1974-01-03

THE LATE WALLACE BICKFORD NESBITT

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it was with a great deal of sadness that we learned on December 21 of the death of our long-time colleague, Wally Nesbitt, member for Oxford.
Through eight elections spanning 20 years he served as one of the best known and active members of this House, both in government and opposition. He represented a beautiful rural part of southwestern Ontario and, with his skill as a lawyer and politician, never failed to do battle in parliament for his constituents and their concerns on the farms and in the small towns.
However, the interests of the member for Oxford ranged beyond his own area, his province and even his country. For years he was deeply involved in promoting Canada's voice in international affairs and was a receptive listener to the difficulties and hopes of other nations regardless of their size or level of development.

More particularly, he was deeply involved in the United Nations and during the fifties he represented Canada as an important political figure and member of our delegations in New York and Geneva.
It is quite difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make a summary of 20 years of service. I can say that in all aspects of his parliamentary life Wally Nesbitt was active. Throughout the Parliament Buildings he was the friend of all, including members of all parties as well as the members of the Press Gallery and all employees.

Last fall he courageously returned to this House after a serious illness. He quickly resumed his role to the delight of his colleagues on both sides of the chamber.
It is with particular sadness that we pay tribute to him today and extend our sympathy to his family, his many friends and the constituents of Oxford.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in connection with Wally Nesbitt, the late hon. member for Oxford. The constituents of Oxford have lost a highly valued representative, we have lost a valued colleague, and certainly it was with the deepest of sadness that we learned of his death.
Wally Nesbitt, as the Prime Minister has indicated, sat in this House as the representative for Oxford since 1953. During those years he made a most vigorous and impressive contribution to the work of the House and, I might add, to the work of his party caucus.
In 1957 he became parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister and vice-chairman of Canada's delegation to the twelfth General Assembly of the United Nations. In 1958 he was appointed parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and was chairman of Canada's delegation to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. In 1960 he was elected first vice-president of the United Nations General Assembly and frequently acted as chairman of that body. From 1963 to 1968 he was the external affairs spokesman for this party in the House and co-chairman of the House of Commons Committee on External Affairs. So Wally Nesbitt had an abiding interest in world affairs as well as in the concerns of our country and his constituency.
If I may speak personally for a moment, to me he was a very warm friend and a very capable associate. He undertook various difficult assignments within our own caucus organization. I have referred to his work in external affairs, but since 1968 he has been our spokesman from time to time for transport, for Indian and northern affairs and for science. As a chairman of committees he had a great capacity to organize the effective discharge of work. When he accepted the responsibility for doing something one knew that the responsibility would be discharged very well and very thoroughly.
We were all shocked by his sudden illness. We admired his fight to regain his health. He fought to regain his health so he could take his position again in the House. He showed great courage. We looked forward, Sir, to him regaining full health and full vigour but this was destined not to be. It was with a very heavy sense of personal loss that I and my colleagues learned of his sudden death.
We join with the Prime Minister in extending our sympathy to Wallace Nesbitt's mother and the other members of his family.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to our late friend and colleague, Wally Nesbitt. I am happy to underline the words of commendation and praise uttered by the Prime Minister. I believe it is very fitting that the Leader of the Opposition has taken this opportunity to place on the record such an excellent resume of Wally Nesbitt's work, including his contribution to his constituency, to the House of Commons and to the world scene on which he was privileged to play such an important part.
For a number of years our late colleague sat at this end of the Conservative Party benches which meant that we in this party got to know him very well. Although our ideas did not always run along parallel lines, we found him a very warm and genial friend. It was with real sadness that we learned of his illness some months ago and with still

