kept down to $6.50 per barrel.
About a week ago the financial section of the Toronto Star carried an article which said in so many words, "If

you want to invest soundly, invest in Home Oil." The writer was addressing Torontonians who read the Toronto Star. Why did he advise them to invest in Home Oil? Apparently the majority of Home Oil shareholders are in Toronto. So, there was one Torontonian telling other Torontonians to invest in their own company. But, why did he tell them to invest in Home Oil? I looked into this. It appears that Home Oil owns or has rights to North Sea oil producing properties. Clearly, nobody is going to freeze the price of oil found in the North Sea. So, Home Oil is exploring for oil in the North Sea. Apparently, it is not interested in looking for oil in Canada.
Now, I come to windfall profits. What is a windfall profit? What is an excess profit? Let me illustrate. This year I lost a lot of money in the cattle business. In the first four months I lost a great deal of money. Perhaps in the next six months I could break even. Perhaps I shall enjoy a windfall profit which will make up for the loss I sustained in the first part of this year. There is nothing wrong with that. A man could lose money one year and, if he has enough reserves to stay in business, could make perhaps 200 per cent more next year, to make up for his losses. I listened to members of the NDP speaking on oil profits. One said that an oil company made 45 per cent profit last year; another company made 42 per cent, and a third company made 47 per cent. I was amazed that profit margins were so low. Dominion Stores increased profits by 102 per cent in 1973 over 1972. Falconbridge made 722 per cent more than in the previous year. What did the company make in the year previous? You must look at the whole picture if you want to see what is happening to profits.
I hold in my hand an advertisement put out by Imperial Oil and carried in Maclean's Magazine. I assume the advertisement is correct; otherwise the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would act. According to the advertisement, Imperial Oil made expenditures between 1947 and 1972 of $20.1 billion. Revenues from operations in the same period totalled $18.1 billion. If these figures are correct, and I assume they are, is Imperial Oil not justified in looking for a little profit somewhere?
Let us consider another publication put out by The Chase Manhattan Bank. According to the pamphlet entitled, "The Petroleum Situation":
This Bank's 30 company study group constitutes a major portion of the entire petroleum industry throughout the non-Communist world. And its experience closely parallels that of the industry as a whole. The chart that accompanies this discussion measures for each year from 1970 through 1985 the amount of profits the group will have to earn if an 18 per cent average annual growth is to be achieved.
In this country the industry will need to grow at an 18 per cent average annual rate if we are to remain self-sufficient in oil after ten years. We must encourage the finding of resources, because we are using them at an alarming rate. The pamphlet goes on to say:
Also measured are the actual earnings of the group in 1971 and 1972. Clearly indicated is the fact that profits in those years were substantially below the required growth trend. The chart also reveals that, despite the large percentage increase over last year, the expected net earnings of the group-
The group referred to makes up practically the entire petroleum industry in the free world.
-this year will fall short of the required level-by more than a billion
April 9, 1974

dollars. If the group's profits are to reach the required level in 1974, they will have to be 30 per cent higher than this year. Or, if the earnings are to be on trend next year and also make up the deficit of the three preceding years, they will have to be fully 70 per cent higher than this year.
That gives you an idea. The article goes on to explain that if you don't like it, and you force the oil companies out of business by fixing prices too low, you discourage exploration. And if the government gets into it, they cannot do it any cheaper than private industry. So who pays? The consumer. It reverts to the consumer.
There is some feeling that windfall profits are a curse. I saw the Prime Minister on television playing cheap politics and saying windfall profits are a curse. I know a lot of farmers. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board says he cannot make a final payment on wheat because farmers are worrying about income tax. Mr. Speaker, a farmer doesn't have to worry about income tax. He can continue to expand. For instance, he can go on buying cattle, and with costs like they are today, he won't have to pay income tax. The same provision is there for the oil companies. If they make an excess profit the income tax will take it unless they expand. It may be said they will expand somewhere else. But they cannot. If they make a profit in Canada they have only the privilege of taking one dollar out of ten should they decide to expand elsewhere. So the income tax takes care of windfall profits made by farmers, cattlemen, oil companies or anybody else. They have the opportunity to reinvest in this country, and if they reinvest we do not tax them; they write it off as expenses. This is simple economics, understood by anybody who has been through high school and earned a dollar, I am sure.
We ought to take a look at what would happen if oil prices rise to a price near the world price. If the price went to the world price we would have one price in Canada. We would have the world price. We could also have it at a dollar or two below the world price. But if you mark it down to half the world price you are doing it for cheap political gain and in the long run your self-serving act will catch up to you. It is interesting to note that the U.S. oil industry used to be able to charge off all exploration costs in Canada against United States income tax. They are no longer allowed to do this. The tendency will be for them to keep their money in the United States. More money will have to be spent by the oil industry in Canada. If we keep the price of oil at $6.50, Home Oil and other good Canadian companies will do their exploring somewhere else. There are two rigs operating in Saskatchewan right now. More in Alberta, because they have not given up faith in the Albertans understanding the industry to some extent.
We hear a great deal of talk about a national oil policy. The national oil policy in my opinion is a short-run conception and will end up being a failure for Canada. We have often heard a great deal of talk about developing an industrial strategy. Western Canada is talking about industrial strategy and a policy for industry. How does this cheap oil for the rest of Canada coincide with a shrewd, wise national industrial policy? I should like to quote from Fortune magazine. It draws parallels which I
Petroleum Administration Act
think are equally valid in Canada. An article which appears in the March, 1974 issue at page 109, says this:
Industry has traditionally been a prodigal consumer of energy because the stuff was simply too cheap to worry about. The price of oil, which accounts for about half of all the energy consumed in the U.S., increased by only 30 per cent from 1948 to 1972.
I think the increase here in Canada in percentage terms is comparable.
Since the general level of prices rose by 74 per cent during this period, the price of oil, measured in constant dollars, actually fell substantially.
Largely because oil was such a bargain, but also because federal regulations held down the price of gas-
That did not happen in Canada, of course.
-the total cost of energy purchased by U.S. manufacturers rose by only 5 per cent in current dollars from 1958 to 1970. Meanwhile, the cost of nearly everything else, particularly labour, was rising rapidly. Thus, manufacturers had every incentive to substitute energy for labour wherever possible. The manufacturing sector of the economy used 66 per cent more energy in 1970 than in 1958. By contrast, the use of labour-measured in man hours-increased by only 35 per cent.
Because energy was so cheap, U.S. business never worried much about using it efficiently.
I recommend this article to the attention of hon. members. I do not intend to quote it all, though I shall quote another portion. It lists industries which are the greatest users of electricity. It speaks about the lavish use of oil as an energy source by electrical utilities. This does not apply with any particular force to Canada since only in Nova Scotia do we develop much energy from the use of petroleum products. The article goes on to say this:
Five industries account for close to 40 per cent of the energy consumed by U.S. manufacturers as a whole and for about 16 per cent of all the energy consumed by Americans. Steel, aluminum, cement, petroleum and paper are the giant fuel guzzlers.
Consider steel, for example. What happened in 1973? The prices of steel products were high, but Canadian steel was the cheapest in the world, and steel is in short supply in Canada. This is a situation in which Canadian steel is able to get into world markets more easily but it does not necessarily mean cheaper steel for Canadians, since the world price will continue to determine the price at which steel is sold domestically, and we, as consumers, will pay.
Take another product we export-pulp and paper. This industry is one of the big five fuel users, and accounts for one of our biggest export volumes, top of the line, especially when wheat sales fall short. Cheap petroleum for consumption by the paper industry will not benefit the Canadian consumer. It is the world at large which will benefit because it is the export price which will determine the domestic price. We can go right down the line. We have a tremendous aluminum industry in British Columbia and Quebec on the basis of which a huge export market has developed. With this cheap fuel for the aluminum industry, who is going to benefit? The aluminum companies of Canada? I suggest aluminum will not be cheaper in Canada because world demand will set the price. Therefore, why sell oil and gas from the province of Alberta cheaply?
Then I come to cement, one of the primary products used in the construction industry. If we want to build in

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
western Canada a manufacturing and industrial empire we will have to receive some favouritism in regard to cement prices. If we are going to sell our energy cheaply to other parts of Canada, we must gain some benefit in regard to the primary product used in developing oil in western Canada. The cement industry now uses about 8.8 million BTU's per ton of product. If the industry recycled more waste heat, cut down on convection and radiation losses and repositioned some kiln burners, it would need only about 3.6 million BTU's per ton. But because cement has been so cheap, the cement industry in the United States has not bothered to take the necessary steps to effect a saving in BTU's.
The article goes on at great length to explain the problems and has this to say about refiners:
Refiners spend a total of about 65 cents of every sales dollar on energy. Aluminum producers spend about 18 cents, plastics manufacturers about 15 cents, iron and steel producers about 12 cents, glass-makers 10 cents, shoe manufacturers only 4 cents, and makers of tobacco products and office equipment only three cents each.
That gives hon. members some idea how energy is used and who uses it. There is also an interesting comment about certain trends today. One of my pet beefs has been that in this country there is a lack of initiative and foresight in regard to doing anything to improve the railroading industry. At page 191 of this magazine appears an article on the transportation industry which reads as follows:
Highway construction is one of our largest consumers of energy: asphalt is itself a petroleum product and cement manufacturing is highly energy-intensive. Thus, a $5-billion highway-building program uses 220 trillion BTU's, whereas a $5-billion railroad-building program would demand only 80 trillion BTU's.
The article goes on to say that labour requirements are relatively the same, but in this country we are trying to scrap the railways and build more highways. If our energy resources were expensive, we would soon scratch our heads and say we must make the economies that are demanded of us so as to conserve our precious fuel stocks. We would find ways of generating electricity without the use of oil, would embark upon a large gasification program, and do many other things that need to be done. But so long as we continue to sell the industrial heart of the country cheap oil, these steps will not be taken. It is true that the province of Ontario is going to have to pay a lot more for its oil, but the industrial heart of the nation is still receiving the cheapest oil in the world. I ask hon. members to name one other country in the world that has cheaper oil than $6.50 a barrel.
I realize some hon. members will say that my speech in the House this afternoon stamps me as somewhat antiCanadian, but I would be less than honest if I did not warn Canadians about the danger of selling oil too cheaply. The same thing will happen to the oil industry as will happen to our beef producers if we knock down the price of our beef too far: one day there will not be any more beef for sale. I suggest the same holds true for the oil industry. Windfall profits have not been proven. The figures cited this afternoon by the previous speaker do not convince me that any oil company has made windfall profits.
The hon. member spoke about going through the books of oil companies. Let me tell him I have tried my best to examine the books of Crown corporations while I have

been a federal member of parliament for the past 16 years. Any prospectus of a company listed on the stock exchange will tell me more about the company than the annual report of Air Canada would tell me about Air Canada, or the annual report of the CNR would tell me about the CNR. Incidentally, we have not referred the annual report of the CNR to the transportation committee for something like three years. So when these NDP members, these socialists to my left, suggest that we must have Crown corporations to know what we are doing, I say that has not been proven in my experience in this House.
I ask hon. members to call representatives from every oil company in Canada before the energy, mines and resources committee and see whether they have made any excess profits. According to Imperial Oil's figures, in 1947, a significant year for Imperial Oil in Canada, they spent $20.1 billion, with operating revenues of $18.1 billion. That is operating revenue, Mr. Speaker, not net profit. I agree they have reserves valued at billions of dollars still in the ground, and they will derive operating revenue when they get those reserves out of the ground, but those are their figures.
If I may come to my concluding point, there is no question that we have ample supplies of oil in the Alberta tar sands. How are these going to be affected by the provisions of this bill? As an Albertan, I have always believed that the tar sands belonged to the province of Alberta and that Alberta should determine how rapidly they should be developed. Yet this bill gives power to some board to move right in and take over. I would not mind that so much if what I hear from the federal government was sane, sound and sensible. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who sits over there is the laughing stock of the city of Calgary since he made a speech there. They did not think that he was sane, sound, or anything else. They did not even think he could utter a sound economic statement after the speech he made out there. We are all aware of his venture into the oil business last winter, when he bid a fabulous price for some oil and then found it was low in viscosity and sulphur content. Now he does not know what on earth to do with it. With this kind of management we do not need Part V of this bill, and I speak as an Albertan.
I am very pleased to hear that the bill will go to the energy committee. I hope representatives of the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan will come down to Ottawa suitcases in hand and make a good case for their provinces. I have always believed that the people closest to a resource develop most experience in the handling of that resource. The tar sands have great potential. They can put Canada well ahead of the United States or any other country in the world-and I conclude on this note-provided the tar sands are developed wisely and prudently, and in such a manner as to give a return to the people investing in them, whether they be Albertans or other Canadians.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I join other members of my party and the House in this debate on Bill C-18, an act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain oil import costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil in interprovincial

and export trade. We are at second reading stage of the bill, which in effect places a surtax on crude petroleum exported from Canada to the United States and sets a price on Canadian crude for purposes of interprovincial trade. In addition, it provides compensation for certain oil import costs in the area of Canada east of the Ottawa Valley. That is really what this bill is about.
On March 28, we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make a statement in the House to the effect that the 10 top ministers in Canada had reached an agreement, and he suggested this was a great day for federalism. In view of the fact that since 1968 the Prime Minister has held many conferences on the constitution and other things, at which he has suggested that the provinces take the federal government's view or leave it, it was rather exciting even for us over here to learn that the Prime Minister and the 10 premiers of this country had come to an accord in reference to three matters, namely the setting of the amount of surcharge, the setting of the price for Canadian crude in international trade and the setting of compensation to be paid to the provinces of Quebec and the Mari-times for the importation of oil at anywhere from $6.50 a barrel to $11.75, being the difference between those prices.
On April 8, I asked a question in the House as to whether Bill C-18 really included the full terms and conditions of the agreement reached between the premiers on behalf of the provinces and the Prime Minister on behalf of the federal government. I then asked whether the premiers had seen this bill, to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) said:
As the hon. member knows ... the general principles involved in the bill were the subject of an agreement between the first ministers on March 27. As the hon. member also knows, it is not in accordance with the practice of the House to circulate a bill outside the Privy Council before it receives the first reading in the House.
That was a neat way to get around my question, but this is not the ordinary piece of legislation. If the minister were honest and did not want to misrepresent the fact, and I would not suggest he was otherwise, he should have said that this bill contains the terms and conditions of the agreement reached between the provincial and federal governments. If we had an agreement arrived at following a constitutional conference, in turn followed by a piece of new legislation, I am confident that any responsible government would make certain that in producing that legislation to implement the changes the bill would be produced to the 10 premiers in order that they might study it, through their attorneys general, to make sure that the terms and conditions of the agreement were fulfilled. I suggest, therefore, that this answer was nothing more than a weak-kneed excuse, dealt with adequately by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
The minister suggested that bills could not be circulated ahead of time, but this bill was certainly circulated at the caucus where civil servants explained it, so there should not be any difficulty in that regard. If one accepts the strict interpretation and the bill should not be sent to the provincial premiers until it is produced in the House, surely after first reading it should go to the premiers or the respective attorneys general for study in order that the terms and conditions of the agreement could be reviewed
Petroleum Administration Act
to determine that the bill does not misrepresent those terms and conditions of the agreement.
Following that, I asked a supplementary question which appears at page 1232 Hansard as follows:
I have one supplementary question arising from the fact that this bill is the result of an agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments concerning the export tax and setting the price of crude petroleum and its by-products. Am I to understand from the minister's answer that neither he nor the government have made any attempt to obtain from the provinces an acknowledgement that the bill embodies the terms and conditions of the agreement made at that time?
The minister answered:
The terms and conditions reached as a result of that conference have been incorporated in this bill. The bill is a public document for the first ministers' examination and as far as I know no exception has been taken to its terms.
I would suggest that between the date of first reading and the date I asked that question, April 8, the provinces would not have had the time to study the bill clause by clause and come to the conclusion that it contains all those terms and conditions, but I will get to that a little later. I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) that this is a verbal agreement, and if there is a written agreement it has been hidden and never produced in the House. Surely, under these conditions, and I want to drive this point home, this minister on behalf of the federal government should have taken it upon himself to produce that bill in order that the provincial premiers would have a chance to study it and approve of it, whether they be premiers of producing or consuming provinces. That is the point I want to make.
I was happy to note that we flushed the minister out today, but I hope that as a result we do not have more problems when we meet in the committee. Let me spend a few minutes on the normal procedure. Even under the new rules a bill such as this would be sent to the Committee of the Whole as it is a taxing bill. If anyone thinks it is not a taxing bill he should consider the surtax being the difference between $6.50 and $11.75, whatever the figure may be, which is the international price. Such a bill would normally go to the Committee of the Whole. That is why I asked whether it was the government's intention to bring the bill before the Committee of the Whole for clause by clause study. I asked whether before doing that the bill would be sent to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works where representatives of the provinces could present evidence during a clause by clause consideration of the bill, and might indicate whether the bill properly represents the arrived at agreement. I might add that I feel representatives of industry, as well as consumer associations, should have the opportunity to appear before the committee in order to voice their opinion and give the best advice and expertise possible as to whether this bill will serve the country and, more importantly, fulfil the terms and conditions agreed upon by the 10 premiers.
I am very pleased that the minister has followed the course recommended by his own party, which was suggested by me in the form of that question, in that this bill is now to be sent to the standing committee and then come before the House. I hope that when the steering committee gets together it will not be told that the committee should not call witnesses but should quickly rush through the bill

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
clause by clause with hon. members putting up their hands in agreement like little children. It was with this in mind that I asked the question, and I almost fainted when the minister said "yes". He usually says no, and when he replied in the affirmative I became a little suspicious. Did he say yes because he is willing to have witnesses called?