January 3, 1974
Business of the House
greater sadness that we learned of his death just after we had recessed for the Christmas period. I think one of the finest tributes paid to Wallace Nesbitt was the tremendous number of people who were at the very impressive funeral service held for him in Woodstock, Ontario, on December 24.
Sir, I join with the others in asking that you extend our sympathy to Wally Nesbitt's mother, to his sister and through them to the other members of the family and all those who were near and dear to him.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we all surely deplore the death of a member such as Mr. Nesbitt. So, on behalf of all members of our party, I extend to the family, the relatives and friends of the deceased our most heart-felt sympathy.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to extend our special sympathy to the Progressive Conservative Party which within a few weeks has been twice afflicted by the death of one of its members. And I also take this opportunity to add that the example of a man such as Mr. Nesbitt is one which all members of this House can follow with no qualms of being mistaken.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, to table in both official languages a report on the 1973-74 Canadian fertilizer situation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the first order of business today will be Bill C-245, and that at a quarter to five we propose to interrupt the proceedings, with the direction of the House, to deal with the divisions in connection with Bill C-203 concerning election expenses. Consultations have taken place and I understand that this procedure is agreeable. If that is the case, it might be ordered by the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are all in agreement with this procedure. Perhaps I might take this opportunity to point out that the discussions that have taken place have also included an arrangement whereby, instead of our having 13 recorded divisions, the number could probably be reduced to six or

seven. When five o'clock comes, perhaps this arrangement can be reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canada is one of the few countries in the world without Saturday mail delivery, considering the growing delays in mail delivery generally, and in view of the fact that many small businesses rely heavily on daily mail service to an ever increasing degree, I ask leave of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this government immediately consider reinstituting an all year round Saturday mail delivery service throughout Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity is the continuing risk of oil spills in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. In view of the decision to transport Alberta crude oil from the port of Vancouver in foreign-owned vessels of questionable seaworthiness, thereby seriously eroding the credibility of this parliament's position in opposing the U.S. Alaska tanker route, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That the government forthwith cease this method of supplying the eastern market and forthwith replace this method of supply with emergency rail and highway transport until the completion of the Montreal pipeline.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion
January 3, 1974

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, so the motion cannot be put.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
December 13, 1973-Mr. Howard:
That the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Monday, December 10, 1973, be concurred in.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not catching your eye sooner. There is a notice of motion standing in my name seeking concurrence in the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development presented to the House on Monday, December 10. I seek the consent of the House to withdraw that motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's notice of motion is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, before I put a question, perhaps you might permit me to say a word of congratulations to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Trudeau. In a different context the Prime Minister has frequently spoken about the importance of timing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly I must extend my congratulations to the Prime Minister and Mrs. Trudeau both in terms of timing and in terms of general felicitations. May I say in passing, Sir, that I share his joy to some extent because I had a second grandchild-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -a granddaughter, born on January 1, a second westerner. Henceforth I hope to be treated with more respect by the western members in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who indicated to the House on December 21 that he had posed certain questions to a foreign company proposing to take over the Macdonald Tobacco Company and that he was awaiting responses. Has the minister received specific answers with regard to that takeover and, if so, is he satisfied or not that it would have significant benefit for Canadians within the meaning of the legislation, whenever it is proclaimed?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member on becoming a grandfather for the second time around. I wish to tell him I have not yet received any answer to my queries put to the Reynolds Tobacco Company.


PROPOSED TAKEOVER OF EMCO CORPORATION BY MASCO CORPORATION OF MICHIGAN
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question relating to the proposed takeover of Emco Corporation and the questions which I believe the minister directed to the Masco Corporation of Michigan. Has the minister received any responses to those questions and, if so, is he satisfied that this takeover would be of significant benefit to Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I met with the principals of the Masco Corporation yesterday. I put a number of propositions to them with respect to the whole question of significant benefit to Canada. They are considering their position, and I expect to hear from them very shortly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the present situation with the act not having been proclaimed, how does the minister propose to cope with these takeovers in the interregnum? He says he has received no reply with regard to the Macdonald Tobacco takeover. How does the minister propose to cope with it if the guidelines prove to be ineffective, as now seems to be the case? Is it the intention of the minister to proclaim that part of the legislation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we intend to proclaim the legislation just as fast as it is possible to do so. I do not
9004

January 3, 1974
Oral Questions
think, though, that I can accept the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question when he says that these guidelines have proved to be ineffective. They have not yet proved to be ineffective.


An hon. Member:: And not effective either.