An hon. Member:: 'Ask him.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would like to hear what he has to say. If he said yes because he is unwilling to agree to witnesses being called and having the bill aired in the proper way rather than sweeping anything under the table about which the provinces may find out later, then we may have been fooled.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, perhaps I may be able to put the hon. member out of his agony in this regard. I said yes to the suggestion that it be dealt with in the standing committee rather than in Committee of the Whole. It will, of course, as always is the case, be for the committee itself to determine whether it wishes to call witnesses from outside the public service for the purpose of hearings, and I will abide of course by the decision of the committee in that regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is an answer I like, Mr. Speaker. I think you will see through that answer immediately. I have often noticed the heavy hand of the minister when dealing with a steering committee on which the Liberals are well represented. We find the heavy hand on the shoulder of the committee or its agent, who you might say is just like a parrot of the minister. He says yes when the minister tells him to say yes and no when the minister tells him to say no. If the minister were really fair, he would say that he would do everything in his power, if there should be a request from any party or from any member of this House on that committee or otherwise- that witnesses be called, to see that the committee takes the time to do so, thus making sure that this bill is aired and the facts are placed before the Canadian people. We will fight for this right, and I hope we will not be disappointed.
Now, I should like to say something about the bill. It really establishes a surtax to be charged on the price of petroleum at the wellhead which results in a price of $6.50. I listened to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) this afternoon. I see now that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is here but when the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was speaking he stood alone. He said that Mr. Lougheed had overcharged Canada in respect of the agreement for a price of $6.50. He said that the price had gone up from $3.50 to $4 a barrel and that, now as a result of the agreement which took place in the Prime Minister's office, they arrived at a price of $6.50. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie comes from an area that is not far from western Canada and I would

have thought he would know the NDP premier. This NDP premier said in a wonderful article which appeared in the Globe and Mail that he would press for the world price and that Saskatchewan would not bonus or subsidize eastern Canada.
I know Mr. Blakeney personally. Saskatchewan is my home province, although I live in the province of Alberta. Incidentally, Saskatchewan is also the home province of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). We went to Alberta because it is a much better place. In their talks the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Mr. Blakeney, who was fighting for all he could get, arrived at a price of $6.50 a barrel which no doubt was the highest price they could come up with. I agree with the premier of Alberta when he said he is the premier of Alberta but he is a Canadian first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said he is the premier of Alberta and that he wishes to represent the interests of Alberta to the best of his ability. I think he came up with the best deal under the circumstances. Mr. Blakeney must have felt the same way as the premier of Saskatchewan. I think Mr. Blakeney must frown now when he sees the Lewis', son and father-


An hon. Member:: And the Holy Ghost.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was not going to bring in the Holy Ghost-cruise through the province of Saskatchewan because these men embarrass Blakeney each time they speak.
I hope I have answered the question about price once and for all. When I read certain newspapers-I suppose we all on occasion become somewhat regional and really speak for the regions from which we come-and see cartoons depicting Alberta and Saskatchewan as taking advantage of the rest of Canada, all I can say is that I believe the premiers, whether NDP or Progressive Conservative, measured up pretty well as Canadians. They came up with an agreement. When speaking on television some months before, the Prime Minister said that the price of crude petroleum would be increased to a realistic price within the complex world conditions. Our leader agreed with that statement. So, I hope I do not hear any more drivel from the NDP about Alberta getting the price up, because their premier was also a party to the deal. He fought as hard as the premier of Alberta in reaching that agreement. The position taken by the members of the NDP might be good for home consumption and on the hustings but it is not honest, it is not correct and it is not fair.
The second part of the legislation is that which provides for more than $1 billion by way of surtax from the export of crude petroleum to the United States in order to compensate the consumers of eastern Canada who are paying something like $10 or $11.75 a barrel for imported crude petroleum. I shall have something to say about security of supply in a few moments. Until the Prime Minister placed the surtax on the export of crude petroleum to the United States, there was no surtax income from the oil in order to subsidize Quebec and the maritime provinces to the extent of $1'4 billion or $l*/2 billion depending on the total amount of exports approved by the National Energy Board. However, I believe the figure is about one million
April 9, 1974

gallons a day. On this basis we can say that the subsidy would amount to about $1 billion some odd. The purpose of this subsidy is to eliminate the differential in price so that the consumers in Quebec and the maritimes, apart from transportation costs, will pay the identical price for gasoline for their cars and for energy for their factories as the people in the province of Alberta.
This is why I say the premier of our province and the premier of Saskatchewan have measured up first as Canadians for the good of all Canada because energy at this time, particularly in world affairs and in respect of the confrontation which is going on in the Near East, is so important to the economic activity of our country. For that I congratulate our premier.
Now, as to the two producing provinces, let me emphasize something. The NDP love to compare what the province of Alberta is making out of oil with what the people are getting out of it. I can answer that very quickly. It is time that that fiction was exploded because it makes me sick. I have lived in both provinces. We had a CCF government from 1944. As a result of their socialist and nationalistic philosophy, industries were driven out of the province. That is the reason the province of Alberta is a have province and for years the province of Saskatchewan has been a have-not province.
Then, members of the NDP talk about whether the people are going to collect 15 cents a barrel or 25 cents a barrel. Let me tell them that if people live in an economy that is expanding it is because investments are flowing in and development is taking place. Whether it is on the ranch, on a farm, or in the oilfields, when the people are prosperous they can afford to live in a province which is the only one without a sales tax. That is the difference between the Conservative and the socialist philosophy. The socialist philosophy is one which says: now we have found one egg, let us not let the hen lay 11 eggs because we will divide that one egg thinly among all the people. We say: let us have 12 eggs and we will have more for the people. That is the difference between us.


An hon. Member:: Chicken lickin'.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, chicken lickin', and I will tell you why. It is because these people think small.
As I pointed out, the premium, with the increase of $2.50 a barrel of crude petroleum, set the price of royalties so that 65 per cent goes to the province and 35 per cent goes to the oil companies. If the oil companies made nothing out of the deal, there would be no development.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not know who said "oh". I say there will be no development at all unless the oil companies have something with which to develop. Would a well have been drilled in Alberta or even in Saskatchewan if the oil companies made no profit? It is time the story was told. When the CCF took over in Saskatchewan there was no oil development to start with. Finally, they developed the royalty system, and do you know from whom they copied it? From Mr. Manning's government. Even Mr. Clarence
Petroleum Administration Act
Fines, who left the province fairly wealthy after being provincial treasurer, would be the first to admit it, if we could only find him. One sits here day after day and listens to some of these stories.
Another myth I want to explode is the following one, and it is time that this question was answered. We hear this story so often that one might think that people believe not only the words but the tune. It is said that by 1980 we will look into our wells and find them empty-there will be no gas and no oil. Do you know why they say that? For years I have listened to that group and I even went to some of their meetings. I have thought about the matter. They thrive on adversity. That is how they succeed. They want trouble, and they say to the people: we are saving you.
Now I should like to speak about supply. Do you think for one moment that no more wells or oil fields will be found in the province of Alberta or indeed in Saskatchewan? Do you think there will be no more oil found in the Arctic and no more natural gas? Do you think no oil will be found offshore in the Maritimes? There would not be if we had an NDP government because the oil companies would all leave and go to the North Sea.
My time is just about up, so I would like to put down some real facts.


Mr. Knight:: What facts?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry about that. You do not have such a big majority in Assiniboia that you can be so confident.
Let us take a look at our resources. The next question that came to my mind in considering this bill was that the future supply of petroleum and natural gas is so important to our wellbeing. That is why we have been enacting so many bills. May I say now that according to recent technical papers-and this is material researched by an independent petroleum association-Canada is considered to have, at current rates of production, undiscovered reserves equivalent to 100 years supply for oil needs and 250 years supply for gas needs, provided of course that the Athabasca tar sands are developed. Those reserves will not dry up in 1980. When you say that they will run out by 1980, let me point out that if no one develops any more crude petroleum or natural gas, then certainly the supply will run out. If no farmer in Saskatchewan or Alberta planted any more wheat, we would run out of it also. That is what is wrong with their thinking.
Not long ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to the Alberta oil sands, and that reference can be found in Hansard. He said that the Alberta oil sands are estimated to contain 250 billion barrels of oil, of which approximately 26.5 billion barrels are recoverable by current processes. Those figures come from a report of the Canadian Petroleum Association, an independent petroleum group which hired technicians and geologists-not members of the NDP-to make these calculations. While these potential reserves are large, they will only become a reality by exploration, and only through risk exploration can Canada become assured of long term supply. In undertaking this risk exploration it must first be recognized that compared to Middle East supplies or any other reserves in the world

April 9, 1974
Speaker's Ruling
except in the United States, Canadian oil and gas are high cost in terms of finding, development and transportation.
The cost of the development of a new field in Alberta or even in the Arctic is very high. Our wells in Alberta produce about 100 to 200 barrels of the best per day, while in Venezuela one can produce about 10,000 barrels a day, and therein lies the difference because the cost of drilling a well, whether it is in Venezuela, in the Middle East or Alberta, is approximately the same. So the cost to produce crude petroleum in Alberta is greater than it is in the Middle East or in Venezuela.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   AIR TRANSPORT STRIKE BY FIREFIGHTERS AT BRITISH COLUMBIA AIRPORTS- RULING MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Earlier today the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) proposed to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 to discuss the work stoppage at Vancouver airport. I indicated at the time that I had serious reservations about the advisability of putting the motion. I might say that in normal circumstances I would have ruled that the proposed motion did not meet the stringent requirements of Standing Order 26. However, it was felt that the Chair should take into account that a motion to adjourn the House for an Easter recess would, if carried, effectively prevent any discussion of the important and urgent matter between now and April 22. After consultation with the House leaders I have come to the conclusion that, on balance, it might be wise to permit the motion to be put this evening at nine o'clock.
Discussions with several House leaders suggest that there would be agreement that proceedings under Standing Order 40 be suspended, that the motion under Standing Order 26 be deemed to be carried not later than eleven o'clock this evening, and that speeches be limited to ten minutes except for the mover and the spokesman replying on behalf of the government who would be allowed fifteen minutes each.
Is this proposal unanimously agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business, as listed in the order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge) moved: that Bill C-108, to amend the Canada Pension Plan (housewives' contributions and benefits), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan I have been moving private members' bills along this line in order to get fairer treatment for men and women who alternate between industry and home, or sometimes between being ill and being able to work. The principle is equally important in both cases.
Women may be invalided and, as a result, may not work for a number of years, or they may have to assume certain responsibilities at home and later wish to return to the labour force. Because there is no provision for housewives' contributions, even on a self-employed basis, women who find themselves in that position suffer a penalty to the extent that they do not get a full pension. That is a very wrong principle. A similar problem arises when someone has a prolonged illness and has to be out of the labour force for a considerable period of time, but re-enters it at a future date. There is provision for dropping off the years in which he has not been earning, and very often that person cannot recoup the years he has lost by making voluntary contributions during the period of his illness. Thus he suffers a disadvantage when he becomes eligible for pension.
I know that the government is looking at amendments to the Canada Pension Plan. On reading the statement given to the standing committee by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) one assumes that the government is sympathetic to amendments. As a matter of fact, some amendments are before the House now that would provide greater equity and fairness, as the scheme now stands, with respect to contributions made by those in the labour force and by those who are selfemployed. But these amendments do not make provision for housewives' contributions or house persons' contributions. Two suggestions have been made. One is to correct an obvious defect in the Canada Pension Plan so that the benefits a husband receives will be split between himself and his wife. Obviously, there are some difficulties here. If the rates remain at their present level you do not really accomplish very much because you simply split them in two.
The second thing being considered is really the substance of Bill C-108 which is before the House at the moment, namely, that the housewife or house person be able to contribute on the same basis as a self-employed person. There are many arguments and difficulties involved in this concept, but it seems to me there are no more greater difficulties involved than there are with self-employed people paying into the fund. If the housewife could make a contribution to the plan, or
April 9, 1974

remain in the plan, her husband could pay for her if he was in a position to do so. Some people say husbands pay for it anyway, but not in straight monetary terms. At the most the payment would be $4 a week. It seems to me that $4 a week for the satisfaction of having a babysitter, a mistress and a purchasing agent is not really too great for a man to be willing to pay.
In this liberated age, of course, the man may stay at home, but even if the housewife or house person only worked 40 hours a week-in many cases they work far more than that-here we are still talking about only 10 cents an hour. This is not an outrageous figure for a man to contribute in order to ensure that his wife has an opportunity to get a full pension on her own. We are living in an age in which it is considered proper that a woman should have the independence of not having to rely on the income from her husband's pension. And of course if there is a common-law arrangement, if there is no legal contract on which the relationship is based, there is no reason why the same arrangements could not be worked out. Under those circumstances perhaps the woman is in a somewhat stronger bargaining position to insist on getting her $4 a week, or 10 cents an hour. I firmly believe women would be able to obtain these contributions if it were possible for them to get into the plan.
Of course, a problem arises in connection with people who are too poor to make a contribution. If people are on welfare, obviously they cannot make a contribution. Many of the people on welfare are women who have a number of children to support, and certainly there is no surplus from their welfare money with which to pay a Canada Pension Plan contribution. What happens in a case like that? It is grossly unfair if those who have husbands and are in a position to contribute $4 a week can obtain pension benefits, while people on welfare cannot. In a case like that it seems to me that the government has already assumed a kind of surrogate role on behalf of society, and in discharging that role should make the contribution on behalf of the individual woman. If, in fact, she is receiving welfare, a transfer payment is being made to her on the basis of necessity for food and for the care of her children, and surely this principle could be extended to provide a contribution to permit her, at some point, to get the benefit of a pension under the Canada Pension Plan.
Another point to be remembered is that people on welfare do not always remain on welfare. Some people temporarily go on welfare when they are in difficult circumstances. A woman on welfare may have been working previously. She may have established some eligibility in terms of a pension under the Canada Pension Plan. I submit that when she is on welfare for a period of time she should be enabled to maintain payment of her contributions. Chances are that as her children become older, or her temporary sickness situation disappears, she will be able to return to the labour force, will be able to make payments to the plan, and she will get a pension when she retires.
If a person is on welfare all her life, we certainly accept the responsibility to assist her through the old age pension supplement. If she has no other income except the old age pension a supplement is paid to her. But because of the way the Canada Pension Plan is structured, half of what is
Canada Pension Plan Amendment received by a pensioner under it is deducted from the old age supplement. This means that the government saves some money on the supplement, and it enables the person to get this pension in a different fashion than otherwise might be the case. Therefore the cost to the fund does not seem to be particularly onerous. This would be a worthwhile principle to establish with respect to welfare recipients.
There is a far greater problem involved when we come to consider the working poor. They are not poor enough to be on welfare, so how do we make an arrangement for them? I really do not see any clear answer for this problem, except in so far as we are examining a scheme to provide supplementary income for the working poor, and therefore we should consider assisting them to make their contributions to the Canada Pension Plan.
It seems to me vitally important that we establish the principle that women on their own are entitled to pension in the same way as men who are on their own because, by the nature of society, the kind of work they do in the home is equally as important as the work that is done in the factory. Many women work in factories, but also many women work at home. It is important that their work be placed on an equal footing.
Then, there are problems with the costs involved. If presented on the basis of the Canada Pension Plan, in three years they are eligible for some benefits, in five years they are eligible for others, and in ten years they are eligible for full benefits. Since we are trying to mesh it into an existing package, it obviously provides considerable advantages to people of certain age levels as against others. A longer meshing in period may be required in order to accommodate ourselves to that. If housewives are integrated into the Canada Pension Plan, there are some savings because things like survivor benefits and dependant benefits would not be required. As women tend to live longer than men, they would be drawing from their own pension rather than receiving a survivor benefit so in the long run perhaps the cost of the Canada Pension Plan could be reduced. If a way cannot be found to integrate housewives into the Canada Pension Plan, then I think that Pension Plan must be abandoned. I do not think we can afford to have a plan that so blatantly discriminates against the women in our society.
I discussed this matter with my friend and colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who suggested we would be spared a lot of problems by simply increasing the old age security benefit. As he is in many things, it seems to me that the hon. member is correct in this. If we cannot adapt the Canada Pension Plan to include housewives, then we must find a way of providing benefits and equity in the old age security benefit. I think this plan is an example of one of the finest social security schemes. It is universally accepted by Canadians and is eminently fair, making no distinction between men and women. Money has been paid into the fund through sales tax, income tax and corporation taxes based on the ability to pay or ability to consume and the benefits are distributed on a universal basis. The tax system is progressive and those who are better off in society, although they receive the old age pension, make a