FOOD PRICES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering that a study, reported at length recently in the Montreal Gazette, revealed that the 19 per cent increase in food costs during the past year is likely to be continued throughout 1974, and that a good part of this inflation in food costs is due to the percentage mark-up technique of the food chains, will the minister inform the House if his department is taking steps to eliminate or control this pricing technique in a serious way?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to see that article yet. I will look at it and get back to the hon. member.


POSSIBILITY OF REDUCTION IN AMOUNT SPENT ON ADVERTISING ALLOWED CORPORATIONS FOR TAX PURPOSES OR EXCESS PROFITS TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I see nothing has changed over the New Year period. I will switch to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the same study revealed that advertising costs in food also account for a substantial part of the increase in the cost of food, amounting, for example, to some 43 per cent on Ajax cleanser and 18 per cent on Palmolive soap and so on, will the minister inform the House if the government intends to reduce substantially or remove entirely the amount that corporations can claim for tax purposes of revenues spent on advertising?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, sir, the government does not intend to do so. As to a further review of that study, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will be looking into it in a deeper way. I might say to the hon. gentleman, however, that there is nothing in the study that precludes in any way, in answer to the assertion that advertising adds to costs, the argument that the wide proclaiming that goods are in competition with other goods may contribute to lower costs.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister read the study again. Considering that the profits of the food chains, also revealed in that study, were substantially above other sectors of the Canadian economy in the past year, would the minister inform the House if he is considering an excess profits tax to be particularly applicable to that sector of the economy?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, and if I were this would not be the time to announce it.


TRANSPORT
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Did he receive a request from the St. Lawrence Pilots Federation for extending the navigation season of the St. Lawrence River during this winter in order to achieve lower oil prices and, if so, what policy does the minister intend to follow in this respect?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram on this matter.


René Matte: In the second part of my question I asked, Mr. Speaker, what policy the minister intends to follow in this respect?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the technicians from my department are not convinced of the validity of the pilots association's claim.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO IMPROVE SAFETY OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the Canadian Transport Commission has finally taken action with regard to rail safety, even though it is negative action and years late, will the minister take positive steps not only to improve the safety record of Canada's railways but to allow them to take advantage of existing technology to better serve the people of Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is equality in this chamber. I received this report at the same time as the hon. gentleman. I am anxious to read it and after that I may have some comments.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I should like to ask the minister whether action is now being taken or is contemplated to change the uniforms and insignia of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, no action has been taken to change the insignia or uniforms of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say that no consideration is being given to this question and, in particular, to
January 3, 1974

the removal of the Crown from the insignia of non-commissioned officers up to the rank of staff sergeant-major?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I have not heard anything about that. 1 might say that last summer the weight of cloth in the uniforms was changed in order to give members of the RCMP a lighter summer uniform, but it was the same uniform.


John George Diefenbaker: Removal of the Crown would not do that.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I should like to ask the minister whether there are any new developments in the search for four missing men in northern Saskatchewan as the result of the crash of a plane which originated from La Ronge?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this search has been continued intensively. About half an hour ago I heard that the site of the crash had been located, but we have not got confirmation yet. A helicopter is travelling to the site now.


VIOLENCE IN JUNIOR HOCKEY-MEETING WITH CANADIAN AMATEUR HOCKEY ASSOCIATION AUTHORITIES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
On December 21, I asked the minister whether he was considering the possibility of an inquiry on violence in junior hockey in Canada. Since he replied affirmatively concerning the possibility of such an inquiry, would he say whether he has met with Canadian Amateur Hockey Association authorities and can he say when he shall get the report of this inquiry and report to the House?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been unable so far to meet with representatives of the CAHA. I hope I can do so in the next few days. I shall then report to the hon. member.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Oral Questions
Given the fact that the chairman of the Economic Council of the United States has now said that the United States government is expecting the rate of growth of their economy to be not more than 4 per cent and that the unemployment rate will rise to 6 per cent, can the minister tell us what effect this will have on Canadian exports to the United States during the forthcoming year?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, of course this is something we are watching on a very close basis. We recognize, as does the hon. member, all the uncertainties involved in this situation, but we think it will be a very good year.


James McPhail Gillies: Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have members of his department working precisely on estimating what the possible impact of a change of that dimension in the economy of our trading partner will be on our economy?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have it under constant and continuing review.


James McPhail Gillies: Will the minister table in the House of Commons within the next week the results of such studies so that the Canadian people may have some idea of what the Canadian government thinks about the economic situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have it under constant and continuing review.


HOME HEATING OIL-POSSIBLE PROVISION OF RELIEF TO CONSUMERS IN FIVE EASTERN PROVINCES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if a decision has been made yet to provide some relief to the consumers of the five eastern provinces who are suffering from the energy situation, especially in the area of home heat? If such a decision has been made, will it be announced before the meeting of first ministers at the end of January?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been taken at the moment, although that will obviously be the primary question for discussion at the first ministers' conference later this month.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the present difficulties in rail transport, the shortage of feed grain supplies in eastern Canada and the difficulties that are being experienced in the Edmonton yards and in
26695-57}

January 3, 1974
Oral Questions
the lower mainland of British Columbia, can the minister advise how soon the Hall report will be available and whether or not it is possible that his recommendations or decisions will be tabled prior to the presently proposed recess of parliament?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I did not hear the last two or three words of the hon. member's question, although I believe I got the general purport. I would advise, as I have advised before, that the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall should be available to the parties and, for that matter, very shortly thereafter to the public and every hon. member, about the middle of this month.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In connection with that matter may I ask, in view of the minister's answer, whether we will also have the report of Dr. Deutsch with respect to pensions? Is that to be made at the same time? Can we have that report before parliament recesses so that we may have an idea of what is going to happen to pensions so far as railway workers are concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, that report was to be submitted to the hon. Mr. Justice Hall for his consideration, so I imagine its contents would be made available at the same time as the Hall report itself, probably as an appendix.


INQUIRY WHETHER MEETING HELD BETWEEN MINISTER AND ARAB STATE REPRESENTATIVES RESPECTING REPORTED OFFER OF OIL AT LOWER PRICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has met with the Minister of Energy of Kuwait or any other Arabian country with respect to a reported offer to supply 360,000 barrels of crude petroleum to Canada at a price considerably less than what Canada or agents representing our country are paying now for Venezuelan crude petroleum?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a meeting.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources answered my question in such inaudible terms that I felt he must have some knowledge. Has the minister any knowledge? Has there been any offer of such a sale to him, to his department or to any other minister of the government, particularly the Minister of Supply and Services, to the knowledge of the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of proposals put by various of the eastern hemisphere oil producers to the officials of my department, and they have been investigated. I think I would have to examine particularly with them whether this particular proposition the hon. gentleman has mentioned was among those and, if so, what the exact terms of it were.


HOUSING
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Portneuf.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Since the enforcement of Bill C-133 would alleviate in part the housing problem which remains a major issue in this country, could the minister advise the House whether he intends to make a statement in the near future concerning the relevant agreements reached with the provinces?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement yesterday indicating that we have agreements with regard to the neighborhood improvement program, which I take it the hon. member is referring to, either agreements or agreements in principle, with nine of the provinces, and that just before Christmas I had very useful and friendly discussions with the minister from the province of Quebec in Quebec City. I am optimistic that an agreement can be concluded at an early date.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: I wish to direct a supplementary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
When agreements were reached with the provinces, did he ask them to indicate clearly the amounts coming from the federal government for the construction of homes, including those for the aged?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the agreements to which my answer applied refer only to the neighborhood improvement program. There are no agreements relative to old age housing or senior citizens' housing. They are made project by project with each province.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the latest report of the OECD, of which Canada is a member, very strongly criticizes this country for not having a comprehensive anti-inflation policy, can the minister advise the House if the government is in the process of preparing such a policy now, and may we expect to hear it announced in the House in the very near future?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is referring to reports of an alleged impending report. If he will refer to the last published report in December, he will not find that type of analysis of the Canadian position.
January 3, 1974


George Harris Hees: As the minister knows very well, I am referring to the report that will be produced very soon. He knows all about it. I ask him the following supplementary question. As the government obviously is not in the process of preparing such a program, may we expect that in the near future we will have some kind of announcement from the government as to the economic stand of the government on all these matters, and can that be expected in the near future?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that will be done at the first reasonable opportunity. As a matter of fact, I hope to have occasion this afternoon, in dealing with the export tax bill, to relate my remarks also to some of the economic underpinnings, both international and domestic.