April 9, 1974
Canada Pension Plan Amendment
repayment through income tax. This plan is the best of all the social security schemes that we have.
If the Canada Pension Plan cannot be adapted, and if the difficulties that the minister has pointed out are so profound, then we should go the other way. This would probably mean that each person in Canada would be entitled to a basic pension of $250 or $275 a month. It might be just as well for us to move in that direction because it would improve our old age security system to include some of the good features of the Canada Pension Plan. For instance, we could incorporate into the old age security benefit an option to include disability benefits so that if a person became disabled at age 50 or 55, he or she would be eligible for the old age pension. This would take us along the road to social justice. There are people in our society aged 55 who have worked very hard in an occupation that has worn them out. Most people would agree that good as our old age security system is, under certain circumstances of disability there should be provision for earlier retirement.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have to take a stand and do something about a pension for housewives. I hope the House of Commons finds a way of opening up the Canada Pension Plan to give justice to the women in our society or perhaps the House should give up the Canada Pension Plan and instead, improve the old age security plan. In order to come to some kind of resolution on this matter, I hope that all members of the House will allow the bill to receive second reading and go to committee where these things could be examined.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am deeply confused to find myself in the somewhat ambiguous position of having to kill a bill. Let me explain that it concerns Bill C-108. I know that my words usually say the truth, but a hidden truth. Then, Bill C-108 was graciously introduced by my hon. colleague from Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) for the benefit of Canadian women.
At the outset, I wish to point out to him that if he had a sharper awareness of the daily problems of the women in Canada working without pay, he would have made sure to call them "housemistresses" and not "housewives". He should have read the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in which I had the honour of participating and which I co-authored. He would have seen one of the things that most hurt the ZVi million women who stay at home and work full time without any salary. Indeed, Statistics Canada asked them during the census: Are you working or are you a housewife?
This is a very complex problem, because it goes to the very roots of our society. However, I readily agree that my hon. colleague showed much good faith in attempting to present a private bill that would enable housemistresses to make full contributions, if I may say so, to the Canada Pension Plan, and certainly I hope, to the Quebec Pension Plan. But, of all he said in introducing his bill, I remember one thing that, I admit, shocked me. He said:

The working poor-they are a problem. I really regret I do not have any solution.

He added a bit further on: For me, introducing this bill-I quote his words, not word for word, but as I remember them-is a matter of principle.
Mr. Speaker, in my case, my position is almost the opposite of his. To me the problem of principles, the big words of social justice are an ideal we strive for a bit more every day; to me that is something relative and not absolute. Who created the problem of house-mistresses in Canada? First of all, it is a problem of the "working poor" or the "poor". I pointed it out in my maiden speech when I first had the honour to address this assembly after being elected. The royal commission proved one thing to the Canadians who read the report: that the poorest of the poor in Canada are the women. In this regard, I shall express a few ideas in the course of this debate concerning an eventual contribution by house mistresses to the Canada Pension Plan.
What problem affects them most with regard to the Canada Pension Plan? Of course, I must say that after having held public hearings and done some research, the commission decided to include in its report a recommendation, which has been ground down in any event and in many ways since, recommendation that is closely related to Bill C-108 now before us.
I would like to revert to what we said actually. First, we said as regards women in Canada and the Canada Pension Plan that the most important difference is that existing between sexes in the Canada Pension Plan and it is to be found in the benefits granted to the spouses and children. Consequently, we recommended as the commission did that the legislation related to the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan be amended so that the provisions concerning the wife and children of a male contributor may also apply to the husband and children of a female contributor.
Ti_.s reform which is under way-and in this connection we have had a press release last April 5-is a technical reform involving more people and correcting a genuine injustice between sexes.
The other problem is different. Besides we had moderated our way of thinking at the time. Page 40 of the report reads as follows, and I quote:
Therefore, we recommend that (a) both the Canada and the Quebec Pension Plans be amended so that the spouse who remains at home . . .
We had the wisdom to foresee times still to come and we did not mention only women.
... can participate in the Plan and (b) the feasibility ...
And God knows that we recommended measures rather than studies, but here we had to say:
... the feasibility be explored of:
(i)	crediting to the spouse remaining at home a portion of the contributions of the employed spouse and those contributions made by the employer on the employed spouse's behalf, and
(ii)	on an optional basis, permitting the spouse at home to contribute as a self-employed worker.
We did that for several reasons because few women and few groups came to request the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to include this recommendation in the
April 9, 1974

report. However, some women did. There was nothing wrong with this recommendation. But practically, what does it provide people? And first, what is its origin? In my opinion, it originates not so much from a real problem of discrimination between the sexes but from a psychological problem by which one fails to recognize a role which is essential in the structure of our society and that of today's family.
This recommendation therefore comes from the uneasiness that housemistresses have expressed and that I shall summarize, if I may, by quoting from an article by the very famous Galbraith, which article was published in the
March 1974 issue of Maclean's and in which the author deals with the virtue of social convenience. He says, and I quote:
The virtue of social convenience is extremely useful in bringing people to do disagreeable tasks. Not so long ago it convinced the young men to joyfully and conseienciously accept military service despite much lower pay than the normal rate, which automatically reduced the fiscal burden of taxpayers which were already well-off. Any resistance was considered despicable and even antipatriotic and was condemned. The same virtue-
-social convenience-
-guaranteed the charitable and careful services provided by nurses or home and general hospital services. There again, the credit earned before the eyes of the community served as a substitute for fair payment. (It should however be noted that physicians never did accept this type of payment!) But the absolute success of the virtue of convenience comes with the conversion of women into servants.
In pre-industrial societies, women were appreciated of course for their procreative ability, but also for their performance in domestic duties and their value on the farms, as well as, in the higher classes, for their intellectual, decorative or sexual merit.
This is what Mr. Galbraith says. According to a very famous Canadian economist, the housemistresses whom my colleague from Waterloo-Cambridge calls housewives make a very significant contribution to the gross national product, but one which is totally hidden or even ignored in our method of social accounting.
He said: "The work . . " and I take his figures instead of ours, because they are higher and more recent, and I think that he has a better reputation than the modest report of the royal commission. I go on quoting:
The work of the average woman ...
According to me, it is a bad translation and it should read: "housewife from an average family"
... is approximately equivalent to the salaries paid in 1970-$257 a week or $13,364 a year.
Economists have tried, especially in the United States, also in Sweden and to some extent in England, but not so much in Canada, to give an economic value to the work of the housewife and to conciliate our social accounting accordingly.
These problems will probably make some members smile. But women very well know that they are housewives, cooks, laundresses and ironers all rolled up into one, even if we are blessed with modern and very useful appliances and what have you. They vigourously resent this lack of social acknowledgement of their identity, their role and their definitely economic contribution.
Those women are not the majority, housemistresses of families in the high or fairly high income brackets who could probably pay themselves the luxury of making
Canada Pension Plan Amendment optional contributions each year to the Canada or Quebec Pension Plans.
They would have to double the amount we pay because someone will have to pay the employer's share. I will not go into the technical details to say that about $200 will have to be spent by those women so that they get a corresponding pension at the age of retirement.
There is no problem there. So much the better for them, but the women who would not draw a pension are those whose condition is extremely modest, not to say underprivileged, the poor women who must stay at home because they have no skill or because they lack the necessary training to get a remunerative job outside, or perhaps because they have no husband. Nobody spoke about this in this bill. The women whose husbands do not earn enough money, those who simply do not have $200 for the contribution of both the employee and of the employer to the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan have been forgotten.
It is certain that it is not the social symbolism but the practical result which interests those women. As far as I am concerned, in spite of the endeavours we made through the royal commission, in spite of the efforts of the Department of National Health and Welfare to find a solution to the possible participation of those women to the Canada Pension Plan, it is much more by a formula such as the guaranteed annual income that we will help the women who really need help.
Now, before closing my remarks, I would like to ask some questions which should prompt people to reflect on definite practical problems. I think this bill is cute. I apologize but I have no other word to describe it. Though it was conceived in good faith, I do not find it very practical and I do not think it will be of real help to women.
On the other hand, it is unfortunate that the press, the media, the feminist movements are bringing in this question in a wrong light. Even some hon. members, when they get interested in the women's condition-put in the spotlight this sole recommendation as being the very symbol of what is commonly called women's lib. This is a social lie we are now telling them. The mass of women-and I apologize for such a crude term-will one day be made up of widows and this for two quite simple reasons: first, the married man, still nowadays, according to Canadian and western statistics, usually marries a woman younger than himself and furthermore, women live longer than men.
Based on those innocuous and practical considerations, I therefore conclude that women have more chances, according to statistics, of becoming widows and as such they are covered; so there is nothing to worry about, it is in the legislation. The rare cases of widowers will soon be covered. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has suggested the necessary amendments to that effect.
Secondly, in order to be practical, I would like to ask my colleague from Waterloo-Cambridge if he forgets the fact that times change. His bill seems to have come to a standstill. However, women are increasingly coming on the labour market and they are often working part-time. How

April 9, 1974
Canada Pension Plan Amendment should the earnings of those women be assessed? We have not found any answer to that question in the bill introduced by the hon. member and I know that the very serious work performed by the royal commission and everything done by the department involved since last year have not provided any practical solution taking into consideration all the women who work part-time.
I would have much more to say on that matter, but I will not take more of your time. I would ask my male colleagues interested in the status of women to read the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. They can obtain a copy at a reduced price as members. Indeed, it can easily be purchased at Information Canada. They should choose the recommendations whose application will affect most Canadian women and, as a priority, the poorer Canadian women.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker).


Mr. Blaker:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore, but I did not notice that the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis) was rising. Although the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore is entitled to the floor, I wonder whether he would yield, to use a phrase heard very often in the U.S. Congress, to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.


Roderick Blaker: I will be delighted to yield, Mr. Speaker.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I, on my
part, Mr. Speaker, will undertake not to take more than ten minutes. I think we are all very grateful to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) for having introduced this bill once again. It has features which are of interest, and the most important thing about it to my mind is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss the whole matter of housewives and their proper pension coverage under social security programs.
To the hon. member across the way who has just spoken with such eloquence I would say that it is three years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended very strongly that housewives be included in the Canada Pension Plan, and I would have hoped that the government she supports would have seen fit to give us a lead before now as to a method by which this difficult task could have been achieved. I agree absolutely with her and with the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge that housewives ought to be entitled to full pension coverage. They should also be covered by pensions in their own right as individuals.
The difficulty about fitting them into the existing Canada Pension Plan is very real. In the first place, the Canada Pension Plan is geared to earnings and the great majority of housewives have no earnings. There is the first difficulty. If we say that they are worth a great deal of money-and they are; their services are worth a tremendous amount-are we going to lay down a flat rate and assess their earnings at being so much, and consequently say so much is to be paid for them out of the treasury in respect of a pension?

If we do that, we will have fights everywhere on the business of the flat rate. Is a woman with a husband and three children to be considered in the same earnings bracket as a woman with a husband and six children, or one with a husband and no children? It is very difficult to assess as a basis for Canada Pension Plan coverage an income that a woman doesn't get. In the second place, the Canada Pension Plan is geared to individuals, it is not geared to families, and I am beginning to wonder, as are the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge and the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whether the Canada Pension Plan is the best vehicle for providing the coverage that housewives ought to have.
The ideal thing would be to give housewives an income. I have urged for a long time that women who stay at home and make a career of raising their children, instead of going out to work behind a counter or engaging in some other means of earning a livelihood or a partial livelihood, should be paid an income in respect of their duties as housewives. If we had done that and if housewives were receiving an income, perhaps related to their responsibilities at home, then it would not be difficult to bring them under the Canada Pension Plan.
To my mind there is one very great difficulty about all of the solutions that are put forward. For one thing, we are given no figures showing the monetary effects of these solutions, what the cost would be to the treasury, the household, and so on. The really great difficulty in the discussion paper submitted to the health and welfare committee by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) related to the solution where housewives would have a split pension credit with their husbands. In other words, the husband pays 50 per cent for his own pension, building up his wife's pension with the other 50 per cent. That is perhaps a good solution in a case where the husband earns a very good income. He and she, can then afford to have his pension credits split in that way. But what about the person of modest income, or the working poor? When you split the pension credits of these people, it means not enough will be left for the wife to live on when she reaches old age even if a halt is put to inflation. This is why I do not think that solution would be workable.
Just as the unemployment insurance scheme had amendments made which perhaps destroyed its original purpose of being geared to earnings, there are features of these proposed amendments to the Canada Pension Plan that steer it away from its original intention, which was to be geared to individuals who earn money. Perhaps we should consider looking after housewives, at least for the time being until they are paid a salary for their housewifely duties, under our old age security system. If that were done, we would encounter very few of the difficulties we would face bringing them into the Canada Pension Plan. Then, as their income increased they would be taxed accordingly, but would not be penalized if their income dropped.
If housewives were brought under the Canada Pension Plan it would be a real bonanza for housewives in wealthy homes. I would not want to see this happen. I do not want to see the poorer housewives brought into a scheme where
April 9, 1974

they would have a split pension credit with a husband who had a hard time earning a decent pension for himself. Then there are other problems, such as marriage breakdown, separation or divorce. Certainly these are matters that would have to be resolved. This is why I think housewives should have the elasticity of the old age security system, where they could be permitted to receive old age security at a lower age if they were without means.
I promised not to go beyond my time, and I shall not do so. I want to assure the hon. member across the way that I am just as keen as she on including housewives in a pension scheme and recognizing their value as housewives. Until such time as housewives earn money of their own, I do not want to see them included in some inadequate pension split with husbands who in far too many cases are not earning sufficient to assure an income for their wives, be they living with their husband, separated, divorced or eventually widowed.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known expression that "such-and-such is a rather difficult act to follow" I suggest that in considering this private member's bill, Bill C-108, with respect to pensions for housewives it is an extraordinarily difficult act to follow when two lady members of parliament have commented on the subject. I notice the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) has moved to behind the curtains for a moment.

But if I could reassure the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin) concerning the English word "cute"- [English]
She used the word "cute" to describe the bill, and I agree with her because it is an oversimplified bill that does not go to the heart of the difficulties of women in Canada. [Translation]
If I may explain the meaning in English of the word "cute", I will say that it is "bow-legged"-

In other words, to be "bow-legged" is to have a body with a fault. That is a perfect description of this bill, one about which the hon. member for Saint-Michel has no need to be embarrassed. This bill is a body with a fault, because it does not go to the essence of the problem that was considered by the hon. member for Saint-Michel and by the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Macln-nis). May I pay my respects to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) for putting forward this bill which does go to the essence of one of the many problems women have in this country. But I noticed that the two previous speakers commented not so much upon the details of the bill as upon some of the problems in the over-all sense that relate to the status of women in Canada.
If I may be permitted to continue this approach to the subject, I would tend to examine the legal and economic rights of women in Canada. Before too much of my time elapses, may I briefly comment that there are many problems respecting Bill C-108 in regard to defining a housewife as an employee. With the greatest respect to the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, I do not think it is
Canada Pension Plan Amendment possible that in the near future we can begin to pay everybody who is defined as a housewife-whatever that definition might be-some kind of salary. I say that not because I object to paying housewives a salary but, rather, simply because obviously the cost to the public treasury would be almost incalculable.
Perhaps because of my own background I would tend to consider another aspect of the problem, namely, the rights of women under the law. There is no doubt that as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the government of Canada has succeeded in making substantial improvements in this field, at least in law, though I would be the first to admit that there is a very considerable distinction between law and practice. It has always been a conviction of mine that equal pay for equal work would resolve many of the problems relating to the status of women in this country. I have changed that opinion in recent months because I have seen too many instances where, while the law requires equality, reality in fact does not confer equality upon women. While I might disagree with some of the approaches of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway as to the possibilities there might be for equality for women based upon an income for housewives, and so forth, at least I can agree with the principle involved, which is that the time has come to put an end to the economic distinctions we make in our society with respect to the status of women.
We can pass legislation providing that women should be allowed equal income for equal work, but in fact we find that women are not getting equal income for equal work. We can pass legislation, as we have in the province of Quebec from which I come, which in many regards has improved the status of women and taken it out of its relatively feudal state and brought it up to, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago, a state in law which is not too much criticized today. Changes have been made such that women who at one time were not able to make decisions affecting their families are now able to do so despite the absence of the husband or even despite his disagreement.
We could consider, for example, the right of women in the province of Quebec to determine what constitutes the best medical consultation in respect of themselves and their families. Again, this is something relatively new. I do not suggest, necessarily, that such reform of the existing legislation on the status of women has gone as far as it should go, but I would like to point out that the question of the status of women is improving with considerable speed.
On the subject of pensions as contained in Bill C-108 proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, while I am in full agreement with the purpose of the bill, which I believe is to bring before this House the need to consider the economic status of women, I remain at the same time somewhat disturbed by many of the problems, some of which were referred to by the hon. member for Saint-Michel, which relate to an attempt simply to redefine a particular expression, in this case the word "employee" in the act.
1298