INDUSTRY
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact Canadians are concerned about foreign takeovers, particularly in western Ontario, and in view of the reaction in regard to the two companies previously mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, can the minister inform the House whether a deadline was set for replies to be received to his questions and whether there would be significant benefit to Canadians as a result of these takeovers?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no deadline has been set but I expect to hear very shortly from both parties.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in connection with his special responsibility for national historic sites. In view of the proposed private sale of the residence of the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, can the minister advise whether his department is planning to enter into negotiations to ensure that this residence will be preserved as an historic site and thus do honour to this distinguished former Prime Minister?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which of two residences the hon. member is talking about.
Oral Questions
There is the residence of the former prime minister in Quebec City and the house where he was born in Compton. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada recommended mainly the residence in Compton, not the one in Quebec City.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I thank the minister for his interest in this matter. In view of the difficulties encountered with regard to the residence of this late Prime Minister and the residence in Hamilton of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, is the minister considering establishing a special unit within his department to ensure that residences of former Prime Ministers, both those deceased and those still with us, will be preserved as national historic sites throughout this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, dedicating buildings for commemoration purposes comes under the jurisdiction of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. This is an independent board that advises the department and which has developed directives concerning the residences of former Canadian prime ministers.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has or is the Department of External Affairs or the government of which the minister is a member in any way negotiating with the kidnappers of a person known as Jasper Cross for their return to Canada to face kidnapping or other criminal charges?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that under no circumstances will these kidnappers be allowed to return to Canada to face criminal charges with the knowledge of the government, considering that they have already been given the benefit of making one choice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really have not considered this question in depth but, if they do come back to Canada on the understanding they will face criminal charges, I cannot at first blush see anything reprehensible about that.

January 3, 1974
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


SAFETY OF RAILWAY OPERATIONS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION AND IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the serious implications of the report made yesterday by the Canadian Transport Commission, will the minister, after he and his officials have had an opportunity to look at the report which they only received yesterday, make a statement in the House as to how long it will take for the department to make a full study of the report and also advise what measures his department will take to implement the recommendations of the commission?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I actually received the report just this morning. I originally read of it in the newspapers. The department is studying the report immediately and will make recommendations to me. As this is of public interest, I am sure the report will be tabled and the hon. member will be informed of what steps we are going to take.


David Orlikow: In view of the extreme reluctance of the railways in the past to make public any information about rail accidents, their causes and who was at fault, will the minister give special consideration to the possibility of instructing the railways, the Transport Commission and his department to make all information that comes to these bodies public so that proper steps can be taken to alleviate this condition?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will do what I can. However, I am sure the hon. member knows I am quite restricted in the kind of orders I can give to the CTC. If ever the House and the government decide to change that, maybe I could be more precise.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Transport indicate whether the deferment of the implementation of the airport head tax means that the government is seriously considering the alternative of raising the user charges to commercial air carriers at appropriate airports?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Will the minister assure the House that if the tax is implemented as originally proposed there will not be a further major increase in the originally announced figure of $2.80, as has been suggested by the head of the Canadian Air Transport Association?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Department of Transport is concerned, we do not expect another increase.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. If the new tax legislation is yielding hundreds of millions of dollars of additional revenue over and above that forecast by the minister at one stage and the minister has an abundance of revenues, why is it necessary to institute this tax at airports at all?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is argumentative. It is debate. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and then the hon. member for Rimouski.


PROPOSED PASSENGER HEAD TAX-SUGGESTED PERCENTAGE CHARGE ON SHORT FLIGHTS
Mr. Donald Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a supplementary of the hon. Minister of Transport.
I should like to ask him whether he and his colleagues are considering the possibility of approving a special charge, 5 per cent for instance, for short flights such as between Victoria and Vancouver rather than insisting on a single levy which lays a heavy financial burden on passengers using such flights?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, we had the choice between two formulas: a fixed charge which would protect the people at either end of the country or a percentage charge which would naturally protect short flight customers. Unfortunately, we have found no way of using both formulas at once and have decided to protect people who live far from the large centres, who would unfortunately pay considerable amounts under the percentage formula.