April 9, 1974
Canada Pension Plan Amendment
The principle for us to consider should be the right of women in law, economic law, to enjoy the same benefits as men in a partnership which our society calls marriage. The fact that in some cases one of the partners chooses to remain in the home and to accept, I suppose, both the joy and burden of governing and caring for the entire family in the homestead, should not preclude that person but in fact should provide an additional right for that individual to share in the benefits of the economic results of the other spouse's working. I do not mean to be trifling when I say that the point of identifying the housewife as an employee could be considered well intentioned but there are a growing number of male persons who might very well be included in such definition of "employee" in so far as the Canada Pension Plan is concerned. So we cannot arrive at a solution to this problem of women's rights to pensions simply by including the word "housewife" within the definition of "employee."
The problems which can be referred to, it seems to me, should be taken in two basic divisions. One is that as this private member's public bill is now drafted it would result, I think, in considerable inequity in respect of wives and families which are not economically or financially better off, because if voluntary contributions were to be the rule of the day, then obviously housewives in preferred financial situations would be in a better position to make voluntary contributions than wives of low wage earners. In that regard I think one should mention that the Income Tax Act provides, under section 79, for any individual, regardless of sex, particular economic income or activity, to deduct from their income-if I recall correctly-the lesser of either 10 per cent of income or $2,500. What is proposed is on the right track on the principle that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the sex of a person who makes the contribution to their own pension plan.
The second problem which somewhat concerns me in respect of including a housewife in the definition of "employee" is the difficulty referred to by both the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Saint-Michel. That is the problem of what happens in the case of separation or divorce or any other change in the legal status of the person involved. What I should like to see in the final analysis is a situation where the whole family, both in the sense of its status as a total family and in the sense of the rights continuing in the event a family should suffer a breakdown, including the father, the mother and the children, would have all the economic rights available in Canada and equal access to all government-sponsored benefit plans.
Until we arrive at the stage where we are prepared to submit legislation to this House the result of which would be that women are truly equated with men both in an income and legal sense, then I suggest this bill as it now stands has the merit of raising the problem, pinpointing and spotlighting it, but it does not at all resolve the problem. I would rather see us put more thought and time into this subject, rather than put definitions into the Canada Pension Plan, the result of which would be to recognize the absolute and complete legal right of every woman in Canada to share in all the family benefits provided by our government and our economic system.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) at the conclusion of his speech pleaded that we allow this bill to go to committee. It has been made abundantly clear during this debate that the bill has a number of defects. I am not suggesting there is no value in its going to the committee, because certainly those difficulties would become obvious to hon. members participating in the committee's work. However, it is clear that this procedure could be followed during discussion on the paper tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which agrees in principle that homemakers in this country should be able to participate in the Canada Pension Plan and provide for security of income at a later date. I think a discussion on that paper would accomplish exactly what the hon. member wants, and that is an open discussion on the issue of including homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-18, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain oil import costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil in interprovincial and export trade, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, just before five o'clock I was dealing with the clauses of the bill. For a few moments I wish to discuss with the House clause 21. Clause 21 deals with the agreement made between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on behalf of Canada and the premiers on behalf of the provinces. As recorded at page 1244 of Hansard, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said:
One of the strange things about this pricing mechanism is that we are being asked to approve it although there is no written agreement. Clause 21 of the bill makes reference to an agreement, but goes on to provide that the agreement need not be expressed in any formal
April 9, 1974

document, that the agreement can be contained in reciprocal orders in council. We can discuss this matter later, but I want to point out now that neither this House nor any committee of this House should be asked to pass legislation giving authority to the government to impose a price mechanism on the basis of an agreement that we have not seen and of reciprocal orders in council that have not been tabled. This I hope the minister will do before this bill is dealt with any further.
My concern is that this bill is supposed to crystallize the agreement between the Prime Minister and the ten provincial premiers who met and agreed on the pricing of oil, on the compensation and on the surtax. Clause 36 shows very clearly that the federal government wishes to take over control. When dealing with price, the Prime Minister and the minister said that the question of price in the agreement would last only 15 months. I would refer you, sir, members of the House, and indeed the media, to clause 36 which provides:
Where no agreement is entered into pursuant to section 21 with the government of a producer-province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the governor in council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the governor in council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies-
What I am saying is this: clause 21 deals with the agreement. There is nothing in writing. The agreement was reached at a luncheon meeting. The premiers and the Prime Minister came out and held a press conference. The only thing we know about this agreement is what we read in the press and the fact that it was held in secret.
Clause 36 in effect says that if that agreement is terminated, and it will be in 15 months, or if there is a feeling on the part of any province in breach of the agreement, then the federal government can move in and make the decision through the governor in council, which means through order in council by the cabinet. This is the reason I am very pleased the minister agreed today, after interrogation on my part yesterday and today, to send this bill to a standing committee provided, of course, we are to hear witnesses from the provinces, from the companies and from the consumers in respect of the bill as it is written.
The question we must ask is whether this bill really expresses the agreement that was entered into verbally on March 27. There are a few things I should like to say before I close in reference to what has happened in the past few months. There has been talk about shortage of supply and about the fact that the supply of 200,000 gallons per day dropped down to 50,000 gallons a day, and in the end we did not know what the supply would be and what the shortage would be. As I have said, there was not an energy crisis in Canada. There was a transportation crisis.
If this government since it took office had built transportation facilities from the west by pipeline-not from Sarnia to Montreal, which means only an additional 15,000 barrels of crude petroleum a day-to carry crude petroleum into Montreal, and indeed to the maritimes, would we have had sufficient supplies of crude petroleum in Canada to supply our needs without any importation. Therefore, I agree with the former leader of the NDP when he talks about the bill setting out certain terms which mean, of course, control by the federal government and the taking away of control from the provinces. This is the reason I am pleased the bill is to be referred now to a committee, before which I hope we will be permitted to
Petroleum Administration Act
call witnesses and to hear evidence from the provinces, from the oil companies and from the consumers' associations to determine exactly what is meant by clause 36.
Clause 36 says that if the price freeze runs out in 15 months, and that is what the Prime Minister spoke about on March 27, then the federal government can pass orders in council and thus will control not only the price but will compensate the industry and move into the field. I say to you, sir, that that is totally unconstitutional.
What I would have liked-and this has been my ambition since I have been a member here-is the government to have had the vision to see that free enterprise should continue in the exploration and development of crude petroleum and natural gas, not only in Alberta and Saskatchewan but in the Arctic and offshore in the maritimes. We should build pipelines so as to supply the whole of Canada. Every day we export one million barrels of crude petroleum to the United States, and we import into Canada the same amount either from the Middle East or Venezuela. Our imports and our exports are just about equal. But if we had had a government with vision, a government which realized the possibilities which exist in this country-in the same way the CPR was built- we would have the means of transporting energy from western to eastern Canada.
We should be self-sufficient in this natural resource. Before supper I pointed out that we will have a sufficient supply of crude petroleum if the tar sands are developed- apart from what might happen offshore-for 100 years, not only to fulfil our export commitments but to satisfy our own needs as well, and sufficient natural gas for 250 years. Men with small minds, men who want to play politics with regard to this subject, will tell you that we will run out of these natural resources by 1980, because what they want is adversity for the sake of power. What I want to see in this country is a new national dream, a new transportation system to transport energy and gas which would come down from the Arctic by pipeline, with the help of the United States, to the industrial centres of eastern Canada and indeed to the industrial centres of the United States, each country paying a price to transport those resources under a joint venture, joint financing, because in the oil and petroleum industry risk capital is needed.
__ Members of the NDP always say that we will run out of oil and gas. I say that we would run out of them if we accepted their philosophy. They do not want to give anything to industry. They say, "We have this much and we will share it with the people of Canada." But I say if we had vision with regard to corporations we would provide the average man with incentives to enable pipelines and transportation facilities to be built. There never was an energy crisis in Canada. That was fiction and built-up emotion because of the ineptitude of the government and its inability to provide leadership. That can be proven today. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) has bought, this winter, heating fuel at 89 cents which we now know is worth 13 cents to 15 cents.


An hon. Member:: Ninety-nine cents.
1300

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody from the Liberal Party says 99 cents. Whatever it is, it will cost the taxpayers between $40 million and $50 million. I have a recommendation to make to the House, and I make it seriously. I suggest that the president of the proposed company, an idea which the NDP sold to the Liberal Party-they are all socialists, anyhow-should be the Minister of Supply and Services, because with his ability to purchase oil you know what the oil companies would say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member-and this is not what the oil companies in Calgary would say-but his time has expired. He may be allowed to complete his remarks but it would require unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I would like to see the minister appointed president of the company, because then they would realize the imperfections of a federally-run company. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the companies which have found oil and the natural gas will find that there is no competition when they have the minister as president. That is my recommendation, that the Minister of Supply and Services be named president of the new company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Goyer for president.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I speak on the bill before us tonight having read some of the speeches in Hansard and having heard others speak in the House on this legislation. I find it interesting to note in particular that at page 1235 of Hansard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) is reported to have said:
-I would like to join with the Prime Minister in asserting that federalism triumphed in reaching a solution to a problem which was at its heart a matter of relative equities and sharing within our country.
This is not the first time I have heard that comment about federalism being triumphant. But surely the minister in making that type of statement is glossing over the hard fact that if there had been a little more foresight on the part of the Trudeau government or the Liberal government that has governed this country since 1963, there could well have been no crisis or disaster over which federalism would have to triumph. Surely it is a strange but accurate observation that this government gets into trouble repeatedly and then, rather than admit that they should have foreseen what transpired, they take credit, if they can, for coming out with some type of a solution. I trust that come an election, the electors of Canada will not accept the explanation given by the government concerning this type of situation. I believe that federalism has triumphed, not because of the Trudeau government but in spite of it.
Now I would like to deal with specific clauses in Bill C-18 because I believe that the government has left us open, perhaps inadvertently, to a serious drain should their administration of this legislation not be as successful as expected. I am referring to the petroleum import cost compensation sections of the act beginning with clause 51.

I think it is fair to say that, subject to the various safeguards that they have put into the bill, the minister is contemplating that an importer of petroleum products, or of petroleum itself, will be entitled to apply for and to receive compensation for the amount that he pays for his foreign product over and above a stated level as set out in the bill.
This matter was first raised in committee, and we in the committee were quite surprised at the lack of precision which the minister's department showed in defining how exactly the compensation would be determined. Let us put it in the simplest terms. The departmental officials are indicating that they feel they can audit a system of costing at the Canadian import point that will justify their compensating the importer really with no limit. I stress "really with no limit" because surely most of us here were quite surprised during the last two weeks to learn that, on the instructions of this minister, the Department of Supply and Services in early December last purchased fuel oil at a price of 89 Vi cents to be delivered at the Black Sea.
If we translate that into the cost of the fuel per barrel, it can readily be seen that it was over $30 a barrel which the Department of Supply and Services, at the request of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), paid for that fuel. Not only did they pay virtually the highest price in the world for the fuel, but by accident or otherwise they ended up paying at the rate of 10 Vi cents a gallon to have it shipped from the Black Sea to Canada. That again works out at almost $3.50 a barrel, or almost the price of our domestic oil at that time. I repeat, it works out at almost $3.50 a barrel simply to have the oil shipped across the sea to Canada. On the formula that this bill contemplates we would find that an importer of that fuel could pay those kinds of prices, which presumably he can justify and have it documented, both as to transportation and the actual cost of the fuel itself, and then turn to the Canadian government and say, "Compensate me for the difference between the basic price level in Canada and the cost of my importation."
I suggest that this is a rather alarming situation for the people of Canada to be getting into. It is virtually a blank cheque proposition to those who may, to give them the benefit of the doubt, through sheer stupidity buy oil at unduly high prices throughout the world or, worse than that, enter into some type of conspiracy to see to it that relatively large rip-offs take place, knowing that the government of Canada will pick up the tab. That is why I was particularly pleased today when the minister indicated he was willing to have this bill go to the standing committee, because I believe that these clauses, not only the compensating clauses but certain other clauses in the bill, deserve very close scrutiny before they are passed by the House. But my pleasure in having the minister agree to having the bill referred to the standing committee was lessened somewhat when he qualified the extent to which we would be given an opportunity to hear witnesses concerning the bill.
We who sit on the national resources committee have been very disappointed with the guillotine that has been used by the NDP and Liberal members who sit on the steering committee with respect to guaranteeing that wit-
April 9, 1974

nesses whom we want to appear before the committee are not given an opportunity to do so. I sincerely hope that the minister will do his best to ensure that any witnesses we as a caucus see fit to call before that committee will be given an opportunity to appear before it and receive a proper hearing. For his own protection, the minister should allow the committee to investigate intensively the provisions of this bill. He cannot hold a club over the committee as he did previously when we were attempting to deal in a prudent way with the allocation bill. At that time, in his mind anyway, a dreadful crisis was hanging over Canada which did not afford us an opportunity in time to review the bill properly. I suggest that Bill C-18 does not have to fall into that category and it should be investigated intensively.
Let us accept the fact that the total tax raised with respect to our exportation of oil will be between $1 billion and $114 billion. Granted, that is a large amount of money, Mr. Speaker, but we have to weigh whether it will be sufficient to cover the cost of the importation of oil into eastern Canada as contemplated in this bill. I say this because I found it interesting that in the international economic report of the President of the United States, issued in February of this year, the total costs of oil imports to certain countries around the world, including Canada, were estimated. In that publication they project that the Canadian cost of importing oil in 1974 will be $4 billion, compared with $1.3 billion last year. They point out that this is an increase of $2.7 billion in extra expense to somebody in Canada for the cost of our oil imports.
In the committee we questioned the minister on whether he agreed with that figure, and frankly I was startled to find he would not even hazard a guess as to the cost to Canada. Yet our neighbour, the United States, a month earlier was able to publish the estimated figure for Canada and for other countries throughout the world. Surely we must find it alarming that we have a bill before us drafted by a minister and his department who cannot even tell us what possible cost they are attempting to cover. We know the amount of the export tax to be between $1 billion and $1V4 billion. That is why I say we in the committee must be very cautious to determine to what extent, under the compensation formula, costs may run at a much higher level than anybody to date has foreseen.
We see figures given in publication after publication. I refer, for example, to the February edition of The Petroleum Economist. They point out that the total cost of fuel to consuming countries in 1974 will likely be $160 billion. In short, Mr. Speaker, we enter a tremendous money field when we start dabbling in international trade in oil and petroleum products. We need an act with teeth in it to guarantee that multinational companies, the tanker lines and those working with them, will not be able to put Canada into a rip-off position such as we have never seen before.
I anticipate that Aristotle Onassis will jump with glee when he hears, as he must, that the Canadian government is contemplating a compensation plan such as the one before us tonight. I find it odd that when we speak of Onassis we get right back into the Olympics. As most members know, his ships are called Olympic, and for those
Petroleum Administration Act
who are interested in knowing the number of Onassis ships that may be involved in the compensation plan that the minister is asking us to accept I would refer them to the Shipping and Shipbuilding Directory which shows the magnitude of his fleet and that of certain other shipping magnates who are waiting to carry oil into Canada.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I say that the minister should be much clearer than he has been to date on how they not only intend to audit the delivery and cost slips but how they will ensure that the cost of the fuel delivered has not been marked up, through tax havens or excessive tanker costs, on the way to Canada. Most people agree that this market has been dominated by cartels for many years. In a book which deals with large international firms in developing countries, and specifically the international petroleum industry, a passage deals with the tremendous interrelationship between the world's great oil companies, the producing companies and the tanker fleets which deliver the products. At page 151 appears the following statement:
In the nature of the case, any such cartel arrangements would be kept as secret as possible, and much of the evidence for their existence would have to rest on inference from the observed behaviour of the companies. The Federal Trade Commission-
That is referring to the United States Federal Trade Commission.
-in its report, The International Petroleum Cartel, made a comprehensive attempt to collect the available evidence, and, as the title of their report implies, concluded that the designation "cartel" was appropriate. The report did show that some of the companies had attempted to establish marketing cartels in numerous markets before the Second World War, that all were very much aware of the desirability of limiting rivalry among themselves and of respecting each other's markets, and that a worldwide pricing system was effectively in operation for varying periods.
Mr. Speaker, this is the type of market that will benefit from the compensation policy proposed in this bill. Prices differ sharply from country to country. For example, if the cost, including transportation, is $11 per barrel for Saudi Arabian oil and $9 per barrel for Venezuelan oil, there is no guarantee that the importing company in Canada will not route the $11 oil to Canada and the $9 oil to a sister company, say in the New England states, because of the $2 per barrel compensation that the Canadian government will pay if this bill is passed. That is the type of situation that we have to analyse. When we realize that we are talking in terms of a million barrels a day, we can see the rip-off that could take place if there are loopholes in the formula. Perhaps $2 million a day is not much money to the Trudeau government at the rate they spend, but I suggest that even they have to be cognizant of the impact of a drain of $2 million per day over a period of years.
From time to time the government has referred to the new price for oil as being an increase of $2.50 per barrel. Now they are trying to say that it was always their intention that the increase should be $2.70. Mr. Speaker, while a 20-cent difference may not sound much, I would point out that it is 8 per cent. When you are dealing with figures of the magnitude that we are with regard to oil in Canada, 8 per cent is an extremely significant figure. As parliamentarians, I feel that we must be exceedingly cautious and not accept the bill at its face value without its being demonstrated that the government knows-maybe it

April 9, 1974
Petroleum Administration Act
will be for the first time-what it is doing and what it is setting out to do.
I have referred to the fact that this is an extremely large market that we are getting into, the international oil market, and it may cost the purchasers of imported fuel $160 billion this year. It should also be borne in mind that while Canada is relatively self-sufficient in oil we are, unfortunately, rather small in terms of the amount we are importing out of the gross amount to which I have referred. That is why I think any mechanism with respect to compensation could have far reaching results for Canada. This is a big market and any mistakes we make will also be big. For example, in 1973 it is estimated that total world exports of oil amounted to $27 billion U.S. Exports in 1974 are estimated to be running at nearly $100 billion. As the price has expanded so much in such a large market, there is a great chance that we in Canada could be "taken" if we are not sharp in the drafting of our legislation, in our administration and in the handling of the compensation program.
I believe others wish to speak on this bill. I know our time is limited. I wish the government had been far-sighted enough to build a pipeline transportation system in Canada which would have guaranteed Canadian self-sufficiency in oil not only in theory but in practice. It is tragic that we in this country must impose an export tax on oil and use the net proceeds of that tax to pay for the excess cost of importing roughly the same amount of oil as is exported for the other side of the country. I believe no other country in the world can claim that its petroleum resources have been worse managed than our resources under this government.
Most alarming of all is this: the government does not feel any great urgency in making sure that the pipeline transportation facility is built even now so that domestically we may be guaranteed self-sufficiency in energy. At the committee hearings, after reviewing the Montreal-Sarnia pipeline extension which, admittedly, will cover only 25 per cent of the eastern Canada shortfall and 50 per cent of the shortfall at most, the minister said that the all-Canadian pipeline is still under review. He was talking about a Canadian pipeline which would carry enough oil from west to east, or east to west, if we are lucky enough to find oil in the east, to ensure self-sufficiency. Surely this should be a priority program. In addition, the government should plan to make sure that the resources of this country, including the tar sands and other resources in frontier areas, are developed without further delay so that there will be no more shortages in Canada of fuel, especially oil.
To conclude, I urge that once the bill has been referred to committee the minister and committee members do all in their power to make sure this legislation is properly scrutinized. Let the committee hear all appropriate witnesses. At all costs, let us not railroad this bill through committee in the same way as other legislation has been railroaded through by the government in the past year.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, as there is a general disposition in the House to end the debate on second reading this evening and as at least one other hon.

member wishes to speak, I will restrict my remarks to a single point.
The recurring theme of the New Democratic Party in this House for the past few months is that the House, in this session, will need to deal in a concrete way with three questions relating to energy policy. It must decide, first, what is to happen to the price of petroleum and petroleum products in Canada once the voluntary price freeze ends on March 31. The bill before us deals with that question. Second, what form will the national petroleum corporation take? Is it to be simply a research group, or will it have other powers? Third, who, and under what circumstances, is to develop the new petroleum resources, new conventional resources and new synthetic resources such as may result from the exploitation of the Athabasca tar sands, the heavy oil deposits and other energy sources in the frontier areas of Canada? The answers to these three questions are interrelated. I want to indicate to the House this evening that you cannot act in one of these three areas without affecting the others.
This bill answers to the satisfaction of the government what is to happen to the price of oil once the freeze of $4 per barrel at the wellhead is lifted. The price is to increase to $6.50. Producing provinces will be given extra compensation for their oil. They will obtain additional revenue and will participate to a degree in the prosperity they have a right to expect because of the increased world price of oil. At the same time, the export tax will enable the federal government to obtain revenue which will make possible a single price for petroleum and petroleum products across the country. The tax will be used to offset the higher prices for petroleum and petroleum products which must be paid in eastern Canada, partly as a result of the Ottawa Valley line which was created either in 1961 or 1962. Under this legislation, the federal government will also undertake to compensate the oil companies for any disadvantages they might suffer in attempting to hold the price line in eastern Canada on petroleum and petroleum products. The disadvantage I speak of is the difference between the world price and that set for western Canadian crude.
The answer to my second question, what will be the form of the national petroleum corporation, is closely related to the first question. The problem members of parliament face is calculating the compensation that is to be paid to all companies to offset any disadvantage they may suffer because they cannot charge the higher international price. How will we know that the compensation to be paid by the people of Canada to those companies bears any relation to the actual disadvantage from which the companies suffer? The minister told the House that he will have the right, which he will exercise, to examine the books of Canadian petroleum companies. The problem is that Imperial Oil of Canada is a subsidiary of Exxon. Exxon is an international corporation and the minister has no right to look at Exxon's books. It does not matter to Exxon what price it charges its subsidiary, if the subsidiary is to be compensated by the treasury of the government of Canada. The member who spoke before me spent considerable time on this aspect of the question. I agree with him; there is a difficulty here.
April 9, 1974

Thus, unless we have a national petroleum company operating as the sole purchaser and supplier in this country, there is no way of knowing whether the compensation paid is reasonable and just or whether, as the hon. member who has just spoken believes, it was a rip-off which could amount to $1 million or $2 million a day in loss of potential revenue to this country.
So while my party has taken some satisfaction from the fact that the government has looked at the suggestions we made to deal with the energy crisis and has at least paid lip service to some of the concepts we have put forward, unless there is a little more substance to the form they have adopted, not only will the country be in trouble with respect to its energy policy, not only will it be paying unjustified compensation to companies whose profits have already risen by an average of 46 per cent in one year but the government will find itself shortly in trouble with the Canadian people in the midst of a general election. I say this because we in the NDP cannot stand by and see the people buffaloed by oil companies which have taken advantage of a situation which has disadvantaged not only Canadians but also people throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, I know there is another hon. member who wishes to speak. There are only five or six minutes left to us, so I will conclude my remarks on that note.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of taking part in the debate on Bill C-18, although there is little one can say in four or five minutes. I should like to restrict my comments to one clause which concerns me a great deal, that is, clause 36(1). Coming as I do from one of the producing provinces, Saskatchewan, I find this clause offensive. Perhaps I should put it on the record.
Where no agreement is entered into pursuant to section 21 with the government of a producer province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the governor in council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the governor in council may by regulation establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province-
In my opinion, this clause is pure and simple blackmail. I am aware that the minister, speaking in this chamber yesterday, indicated, as recorded at page 1236 of Hansard that the government does not intend at this time to proclaim part III of the measure in which this clause is found. But in the months ahead it will be necessary for the federal government and the governments of the producing provinces to negotiate wellhead prices for oil. It is clear from the minister's remarks yesterday that the bill before us was not discussed with the various provincial premiers before its presentation to the House. I agree with the comments made by my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) when he stated that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) should have been in touch with the producing provinces to ascertain their views on this bill before submitting it for second reading.
It is obvious that if there is to be agreement on prices, negotiations will have to take place; and how can satisfactory negotiations take place while the federal government is holding clause 36(1) of the bill like a club over the heads of the premiers? Part III contains provisions of the type
Airline Firefighters Strike
which ought to be dealt with by parliament rather than by order in council.
I see there is little time left, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated this afternoon that the bill would be referred to the standing committee for consideration. I trust that while before the committee it will receive thorough examination and that the minister will give serious consideration to suggestions and amendments put forward by members on this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise merely on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to confirm that after second reading the bill will be referred, not to committee of the whole but to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


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

Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier this day the proceedings now before the House will be interrupted in order that consideration can be given to a motion to adjourn the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to take part in this emergency debate at a time when firemen employed by the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence in the province of British Columbia have withdrawn their services in the course of an illegal strike. This has occurred as a result of-I am sorry to have to say this-a combination of circumstances which has culminated in their feeling that the negotiations being conducted between the Public Service Alliance in Canada and Treasury Board are not taking their proper interest into account.
I emphasize that this strike is an illegal one, and nothing I may say in the next few minutes should be interpreted as meaning that this House and the public of Canada approves in any way the actions of any group, no matter how strongly it may feel justified in its own case, taking the law into its own hands. In the long run, this can lead only to anarchy. I am sure all members are in agreement with me when I say this.

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
There is something unsatisfactory about a situation that compels men who are otherwise law-abiding to decide to take the law into their own hands and withdraw their services, despite the fact they must appreciate that the great inconvenience they are causing will hardly win them any friends among the general public. It is because this unhappy situation has developed that a total of 211 men in the province of British Columbia have now withdrawn their services as firemen, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in a move for which I commend him, has very sensibly and appropriately closed ten Department of Transport airports. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, we cannot take the chance of a grave accident occurring; we must have firemen at the airports to carry out the duties in which these men are so well trained.
The fact of the matter is-and there is no running away from it-that these men believe their legitimate interests have not been adequately handled under the present negotiating system and so have withdrawn their services. British Columbia is now without air transport, either from within the province to the outside and back, or within the province itself. This, I say with respect, is a matter of the utmost urgency not only to my own province but to all of Canada, so it is proper that tonight we debate the matter.
It seems to me that if we reach a situation, no matter how complex, where a number of men have withdrawn their services, with the result that the public interest is no longer being served, then there is a duty upon the government of the day to do something about it. It is very easy to say that this is an illegal strike and that the men should go back to work. Today's Globe and Mail reports that these firemen have said they will go to jail rather than comply with the injunction that has been obtained against them in the courts. I do not for one minute condone that attitude, Mr. Speaker, but nevertheless that is the fact. It is also apparently the fact that at least for some time it will be extremely difficult to replace these men. They are highly trained, they are skilled, and they are worth-while people in our community. But they have withdrawn their services and as a consequence British Columbia is isolated. What is also important, communities within the province are isolated.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, tonight we must search for some way of bringing these men back to work, and bringing them back to work before the stoppage results in any further harm being done to the province of British Columbia and this country. We must bring them back to work before inevitably we have to allow the law to take its full course and to visit upon them the punishment that the law must visit upon those who break the law, especially in a case where the public interest in transgressed. Surely it is in the interests of all of us to find a way to end the stoppage now before we must resort to the harsher methods to which a community must ultimately resort if there is to be a difference between civil order and anarchy.
Yesterday the Minister of Transport was urged by members of the opposition, especially members from the province of British Columbia, to go to Vancouver to meet these firemen. Why, Mr. Speaker, were we asking this? We were asking it, surely, because all of us recognized, as I think the Minister of Transport recognized, that decent men do

not take these very severe measures unless there is some justice in their complaint. If there is some justice in their complaint, and if there is no means by which they feel their complaint can be heard and dealt with, then finally in frustration they do what men have done before in our tradition-they break the law; and they have very honestly said that they know exactly what the consequences of this will be.
There is no denying the fact that within the Public Service Alliance there is a division of opinion about the variation in pay about which these firemen feel so strongly. Therefore, we urge the minister to go to Vancouver, along with representatives of Treasury Board and the Public Service Alliance, and meet these men. We urge the minister to bring his officials as well as representatives of Treasury Board and the executive of the Public Service Alliance, together with the dissident firemen so as to find a way in which these firemen will have confidence that the complaints they are making and the aspirations they have in their own legitimate self-interest can be resolved.
The minister has said that he cannot do this. As reported at page 1226 of yesterday's Hansard, he said:
We have a certain number of laws in this country which regulate labour relations between employees and employers. You have the Public Service Alliance of Canada which is certified to represent this group, and Treasury Board is negotiating with the certified agent. Treasury Board cannot negotiate with anybody else because this is an exclusive bargaining right.
Most of the members of this House understand exactly the dilemma in which the minister finds himself. In the strictly legalistic sense there is some merit in the position that the minister has put forward. But with respect, as the minister has himself admitted, this is not an ordinary situation. It is a situation where we have a strike, not by the union itself but by a dissident minority of the union. The usual order has broken down.
The minister informed us that the Public Service Alliance has told these men they must return to work, but they have not done so. The laws of the land say that they have no business doing what they are doing, yet they have not returned to work. We have a situation where the usual system has broken down. In a case such as this, can we sit back and take a rigid position? Can we say that although under normal circumstances we would be dealing with the Public Service Alliance, in a situation where nothing is normal a minister of the Crown cannot go to Vancouver to talk to these people? These people, Mr. Minister, are citizens, as we all are.
Surely the minister is not going to break faith with the Public Service Alliance of Canada, organized labour or any other group within the community because he takes it upon himself to do the one thing he can do at this time, which is to go to Vancouver and meet these people in an attempt to decide on a formula through which they can express their particular grievance.
It is clear that this strike cannot go on forever. The minister said he sent two members of his department out there, but the fact is that only tonight are those men meeting with representatives of the dissident firemen. What have they done while they have been out there?
April 9, 1974

They took steps to try to find a way to put the Vancouver airport back into partial service, and they were partially successful. But there are nine other airports. What happens tomorrow, if these men who were sent out by the minister do not have the authority to make any commitment on behalf of this government and do not find a way for the expression of the views of these people on what they believe is a legitimate grievance? There is no way, in my view, that this House has any business adjourning tomorrow while we are faced with a situation in which one of the provinces of Canada is isolated because it has no air transportation, knowing that communities within that province are unable to communicate with each other because of lack of air transportation services.
Can you imagine the situation in which hon. members of this House pack up and leave for a holiday tomorrow, leaving unsettled this problem in my province and leaving a serious problem for other parts of the country in the event the situation in British Columbia is not settled?
On August 31 the former minister of labour said, as reported at page 6117 of Hansard:
I want to point out, as an observer, that we have under federal jurisdiction the finest Department of Labour in the eleven jurisdictions of this country.
One must ask why the Department of Labour has not become involved in this extremely difficult situation, and why it has left it to the Minister of Transport alone to resolve the entreaties, the opposition and the complexity of the situation in which the minister must find himself.


An hon. Member:: Bring back Mackasey.


John Allen Fraser: Surely tonight all of us can agree that an essential first step to be taken is that the minister take with him senior representatives of Treasury Board and members of the executive of the Public Service Alliance to meet with these men in an attempt, within a very short period of time, to work out a formula which will be accepted as fair and under which they can put forward their points of view. I feel if this were done immediately we would stand some chance of restoring air transportation in my province rapidly, with a minimum of damage to the lives of those unfortunate people who have taken a route of which I do not personally approve, and also with a minimum of dislocation to the country at large.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in the very few moments available to me to make my contribution to the debate on the very difficult labour problem in British Columbia as a result of the firefighters walkout at airports in that province. I further stand in my place to compliment the gentle and responsible member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) for putting forward this motion under Standing Order 26 which initiated the debate this evening. With the greatest personal regard for the hon. member for Vancouver South, I wish to compliment him heartily as one member of the Conservative Party with enough guts and enough responsibility to disagree with his leader and his party colleagues in demanding wage and price controls, especially the 90-day freeze about which we have heard so much in the last day or two.


An hon. Member:: Sit down; you've lost your marbles.
Airline Firefighters Strike


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark Willson Rose: I hear some hon. members calling at me, using obscene adjectives. I am moved therefore to ask in all humility, as friends of organized labour, especially highlighted by recent private bills and the calling out of Canadian forces, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who was himself the tank-commander, how the Conservative posture this evening could be reconciled if in fact his party were in government today? Would their attitude be expressed identically to the way so ably expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver South tonight, or would it be somewhat different?
Putting aside all further partisan comments, Mr. Speaker, this matter of relating the national rates of Canada to affluent areas such as British Columbia is an extremely thorny problem. It is fine to say, as I have said in the past, that it is stupid to spend billions of dollars through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, with which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has had a good deal to do, to reduce regional disparity on the one hand, and then opt for regional rates on the other which lock in the workers of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces with lower rates for their labour for the same kind of vocation. National rates may provide an example of great logic, but cut no ice at all in British Columbia. I suggest that if regional rates are appropriate for the public service, the regional rates should also apply equally to old age pensions, family allowances and even the salaries of MPs.
But saying this, Mr. Speaker, I think begs the essential question: why, in all justice, should a fireman, a stationary engineer, an aircraft controller, and their families working in the province of British Columbia be perpetually condemned to a lower standard of living than that enjoyed by their provincial or municipal counterparts if federal employees are doing exactly the same type of job? Many are now receiving $150 to $200 less per month. That is a serious problem that has confronted me many, many times in discussions with federal public servants.
We debate here tonight because Vancouver airport firefighters are being paid $3,000 or $4,000 less than municipal Vancouver firefighters. We know also that the stationary engineer working at the federal penitentiary in New Westminster is being similarly disadvantaged as compared to his counterpart working at the Okalla provincial jail. The story is the same with prison guards and clerical workers. Hon. members will recall that last August the same kind of refusal attitude was evidenced in respect of the position of the British Columbia railway workers during the national rail strike and the reluctance of B.C. rail workers to go back to work.
I suppose what I am saying essentially is that the problem we are having in respect of Vancouver Airport firefighters is merely the tip of the iceberg of widespread public service discontent in the province of British Columbia with the prevailing national public service rate structure.


An hon. Member:: And elsewhere.


Mark Willson Rose: Someone suggests elsewhere, but I see that the member comes from Ottawa so I will discount what he said. All of us here tonight want the men to go back to
1306

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
work, there is no question about that, but a reasonable solution escapes us for the moment I was pleased to learn through reports over the phone tonight that the Ministry of Transport has now belatedly contacted the firefighters and that discussions aimed at ameliorating this wage issue are soon to be in progress if they are not actually in progress now. I hope these discussions prove fruitful and the men go back to work, not because of threats but because it is in their interests and every body's interests to do so.
Let us leave aside for the moment the legal niceties that have been bandied about here during the last couple of days. I am fully aware that bargaining sessions between the Public Service Alliance and Treasury Board are currently in progress, and I know as well about the national pay scale resolution passed overwhelmingly by the recent Public Service Alliance convention; but I am firmly convinced that national rates ignore the feelings and the welfare of British Columbia workers.
The federal public servant in British Columbia has to live right next door to his provincially and municipally paid vocational equal, but receives $150 or $200 less a month for this efforts. He has to keep up with Mr. Jones who works provincially and he, Mr. Smith, solely because he is employed federally, is at a severe economic disadvantage. The cost of living, it may be argued, is essentially the same all across Canada, but the standard of living, especially in British Columbia, is far above the national norm. No federal public servant in British Columbia, I am convinced, wants to increase his income at the expense of his colleagues in Halifax or Montreal. What he cannot accept continuously year after year is a 30 per cent hammering in comparison to men similar to himself but working in provincial institutions.
I plead with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), and any other person who has been involved in this thing, to recognize what I have attempted to express tonight and those ideas contributed by the hon. member for Vancouver South with an attitude of great responsibility, public awareness and good faith. We ask that some action be initiated immediately. If it means that the Minister of Transport has to vacate his lofty position here and go out to the coast to speak to these men, well and good. I think he must ensure that national rates apply, but that those national rates are so developed that the high-wage areas do not suffer unreasonably and that the higher rates apply to all of Canada. I ask this not just for British Columbia, but forRouyn, Quebec, or wherever else they may be appropriate. All federal public servants must have an opportunity to live up to the standard of living which prevails in the high-wage areas.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting ready to stand, but in five seconds I should like to plege that I am prepared to accompany the Minister of Transport to Vancouver in any attempt that might be successful in bringing the two parties together. We must have a successful solution to this very disturbing problem emanating from the province which I am very privileged to call my borne.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that this afternoon when I heard we were to have this special debate tonight I thought that a debate of this kind would not be very useful in terms of providing a solution to the problem. However, I notice that those who have spoken up until now have tried to make a contribution in order to help the situation rather than hamper it. To that extent I am very happy.
I would like to know a little less about the labour movement and the wage structure in Canada so that I could speak with my heart and my feelings, but I know too much and some other hon. members here in this House also know too much. We must take into account certain realities. There is the fact of the illegality of the walkout. There is no doubt about that. We know that this action or movement has started in Vancouver and we make an effort to understand it from a human point of view. We should not immediately try to crush a movement which perhaps has some kind of justification or at least a very sound explanation. This is one aspect and this is the reason we have not proceeded more rapidly. The second thing is that the regional and national wage structure is related to two things, the structure of the labour movement and what we call the national bargaining unit. I am sure the alliance is not opposed to the people of Vancouver having a decent salary, but they know that from the moment you regionalize the wage structure sooner or later you will have a breakdown in the bargaining unit and in the alliance.
I am not defending here a thesis in which I believe very deeply. This is the thesis that has been sustained by the labour movement, the CLC, and this is what is at stake. The alliance is not trying to keep the firefighters of Vancouver in a position of inferiority because they like it, but because they opted for what we call the national wage structure, and that means that the less developed regions in Canada where wages are naturally lower, as in the maritimes and Quebec, are helped. On the other hand, perhaps this does not help the most advanced provinces. This is the reason for the reaction which comes mostly from British Columbia. I understand the reason.
I also understand why those who come from the maritimes would probably sustain the thesis of a national wage structure because there is no doubt that it helps them tremendously. This is why we had to be very careful. We have the structure of the union and the national bargaining unit. I think the alliance is quite prudent, and I understand why. On the other hand, I am sure I am one of those who understand why the firefighters at the Vancouver airport who are earning $2,000 less than the firefighters in Vancouver no doubt feel frustrated.
I understand this, and this is the reason I have asked my people who are meeting right now in Vancouver and who have been meeting for an hour, to tell the men that I cannot make a promise that a move will be made to negotiate. This is not the system we have. If anyone wishes to change the system, perhaps he would tell me what it should be. We have what are called exclusive bargaining rights of the union certified by the board. We cannot go through any other channel. This is the law. There is exclusivity of bargaining rights. The alliance possesses this, and we must go through the alliance. If we
April 9, 1974

did not do so, we would be in violation of our own law. We have no choice. If someone should have another suggestion, perhaps he could make the suggestion, but this is how we must proceed on the side of the government.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Who is on the side of the people of British Columbia?


Jean Marchand: I just spoke about the people of British Columbia. What is the situation? On the part of the government we have Treasury Board which received a mandate from the government to negotiate in the name of the government. I am not a party in this; I am just the victim because I am supposed to operate an airport. If I have no firefighters at the Vancouver airport, surely I would not take the risk of having a serious accident in British Columbia just because I wanted to operate an airport without firefighters who are essential to the operation of the airport.
As I have said, at this time the representatives of the department are not trying to negotiate with the firefigh-ers; they have no mandate to negotiate. I told them this previously, and again over the phone. I told them they can tell these men that there is a lot of sympathy for their situation, but that we must proceed according to the law and according to the union structure we have in Canada as well as the bargaining rights which were awarded according to the law. We must proceed in that way. If we were to continue otherwise, there could be another situation tomorrow that would be worse, and there is no doubt that there could be a good deal of sympathy for a strike all through Canada. We could have a problem because the firefighters are not treated equally. I do not have to pass judgment on this, but I have the figures and it strikes me, as I am sure it strikes others, that the disparity is so great that I understand the reaction.
I would like to tell the firefighters, if they were here, "We are trying to understand your side of the dispute, and we want to see if we can reconcile with your demands the system which we have so far as collective bargaining is concerned". This is what we are trying to achieve. I do not think there is any other way out.
I announced at eight o'clock tonight that the operation of the airport will be resumed tomorrow on a partial basis, a very limited basis. I think that if we can at least do something, not with the union members, not with the firefighters or strikebreakers but with the supervisory personnel who accepted voluntarily to operate the airport and who were notified, as were the unions and the strikebreakers, in order to prevent the worst from happening- because all the airports now, except military airports, are closed-then we are ahead. I hope that these firefighters, who are being told at this moment that this will be the situation tomorrow and that we are doing it, not in order to break the strike but because normally they should not be on strike, will accept that.
Their union voluntarily opted for arbitration. Whether they were right or wrong they will find out later on. Probably their judgment will be different, but normally they should abide by the arbitration decision. However, they took the other route, and of course in the circum-
Airline Firefighters Strike
stances we can do nothing else. I am doing the best I can to try to provide some service in Vancouver as well as in other places later on, and at the same time to try to solve the human problem which is at the basis of the difficulty confronting us. I do not see what else I can do. If somebody has a better idea, I would be glad to hear it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the minister a question? [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wish to put a question to the minister?


Erik Nielsen: Did I understand the minister correctly to say that all the MOT airports in British Columbia are closed as a result of the firefighters strike?


Jean Marchand: Most of the airports are closed.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to express my appreciation to you and to my colleagues in the House for allowing us the opportunity to discuss the very serious situation that has existed in British Columbia since Friday. I listened to the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) with keen interest. I have been awaiting an announcement by him of the action he took to avert the very serious situation that exists in B.C. right now, and not only that but to attempt to avoid its spreading throughout this land.
The situation in British Columbia is not unique. There is a similar one in Edmonton, Winnipeg and other areas in Canada. We questioned the minister yesterday and again today about the action he will take. He told us he is dispatching two senior officials of his department to Vancouver in an attempt to get together with the people who are illegally on strike, this against the advice of their association or their union, in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. It is quite obvious to me that what these two senior officials did in British Columbia until eight o'clock tonight was to go around the airport in Vancouver, make telephone calls throughout B.C. and communicate with the minister here in Ottawa recommending the action that he has implemented tonight. I have here the press release that the minister issued from his office tonight. It reads as follows:
Flight operations at Vancouver international airport will resume on a restricted basis at noon tomorrow-
Emergency services will be restored permitting these operations by a volunteer crew of supervisory personnel.
They will work tomorrow afternoon and then begin an eight hour day starting Thursday. The ministry, in agreement with commercial operators, will establish operations between 10 a m. and 6 p.m. on a regular daily basis.
The emergency service will permit the unlimited operations of DC-9 and Boeing 737 jet aircraft or others that may fall under the 120,000 category limit. Under this limit flights by the larger Boeing 727 aircraft will be permitted but on a restricted basis. Passenger aircraft which still will not be able to make use of the airport include DC-8's, 707, 747 and the Lockheed 1011. These are all larger capacity jet aircraft used extensively on international as well as on domestic operations.
1308

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
The supervisory personnel are all extremely well qualified individuals with years of experience in airport emergency operations and firefighting techniques-
What a farce to perpetrate on this House tonight! The officials of the Ministry of Transport went out there to set up this arrangement and to break the strike-the very thing which the minister has accused us of trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: This is what happened in Vancouver: the officials went out there and arranged with management personnel to break the strike behind the back of the Public Service Alliance. That is exactly what has happened; and this action was taken before these people met the workers on strike at Vancouver. It happened before eight o'clock, and the meetings did not start until eight. This is exactly how this must be interpreted and I take strong objection to it.
Let us take a look at the situation as it exists. There are three parties involved in this dispute. There are the dissident members of the union who demand recognition of their regional plight. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the spokesman for the NDP in this debate have adequately described the situation. Then there is the Public Service Alliance, the union to which these members belong. They have a job to do to ensure that their members are treated equally throughout this land. Theirs is a very difficult situation. Then there is the government which says that it cannot become involved in the internal workings of the union, that it has no responsibility to the people on strike in Vancouver who cannot make ends meet and who cannot keep up with the Joneses because they make $3,000 a year less than workers who come under the municipal and provincial governments.
I challenge the Minister of Transport, who has left the House; he cannot stand the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: He cannot react to anything but a crisis. The minister does not know how to forecast or plan. He himself admitted in the House and to the press that there is no transportation policy in this country. He knows only how to react to a crisis and an emergency situation. This is the same kind of situation as the one that existed when we adjourned last year for a summer recess and then had to return to settle the CNR strike. It is the same situation that prompted us to threaten him with a postponement of the spring recess because of the boxcar situation. I see another minister opposite making derogatory signs at me. It is easy for him to do that: it makes a lot of sense and solves many problems!
We want the minister to do what the hon. member for Vancouver South suggested. Let him apply a practical mind to finding a solution. I would phone the Public Service Alliance and say, "Look, you put me in an embarrassing situation because members of the opposition are crying for action. You and I should go out to Vancouver and discuss the problems with these people." Members from Vancouver have said that they would be ready to have a truck standing by awaiting the arrival of the minister, they would sit down and discuss the problem with him at a moment's notice and they would put the

airport back into operation, not only the airport at Vancouver but every other airport in British Columbia.
This strike will spread and the problem has been recognized. On March 25, 1974, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said, when he spoke about this very problem not only with the employees of CNR and Air Canada but with all employees under federal jurisdiction who are members of the Public Service Alliance:
In the case of regional pay policy, the government for years has taken the position that it will not be a leader in matters of pay and salary but will follow the pattern set by what is generally known in this country as the private sector.
We are not talking here about the private sector; we are talking about the public sector, about the employees of municipalities and provincial governments. He says that given the choice of trying to equate the pay of the public service to that of the private sector, on a national level or on a regional level, for common sense reasons the government must use the regional basis. The President of the Treasury Board has admitted this. He has announced it as government policy. But the Minister of Transport refuses to recognize that there are serious problems being experienced by employees in western Canada who find it very difficult to understand why their neighbours make $3,000 to $4,000 a year more than they do, performing the same job and having had less training than they are called to undertake in the interests of public safety. Yet the minister refuses to act. He swept out of the house. This Press release will not get him off the hook.
I will find it very difficult tomorrow night to leave here and arrive at Vancouver airport in a DOT aircraft. Those fellows are going to say, "Oh, you are taking an Easter recess. Where are you going on your holiday?" I will be interested to see how hon. members to my left answer that question.


Mark Willson Rose: I am not taking a holiday.


Frank Oberle: If you are interested in staying here, so am
I.	This is a very serious problem and other members of my party feel the same way. Of course, hon. members to my left will also have a difficult time when they read some of the comments made by the Premier of British Columbia who has called upon them to resign from their party if they cannot go along with his suggestion that the federal sales tax be removed. I expect the resignation of at least six members of the NDP next week, and I am willing to stay around for that because it would really be a bright day in the life of this parliament.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has circulated a pamphlet entitled "Throne Speech, 1974." In it we find these words:
Those Canadians least able to protect themselves have a right to be protected from the consequences of events over which they have no control and from intimidation from big business, big labour or big government.
There are 210 firemen in the province of British Columbia who have a right to protection from the federal government. The government has to intervene there. It has to call the three parties together and bring the strike to an
April 9, 1974

end before it spreads to unmanageable proportions in Canada.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the three gentlemen from Vancouver as they walked a tightrope. They included my good friend in the NDP. I can understand his dilemma more than the dilemma of the other two hon. gentlemen because of his labour background and orientation. That was probably the reason his speech was so wishy-washy.
I remember a few years ago when we had a famous bill known as C-186 in this House. That was a moment of truth for the House of Commons. I wish all these eloquent spokesmen had been around in those days. I opposed Bill C-186, Mr. Speaker. I think these hon. gentlemen would have done the same. But for newcomers here, may I say that Bill C-186 was simply a concept advanced by certain regions of this nation that, in a country this big, national bargaining units were not reasonable, not logical and that other things should be taken into consideration such as were advanced this evening, regional pay rates, the culture of an area, the language and the virtual impossibility of a Quebec-based union infiltrating a national bargaining unit. I supported the national bargaining concept, and still do, because if we were to have regional bargaining in this country some area of the transportation industry would be on strike all the time.
The fundamental point here is not whether there is justice or injustice done to the striking firemen. On the surface there seems to be a very solid, basic case that somewhere along the line the firemen's wage rate has fallen behind what seems to be a decent wage rate for firemen in B.C. The answer is not to pull down the British Columbia rate to the level of the Newfoundland rate but to bring the Newfoundland rate up to the British Columbia rate. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, that is a point that you must argue within the laws, of the country, and the legalities of our country are very clear.
We have a national bargaining unit across the country associated with the Public Service Alliance that speaks on behalf of these firemen in British Columbia. Really, what I think hon. members are asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to do, as a tribute to his well known knowledge of labour and not necessarily because he is Minister of Transport, is to intervene in a dispute in which under the law he has no right to direct participation. By law the employer is designated as Treasury Board. By law the representative of those 200 firemen is the Public Service Alliance, and any direct infringement on that relationship by the Minister of Transport, by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) or any other minister other than the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is a direct contradiction of the law of the land.
If the law is wrong, change the law. If the 200 firemen do not have faith in the ability of the Public Service Alliance to sell the concept to Treasury Board that wages offered are unrealistic, they have a legal obligation to take up their grievance within the Public Service Alliance at the first possible opportunity and to say, "We are not being adequately represented by the bargaining organization for which we voted." Mr. Speaker, we are not doing a favour to the workers, to the firemen or to the labour movement in this country to suggest any other procedure
Airline Firefighters Strike
such as those I have heard suggested by members of the opposition tonight, including the member of the NDP.
Really what they are saying, for the sake of expediency, because they are B.C. members-I would probably act the same way-is that here they have 200 friends who have a case. There is an obvious injustice because they are underpaid in relation to other firemen in B.C. Although the hon. gentleman made a very eloquent plea, really what he was advocating was that they ignore the law of the land, because the law of the land says that regardless of this injustice the solution is not to strike illegally.
It always seems to me very paradoxical that opposition members will holler about the SIU wanting to go on strike weeks before such a strike occurs because this will affect the grain trade, but at the same time they will endorse an illegal strike at Vancouver airport because there is an obvious injustice in the rate of wages. Did it ever occur to them that there would be an obvious injustice in the wage pattern of the SIU when they decide to go on strike? Wasn't there an obvious injustice-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) rises on a point of order.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), but I do not think he really meant to say that the opposition endorses this illegal strike. I think our spokesman made that very clear. I would ask him to withdraw that remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This is hardly a point of order. The hon. member may suggest that the hon. member's remarks do not correspond with what might have been said in the House, but the Chair cannot go so far as to ask him to withdraw.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to withdrawing my remark. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) made it clear that he did not endorse an illegal strike, but he did not tell me that he was the official spokesman for his party; and the other hon. gentleman had another view.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I do not ask this question in any antagonistic sense, but what is the difference between the minister sending two of his officials out to settle this strike and going out himself?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there is a very fundamental difference. The minister did not send two officials out to settle the strike; he sent two officials out to reason with the men, to get them back to work and then settle in a perfectly legal manner. That is the difference. The proper way is to settle around the bargaining table and to obey the law of the land as it is written at the moment. If that law is wrong, we can amend it; but the law says: You cannot strike legally. Like it or not, that is the law of the land.

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
Simply because it is your own community, or province, or city you cannot endorse or even condone an illegal strike because it happens to be in Vancouver but be appalled by similar action in Montreal. Are we advanced to the point that we are now saying, "Let us have one region for British Columbia, let us have a region for the prairies, one for Ontario, one for Quebec and one for the Atlantic provinces"? I do not think hon. members really want that. What we should endorse is the national bargaining unit concept. That exists, and it is the Public Service Alliance. To deviate around the Public Service Alliance and deal with 200 well-meaning people who are part of it is to undermine the trade union movement. That is hardly in the best interests of those same firemen when two or three years hence they come back to the bargaining table.
The whole concept of unionism is unity. It is a voluntary movement. If you are going to have two or three firemen saying that they have no faith in their negotiators, the Public Service Alliance, and that they want to negotiate directly with the Minister of Transport themselves, they are really saying that they have no faith in the organization to which they belong. That is more important even than the monetary question in the final analysis. As the Minister of Transport has said, if the complaint is injustice as far as salaries are concerned, surely the arbitrator or conciliator or representative of the government and of the Public Service Alliance should be able to reconcile matters. Public opinion would demand it.
That is the purpose of our democratic system. The people of Vancouver and the people of Canada Would certainly tell the government in no uncertain terms if these people were being unjustly treated, if we the government were taking advantage of their inability to strike long enough for economic reasons. On the one hand the hon. gentleman is saying that these men have a grievance, and because they have a grievance they are entitled to use their bargaining power and walk off the job-


John Allen Fraser: I did not say that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the one hand he is saying, "Run out there and put them back to work because of the inconvenience." You cannot have it both ways in a democracy. The law is the law, and the law says this is the way it must be done. You cannot walk off the job, no matter how just or unjust your case may be.
It is the same thing with nurses in the maritime provinces. Why should they be paid less than those in Ontario and British Columbia? I never accepted the regional rate principle. Speaking as an individual member, I have always felt that if you want to have national bargaining and wage rates, go toward the top. It costs just as much to live in the maritimes as in British Columbia. That is my opinion, for what it is worth. Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I cannot condone an illegal method of settling this type of injustice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. I did allow him an extra minute and a half because of the questioning.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make the following points to members of the government. No one in his senses can justify or condone a group of Canadians breaking their bargaining pattern, breaking the law, if you like, although that sometimes does happen in these things. But I do not think that anyone, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand)-whose sincerity I do not for a moment question-has really got to the point which gives rise to this kind of situation. If you are going to have national rates, and I am personally totally in favour of it, I regret those areas in the public service that now have regional rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I regret that there are registered nurses working for the federal government in Halifax receiving about $1,800 a year less than registered nurses working for the federal government in Victoria, or Vancouver, or Toronto. I regret that a dockyard worker in Halifax is making $100 or $150 or $200 per month less than a dockyard worker in Victoria. I am in favour of national rates. But if you are going to have national rates in a way which will avoid the kind of grievance that has arisen in British Columbia, those rates must be close to the top rates and not close to the bottom rates, otherwise you are going to have trouble.
I agree entirely with the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) that the objective has to be to raise the rates of the people of Newfoundland to those of the people of British Columbia. You cannot have a national rate that will be at the top of the regional rate, I agree, but it should be so close to the top that the people who have to accept that rate do not feel aggrieved, do not feel that an injustice has been done to them. They are ready to take something smaller in British Columbia for the sake of having the people in the Atlantic provinces or Quebec or Saskatoon or Regina get a higher rate than they would otherwise get. When you permit- this is where Treasury Board is so at fault-a national rate to place the people in the higher wage are in a position of real disadvantage, they would be angels if they did not react, Mr. Speaker; and we are not any more angels than they are.
The federal government ought to be a model employer, but in many circumstances Treasury Board acts like the most reactionary employer in this country. That creates the problem. One of the things that always creates problems is delay. If it were possible to get these negotiations going so that it looked as if they were coming to a successful end prior to the end of the contract, that is, April 1 or March 31, so that the people knew that their wages would be raised $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 per year, or whatever the settlement might be, and we cannot settle it here, then we would be in a different situation. But when nothing happens, when the municipal firefighters get an increase on January 1 of this year and the airport firefighters lag behind to a point where they feel really disadvantaged, then trouble arises.
As a matter of fact, one of the reasons I think the firefighters in British Columbia are mistaken in what they are doing is that in my reading of the situation Treasury Board would like nothing better than to have regional bargaining right across the country in every com-
April 9, 1974

ponent of the public service. That is what the minister wants, and that is what these strikers in British Columbia may be forcing, against the interests and rights of many working people in this country. Treasury Board would love to have regional bargaining for public service rates. It makes it easier for them. They can go to a place like Halifax, ascertain the wage rate in surrounding industries, then enforce it on the public servants and that is it. No one can kick. They would have a much easier time. Whether it would cost less, or more, I do not know. I have never made that kind of calculation. I know that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and Treasury Board officials prefer regional bargaining. When the employer prefers something, employees ought to suspect that it cannot be on their side. That is where I think the firefighters are making a mistake. They are going to open the door and let Treasury Board get exactly what it has wanted for many years, as any spokesman of the Public Service Alliance or the Professional Institute of Public Servants will tell you, Mr. Speaker.
My final point is this, and I may not agree with what my colleague said, which shows that we are not monolithic in thought. I can appreciate the problem of the Minister of Transport in going out there and giving these 200 strikers, or whatever the number may be, the status and improvements they want in order to break the national bargaining situation. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) will experience the same kind of difficulty. But it would not be difficult for the President of the Treasury Board and his officials to settle with this component of the public service and right away increase the rates of firefighters across Canada and reduce substantially the injustices from which firefighters in British Columbia are suffering. That could be done in one week.
If the President of the Treasury Board, who really has the duty to act in this situation, were to say, "I am meeting with the bargaining committee tomorrow and we are going to make a settlement as fast as humanly possible which will remove most of the disadvantages from which these men suffer now," I am certain that those reasonable men would go back to work tomorrow. The responsibility, sir, is not that of the Minister of Labour or of other ministers; the responsibility is that of the President of the Treasury Board. He should have been here tonight to assure this House, the firefighters, the president of the Public Service Alliance and the other officials who are in the gallery that the negotiations which are now going on will be speeded up so that the problem in British Columbia will be, if not solved at least alleviated to the point where the strikers will go back to work.


Jean Marchand: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I inform the hon. gentleman that the President of the Treasury Board is not here because he replaced me at a ceremony. I preferred to be here. He should be here later.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to accept that and I withdraw my condemnation of the President of the Treasury Board for not being here. But I do not withdraw my criticism of him for the policy which he pursues.
Airline Firefighters Strike


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, most of the salient points have already been presented to the House in a way much better than I could put them. Nonetheless, I wish to comment about some of the issues raised by my colleagues this evening in all parts of the House. In fairness to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-and here I direct my remarks to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey)-I suggest that what he was proposing was that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and other responsible cabinet officials should involve the Public Service Alliance and other appropriate representatives in the process of conciliation-not "deviate around them."
Although we do not endorse this strike which is, rightly, termed illegal, we recognize that in the public interest something must be done. As the hon. member for Verdun and the Minister of Transport have emphasized, there are certain laws in this country which ought to be obeyed. Nevertheless, they are not immutable like the laws of the Medes and Persians; and one should remember that the law is an ass, if it is administered by asses.
I suggest, in all seriousness, that the problems we are discussing tonight go much deeper than they first appear. This point was made by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and by others. The strikes at Vancouver airport and Esquimalt have been called illegal, rightly so, but their root causes are disturbing. Many factors have brought about this situation. The Minister of Transport is concerned about this apparent breakdown in the orderly process of collective bargaining. But he should be encouraged, as well, by the responsibility that the Public Service Alliance of Canada in general, and other firefighters across the nation in particular are showing. Their courage and responsibility in the face of the very shortsighted and poorly conceived pay policies are to be commended. Those policies, as the leader of the NDP pointed out, are being administered by the head of Treasury Board.
As I have mentioned in this House on other occasions, the intransigence and unyielding attitude of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is responsible for a great many difficulties and needless complications in many government departments, including not only the Department of Transport but other departments as well. Last year we witnessed the striking example involving federal nurses. Their representative, the Professional Institute of the Public Service, tried valiantly to get a fair deal for them right across the country. Those efforts were stymied by the unyielding attitude of the President of the Treasury Board. One could point to other examples. As the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) said half in jest when repeating a point I had raised earlier, if the government is to follow regional pay policies across the board, members of parliament ought to be paid different rates according to the regions they represent. That shows what would happen if you took the policy to its logical conclusion.
What we are discussing tonight is serious, because what could happen could bring serious consequences with regard to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. I do not profess to be an expert in labour matters. Let me say this, however. If the government means to

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
perpetuate the philosophy expressed on previous occasions by the President of the Treasury Board and other spokesmen, does it not realize that its actions will affect significantly the fabric of the Public Service Alliance? Why should we divide the public service into compartments? Why should the government pay less to some people who happen to live in the poorer regions than to compatriots or companions who live in the so-called prosperous regions of Canada? Such policy can only weaken the fabric of the Public Service Alliance. The entire membership of the various associated unions will become more restive if such policies are pursued. They will be open to blandishments and raids from other unions. The situation will have a disrupting effect on the entire labour movement. It cannot be called a constructive situation. We cannot afford to disrupt the workings of the public service by reimbursing employees in one part of the country more than in another part for the same type of work.
In a letter dated September 25, 1973, the President of the Treasury Board calculated how much it would cost to pay public service employees on an equal basis right across the country. He said in part:
An estimate of the cost today of converting federal public servants who are paid on a local or zonal basis to national rates would be about $54,000,000. This figure represents only the increased cost of the wage bill and not indirect costs of such things as fringe benefits.
I say to the hon. and venerable President of the Treasury Board, so what? I know $54 million is not peanuts; neither is the $750 million the government has budgeted to pay outside consultants in the present fiscal year. I know that Treasury Board may not be able to make the commitment to end regional wage disparities in one fell swoop. Yet surely the time has come for a firm commitment which will remove these disparities.
The Minister of Transport has the expertise, credentials and knowledge of the labour movement to bring in new policies for his department as he promised and on which he is publicly working at present. He should take the lead, together with some of his more enlightened colleagues such as the hon. member for Verdun and, presumably, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in trying to convince the President of the Treasury Board and some of his colleagues who are taking a reactionary stand in terms of regional pay disparities that it is time to make a commitment to stop perpetuating this philosophy. As a former minister of regional economic expansion, he must surely realize the paradox which is inherent-as some of my hon. friends have mentioned-in, on the one hand, spending hundreds of millions in the name of increasing regional economic opportunities in this country, and on the other hand going along with a philosophy which continues to pay people, who in many cases live in areas of the country where not only is the pay lower but the cost of living is higher, on a lower wage scale than those more prosperous areas of the country.
I do not think the Minister of Transport really subscribes to this philosophy. It does not make sense to allow such a situation to continue. The President of the Treasury Board, however, has been quoted in no unequivocal terms on the subject. As reported at page 7121 of Hansard

for last fall, his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) put it this way:
As the President of the Treasury Board has said on more than one occasion the government as employer is committed to paying rates which are equitable and competitive with those paid outside the public service for similar occupations.
He doesn't honour the commitment, since this definitely does not apply in the case of the firefighters in Vancouver. It is certainly not true in the case of the nurses under federal jurisdiction, where the Professional Institute of the Public Service sought in vain to get them a fair deal. The disruption which took place in the Department of Veterans Affairs was disturbing to many members of this House and particularly disturbing to the veterans who suffered as a result.
The situation is very clear. Just as it has interfered in this case with the portfolio of the Minister of Transport, just as it interfered in the recent past with the portfolio of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), Treasury Board pay policy will continue to be a thorn in the side of other ministers on the treasury benches.
So I plead once more with the Minister of Transport not only to bring in a policy clearing up the present difficulties in transport, but to try to convince the antedeluvian head of Treasury Board to take a more enlightened attitude toward the question of regional pay scales for public servants.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, once again air transport in British Columbia has been brought to a standstill, this week because of an illegal strike. Travel between Vancouver Island and the mainland by air is limited to small sea planes. To those of us who come from the island, it appears that the mainland is isolated. That could be a headline in the Daily Colonist tomorrow if that paper were not also tied up by a strike.
I am not prepared to put the blame for Canada's industrial troubles entirely on stupidity or prejudice on the part of either employers or employees. The main causes of Canada's accelerating labour troubles appear to me to be, first, a considerable increase in people's expectations, largely the result of improved advertising, inflation, and the functioning of the mass communications media-it is sometimes referred to as the inflation psychology-and, second, a lack of competent leadership. The government shows no confidence in its own actions. It passes legislation but is either unable or unwilling to make certain that the law is respected. This is particularly evident when working conditions in government service are in dispute. The government issues edicts. They are ignored. The government threatens. The threats are ignored. It is like the pusillanimous schoolboy drawing lines in the dust and daring an opponent to step over them, which the opponent immediately does. This is the case of an illegal strike followed by disobedience of a court injunction. The minister regaled us with his tale of inflexible law but he is the one person who can institute change.
What has brought our industrial relations to this sorry state? There was a time not so long ago when the labour movement was dedicated to improving the lot of all working men and women. This seems to have been replaced gradually by a "devil take the hindmost" scramble to stay on top of less powerful fellow men. A desire for social
April 9, 1974

justice seems now to have been replaced by a desire for social revenge. Every man's hand is turned against his neighbour.
I received a telephone call yesterday from a young man in Victoria, an employee of Pacific Western Airlines. The staff has been warned that in the next day or so 500 employees of the airline company are to be laid off. Who was protecting this young employee? Certainly not the government, certainly not the unions, certainly not the dissident workers. This young man was a booking agent. He told me he had just seen three months' work go down the drain. He had booked flights from Victoria to Vancouver, to California and the Hawaiian Islands, to England and to Sweden. Then suddenly, through the actions of another group, his winter's work was wasted. At the end of the conversation he said, "I wish to hell I was getting $9,000, which I am not."
I think it is up to us in parliament to realize there is something basically wrong with our labour legislation. What causes people to go constantly on strike? A lot of us who enjoy higher incomes say they should do this or that because of their fellowmen or for their country, for patriotic reasons or the good of the economy. That is not the way the workingman sees it. Most workers are mainly concerned with money. Let hon. members not look down their noses at that. Money is very important, particularly to those who do not have it. They do not readily understand the need to save and invest as well as consume, or accept the need for national sacrifices. Every gardener and farmer knows that you cannot consume the seed corn. This fact is not understood about the need for investment. Many people fondly believe that they can consume the entire product of a particular industry. With inflation running at what seems likely to be a rate of 15 per cent, we are bordering on a catastrophic situation and only tremendous sacrifices on the part of everyone will save us from the fate of the Weimar Republic.
I should like to quote a few remarks by what I consider to be one of the most responsible labour leaders in the world today, Mr. Frank Chappie of Great Britain. He had this to say a few weeks ago, and I would draw it particularly to the attention of our friends in the socialist party to our left:
I certainly do not believe that free collective bargaining has achieved better results than the application of a prices and incomes policy. If there is a criticism that can be made of the present wages structure it is that it stems directly from the effects of a free collective bargaining system and not from the successful application of a prices and incomes policy-
Then he went on to add, in what I consider to be a very good way of putting it:
I am always suspicious of people who have all the answers to a problem, but there is a very great need for those with the responsibility of managing the industry to involve those who have worked in the industry in a meaningful dialogue about objectives and expectations.
I should like to point out that the situation in Canada in regard to labour unrest is nothing short of disastrous when compared with a country such as Sweden. Over a period of time, Canada lost 3V$ million man-days per year at the same time as Sweden lost 75,000 man-days per year. This is in a country roughly one-third the size of Canada.
Airline Firefighters Strike


Mr. Nesdoly:: What difference does that make?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Let me just read to my friend from Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) a few things about Sweden. Compared to many other west European countries, state-owned undertakings in Sweden account for a relatively small part of the whole economy-6 per cent-Swedish industry being still overwhelmingly in private ownership.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: They have a socialist government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: They may have a socialist government but they do not have a socialist state. Their industry is largely in private hands, but they do have trust in each other. The workers trust their leaders. I think the leader of the NDP served his country ill tonight when he said that when the employer wants something, the worker should oppose it. He was speaking of the government of Canada as the employer. It is this attitude of turning one Canadian against another, telling them to be suspicious of everything that the other side does, that leaves us in the position where you cannot sit down and get opposing sides to talk to each other. They have been so indoctrinated with this kind of demagogic outburst that their rationality in bargaining has left them.
I can only say to the minister that I enjoy his eloquence very much. I always enjoy his speeches in the House. If there is a reshuffle of the cabinet I should like him to be a minister without portfolio so that I can enjoy his speeches without suffering what he does to various departments.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been listening with some attention to this debate tonight. Let me say at once that if the fact that we are having it indicates that the members of the House from various parts of Canada are concerned about the situation in British Columbia, then perhaps it will have had some value. It may indicate that in our minds there is real concern that we arrive quickly at a fair settlement of the negotiations regarding this particular situation in British Columbia.
Having just listened to my colleague from southern Vancouver Island, I think we should not put this matter out of perspective. It is not as if we are faced with a national disaster in any sense of that word. It is quite true that a large number of people in British Columbia are seriously inconvenienced, and one cannot discount that. But the fact remains that if we are going to have what some of us like to consider a free society in which working people are not serfs under the lash of the employer, then we must continue the bargaining process. If grievances reach the point where they have to be strongly expressed, that is part and parcel of that process. Certainly this particular situation does not mean the end of the world for people on Vancouver Island, in Vancouver or in Prince George.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) suggested that he would be prepared to stay here all next week-I thought I understood him to say-to debate this issue. My only comment would be that if we were to stay here all next week and listen to the kind of inflammatory speech that was made by my colleague for Prince George-Peace River, there would probably be a strike at all airports in Canada.

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
I do not believe that this House of Commons, in the kind of debate we are having here tonight, is indeed the proper forum in which to arrive at a settlement of a collective bargaining dispute. I certainly agree with what was said by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), that this dispute is not the responsibility of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). He is not the employer. His job, for better or for worse, is to operate the airport system in Canada. The only person in this House who has any ministerial responsibility to whom we can address ourselves is the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). He, in effect, is our agent in this situation, and when I say "our agent" I mean in the sense that the government of the day is responsible to this House for its action or lack of action. In this instance the proper member to whom we should address our remarks is the President of the Treasury Board.
In the days before collective bargaining in the public service had been introduced-days when the only kind of business agent people in the public service had was their member of parliament-I remember putting forward the proposition advanced tonight by the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), namely, that rates of pay of people in the public service in St. John's, Newfoundland, should be roughly the equivalent of rates in Vancouver. I must say that all efforts I made in this direction were not apparent as far as producing results is concerned, but it is heartening to find someone on the government side of the House advancing that thesis. It is only unfortunate that the hon. member for Verdun, in advancing the thesis, is not speaking as a member of the ministry. Perhaps one of the reasons he is not in the ministry is that he has not been able to convince the President of the Treasury Board of the equity of that kind of position.
One hon. member mentioned that the President of the Treasury Board said it would cost $64 million to equalize rates. We hear a lot of debate about equalization payments, and quite frankly I cannot think of any more economically sound form of equalization payments that might flow from the federal treasury of Canada than reasonably equalized rates that are uniform across the country within reasonable limits. Those rates, just as the equalization payments, have to be based on some calculation of the highest average rather than on some calculation either of the median or lowest average. I hope the hon. member for Verdun will continue to pursue his line of argument with his colleagues in the Liberal caucus, and in particular with the President of the Treasury Board.
That is the real solution to this situation and that would bail the Minister of Transport out of his present dilemma. That and that alone is the kind of approach I feel this House of Commons should suggest to the government tonight. I do not believe that much more can be achieved by the House of Commons at this point in time. When we reach eleven o'clock tonight we will not have passed any motion except that the House adjourn. Unless the President of the Treasury Board is in a position and willing to rise some time before eleven o'clock and make a real announcement, we will have to endure the collective bargaining behind the scenes in which he is involved and

await the outcome of that process. Otherwise, I see little advantage in prolonging this debate.
We have made our views clear and we have tried to say what should happen. That having been done, the matter should go back to the collective bargaining forum with the realization that sooner or later something has to be settled. I think even the President of the Treasury Board would be prepared to make that admission. I know that he likes to take the hard-fisted approach on occasion, particularly in reference to money matters, and in part at least that is his responsibility.
However, I suggest that if he wants to do a real service toward resolving the kind of dilemma which keeps recurring, the dilemma which some of us from areas such as Vancouver Island have to wrestle with from time to time as a real and proper grievance, he will be prepared to rise tonight and announce that he accepts the principle of the federal service of Canada being paid on a national rate at a level which is reasonably equivalent to the average of perhaps the two highest salaried provinces in Canada, or some such formula. Then perhaps hon. members such as the hon. member from southern Vancouver Island will be able to go home for a comfortable sleep in the knowledge that Canada is not falling to pieces quite as badly as he suggested.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just a few comments in respect of this entire matter and to offer some praise to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who had the ability to determine that such a motion was required at this time. What he has tried to do, and I think he has done the job in an exceptional fashion, is bring home the point that someone here in the House of Commons must be concerned about the public interest.
I come from a city which is labour-oriented, with big unions, and I therefore have appreciation for what is talked about in terms of the collective bargaining process. Since I have been here no one has seemed to want to stand up and talk about the interests of the third party, that is, the Canadian public-that interest not represented at the bargaining table but which in many instances has found itself on the short end of the stick and wondering why.
The hon. member for Vancouver South has attempted to say that he has a responsibility as a member of parliament to bring home his concern, the concern of all members of parliament, for the public interest. I have heard a lot of talk about management, whether it be in the government or in the private sector, and a lot of talk about the unions; but no one seems to take it upon himself to suggest that there is another party not represented at the bargaining table about whom we should be concerned. I intend to continue to register my concern as a member of parliament, as did the hon. member for Vancouver South, for that third party.
It has been suggested that this is a Vancouver or a British Columbia problem. That is not quite so. When stopping at the Toronto international airport yesterday on my way to Ottawa, I was approached by several members of Air Canada who were up in arms over the fact that travellers aboard BOAC hoping to get to Vancouver were told they could not stop over at Toronto but had to get
April 9, 1974

back on the plane and go to Calgary and take their lumps there. I wonder whether the minister is aware of that fact, or the fact that those travelling from the Atlantic provinces en route to Vancouver could not stop at Toronto but had to go on to Calgary and take their chances there. For that reason it is not right to say that this is only a B.C. problem. This problem is centred in British Columbia but it is nationwide, if not international, and it might well become that to a significant degree. Let us not make any mistake about that.
It disturbs me to hear the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) say he cannot intervene because we have a Public Service Alliance, which is the agent on the one hand, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) on the other hand. What the minister should appreciate is the fact that the negotiations are not realistic and he has every right, under section 195 of the Labour Code, to appoint a mediator. This is a general section which perhaps needs more interpretation on my part. But the Minister of Labour has said he is aware of this situation and that mediators are ready if called upon. I think he should take the initiative.
What bothers me is the attitude of the President of the Treasury Board. When we hear that he is involved, the only conclusion most of us can reach is that he is callous and hard, and I say that with a great deal of respect. I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board knows about the discrepancy which exists. A fireman is a fireman no matter where he works, and this is the important situation the President of the Treasury Board must face. He must approach this problem with full disclosure and bargain in good faith. He must realize that there is an ever-widening discrepancy as a result of which people are becoming extremely frustrated. I agree with the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) who suggests that we must reduce that discrepancy.
We find that the national wage is approximately $9,100, yet in the city of Toronto a municipal firefighter is paid about $12,124. A firefighter at the Hamilton municipal airport is paid by the city of Hamilton approximately $11,500. A firefighter in Vancouver earns about $13,000, and in Calgary, where there is some peculiar arrangement because of its status as an international airport, firefighters are paid $13,000. In Edmonton they are paid $13,000. The most significant statistic I can find relates to the fact that a first-class constable in the RCMP in the 1960's was earning an average of approximately $4,000 per year, as was a firefighter. Now, as I understand it, an RCMP constable is up to $12,000, while for the firefighters it is approximately $9,000.
Does the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), with all his wisdom, not realize that this discrepancy is frustrating and leads to the sort of thing that has happened at Vancouver where the dissidents, against the will of the Public Service Alliance, went on strike? We do not condone that, of course not. It was most unfair of the ex-minister, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) to even suggest this. He is a good friend of mine, but I must say it was most unfair of him to even suggest to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) that he was condoning an illegal strike. The hon. member for
Airline Firefighters Strike
Vancouver South when he opened his remarks was most careful and responsible in that regard in stating that we do not go along with it and do not condone it. He was attempting to bring to the attention of not only the President of the Treasury Board but also the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) the very serious situation in terms of the discrepancy that exists.
The Minister of Transport said he has sent out two representatives. The hon. member for Vancouver South said he does not understand this. I have difficulty in uderstanding it myself. If he can send two representatives out to discuss this matter with the dissidents, why cannot the minister himself to out there? I am not concerned about what the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Verdun, said about this. If we can send out two representatives, it is no more frustrating, surely, to the collective bargaining process than if the minister went out there himself. It is a matter of great importance.
I am getting sick and tired of ministers who seem to have some hang-up with regard to the collective bargaining process. They seem to have forgotten that the public interest must remain paramount. There can be no question about that. If there is, then I find that my six years of experience here have come to naught, because I thought we were sent here to protect the public interest regardless of which facet we are talking about. I see the minister shaking his head. I understand. I am trying to be responsible today. Normally I get mean and rant and rave, but this is different. I am attempting to make some valid points. The minister cannot just sit there day after day. We had to beg the Minister of Labour personally to intervene in the Seafarers' International dispute. He said he could not do that because it would have been premature. We on this side seem to know what we are doing. The other side does not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should first apologize for not having been present throughout this debate. I had wished to be here during the course of the whole debate. However, I have had reported to me, albeit second-hand, some of the views expressed and I have listened to some of the speakers.
The suggestion was made by the last speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), that the government is not concerned with the public interest. Perhaps if I were not to try to disclose the course of the negotiations, but to indicate some of the background, it would be seen that the government is preoccupied with the public interest. The objective of the government is to secure agreement through the collective bargaining process. It is only in the event that we cannot reach agreement through this process that resort is had to arbitration, which is the method of dispute settlement chosen by the firefighters in this particular case.
As the hon. member for Hamilton West and others have pointed out, there are quite considerable variances in the wages and salaries paid to people in the profession of firefighting across Canada. Firefighters are regarded differently in Canada by the communities in which they

April 9, 1974
Airline Firefighters Strike
work and serve rather differently. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these communities are entitled to their views and that it should not be up to the federal government by fiat to tell them that their ideas and values are wrong and that it knows better.
It is for this reason the government has proposed, in the interest of harmonious relationships between employer and employee-and Treasury Board is the nominal employer-that where a man or woman engages in the federal public service and is likely to remain throughout his or her working career in that particular community, that is, a condition known as lack of mobility, there are marked differences in the kind of rewards that communities in Canada accord to these particular professions. Where there are marked differences and lack of mobility, we suggest-and I emphasize this-and indeed offer a regional approach rather than a national approach.
This means that those who avail themselves of this offer look for comparability with people in a corresponding trade in the community in which they live and work, and comparability where their wives shop, with the wives of other people engaged in the same profession. A number of unions have accepted this with satisfaction. A number of other unions have not accepted it. The fact that they have not accepted it does not mean we do not reach agreement. The government offers this to them, and if they accept it we reach a collective agreement.
In the present case we have offered to the firefighters regional rates, that is, the firefighters would be able to achieve comparability with corresponding people in the area in which they live and work, rather than the national average. The leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis), suggested, I think rather irresponsibly for a member of this House, that we should in effect pay public servants the highest rate going anywhere in Canada. He suggested that in this way you can obtain harmony.


An hon. Member:: He did not go that far: he said close to that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Close to the highest probably sounds good to the people looking for a large increase and not so bad to the taxpayer who has to pay the bill. We have a system which has worked very satisfactorily and which has led to a very large number of collective agreements, whereby the federal government's position is that those who wish to be on national rates will bargain for a settlement at close to the national average.


David Lewis: That takes in the lowest.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Of course it does. We all understand arithmetic. The average is the mean between the top and the bottom, and it includes both. We are prepared to offer the national average and we have concluded a great many agreements on this basis with those who prefer that kind of arrangement. The result is that where there are not wide differences of rewards across the country, there is not much disparity between the various communities. However, where there are wide disparities, as in the case of the firefighters and a number of other trades across the

country where disparities exist, it is conducive to intense dissatisfaction.
The union, in so far as the firefighters are concerned, feels it is bound by a statement of principle that national rates are the rule. They are bound by the rules of the convention. Consequently, they responded to the government's over-all regional rate, which means substantial increases for places like Vancouver, Toronto, and some of the other western provinces mentioned, and to lesser increases for some other communities where there is not such a large disparity, by saying that their policy was national rates. Clearly, this is highly unsatisfactory to the firefighters in Vancouver, indeed in the whole B.C. area. It has been indicated to us that firefighters in another unit in B.C. and also in the employment of the federal government will go out with other services in sympathy with the claims of the airport firefighters. The local in Vancouver has made it quite clear in public statements that they would be prepared to defy the injunction ordering them back to work in what, as everyone admits, is an illegal strike.


Erik Nielsen: Who is the applicant?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The applicant was Treasury Board. The hon. member for Hamilton West has been complaining that the government does not have the public interest in mind.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: When members of the public service engage in illegal practices, in this case an illegal work stoppage, we invoke the law. We have no whips and we would not use them if we had; but we do invoke the law, and the ruling of the law is the order to return to work. This order of the court has not been observed by the workers in Vancouver, which indicates quite clearly how strongly they feel about this, and I sympathize with their plight and recognize that there is a wide disparity. In the name of national rates they are being asked to make a considerable financial sacrifice in terms of comparability-in the name of national rates, in the name of the dogma. As I say, I sympathize with them in this. In fact, I might say that the workers in Vancouver have gone on an illegal strike in support of Treasury Board policy. That is something.


An hon. Member:: Beautiful.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That happens to be a fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Hamilton West, Mr. Alexander.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better bow to seniority.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes left I would like to add something to the debate. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hamilton) referred to a conflict of interest that exists in every case where Treasury Board sits down at the bargaining table with the bargaining agents of the employees. It seems to me that there is always a conflict. On the one hand, Treasury Board acts on its own behalf as the nominal
April 9, 1974

employer, and on the other hand it purports to act on behalf of the public of Canada generally.
We have put forward the suggestion-if the hon. member for Hamilton West had the time, I am sure he would have done so himself-that there should be some independent body that could sit at the bargaining table for these purposes. Many times in the past we have suggested the creation of a public service disputes commission which would act in the public interest.


Jean Marchand: We have it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is called the Public Service Staff Relations Board.


Erik Nielsen: That has no more independence, in the sense in which I speak, than the minister himself.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I hope the hon. member for Yukon will withdraw what he said in giving his views of me and interpreting the same optic to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and its distinguished chairman, which is nothing but a slur on him. I hope he will withdraw that comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is getting close to eleven o'clock, so I hope the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will try to arrange that.


Erik Nielsen: This is a debate, and no slur was intended. I was really trying to be fair to the minister, trying to be
Airline Firefighters Strike
non-partisan. The minister said that he endeavours to approach these problems on a regional basis. If that is so, why is there this great gap between what MOT firefighters are being paid at Vancouver and what municipal firefighters are being paid? I understand it is in the order of $3,000. If he is sincere in trying to settle on a regional basis, then what is the reason for this great gap?
The last observation I have-and I have three seconds in which to make it-is that I am wondering why Treasury Board applied the injunction knowing full well they have to commence proceedings and claim irreparable damage in order to obtain their injunction. And then they sit on it, because if there have been damages, as there must be otherwise the judge would not have granted the injunction, what was the purpose in getting the injunction if Treasury Board intended to sit on it and not make any effort to carry it through?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to section 13 of Standing Order 26, I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded and the motion is deemed to have carried.
It being eleven o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 11 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 10, 1974