SUGGESTED RETURN TO DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I wish first to congratulate most sincerely Mrs. Trudeau and the right hon. Prime Minister for the excellent timing of the birth of their two sons. Considering that some provinces, especially Ontario, have expressed the wish to return to saving time, does the Prime Minister intend to adopt a standard policy for the whole of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the hon. member, the leader of the opposition and other hon. members for their good wishes towards my wife and myself. We thank them most sincerely.


Mr. Alexander:: Hurrah for Alexander!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have chosen an excellent name, that of Alexander, but-
January 3, 1974



Alexandre, spelled the French way, but I am sure the origins are the same. The hon. member has sometimes indicated that I am not a very good House of Commons man. He might be prepared to concede we are a good House of Commons couple, having planned this thing in such a way that it would not interrupt parliamentary proceedings.
In reply to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it would, in fact, be desirable for all the provinces to agree on the same formula, that there might be as little disparity as possible in the time chosen; however, the federal government is unable to impose it upon them. I willingly suggest, however, following the hon. member's question, that if the provinces wish to consult each other in this regard, the federal-provincial conference to be held within a few weeks would offer them an ideal occasion of doing so.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. It is based on the paper tabled today on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture dealing with the Canadian fertilizer situation. It says, in effect, that the price that Canadian farmers will be expected to pay will be higher that last year but less than the price in the United States. Since farmers are businessmen and are certainly entitled to more specific information than this, will the Prime Minister encourage the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement in the House on motions within the next few days on the price of fertilizer and on what government policy may be if price increases prove to be more than reasonable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to convey the suggestion of the hon. member to the Minister of Agriculture, who is presently in Charlottetown meeting with members of the provincial cabinet.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES PROPOSALS FOR REDUCTION OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT EXPORTS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government been advised by the United States government of a specific formula for the reduction of U.S. petroleum exports? If so, has it made any response to the
Oral Questions
United States government proposals, particularly in light of the British Columbia situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the committee this morning, the United States administration through Mr. Simon's office has indicated the proposed intention to put export controls on petroleum products on the basis of historic use in 1972. They have asked users, including Canadian users who take the products by way of export, to express their reactions to this proposal, and we as a government would expect to be responding in due course.


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


Mr. Cullen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the question period but following upon the order made earlier this day that certain questions are to be put at five o'clock may I say I have not had a chance to contact committee members and I should like to inform them that the national resources committee will be holding its meeting this afternoon at 3.30.


TAR SANDS OIL-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER TO SYNCRUDE FROM GOVERNMENT ON PRICING POLICY TO BE APPLIED TO PRODUCT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said before the recess that he had no objection to tabling in the House the letter from the government of Canada to the Syncrude company or to its principals relating to future pricing policies. Is the minister now prepared to table that letter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to table it. I apologize to the hon. gentleman; I have not brought it with me today, but I will see whether the translation has been made and I will be glad to lay it on the table either tomorrow or Monday.


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME- REQUEST THAT MINISTER URGE PROVINCES TO AGREE ON STAND
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the confusion across the country concerning use of daylight saving time to conserve energy, and in view of the further confusion of some provinces accepting this measure and others rejecting it, would the minister make a statement urging the provinces to stay together so that Canadians will not be subjected to communication and transportation scheduling difficulties across the land?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will recall, we have expressed the view, which I think is also held by Ontario Hydro, that in terms of home heating oil daylight saving time is not an energy conserving measure.

January 3, 1974
Oral Questions
I will be glad to take the suggestion under notice, but traditionally this has been a matter of provincial jurisdiction, as the hon. gentleman will recall from the practice in his own province.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Can the minister say whether the necessary steps have now been taken so that veterans who are receiving both old age security and the guaranteed income supplement on the one hand, and war veterans allowance on the other, will receive the cost of living increases that take place in both those payments this month?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs related to a question asked him approximately three weeks ago dealing with the proposal in the United States to build the Garrison dam project which has quite far-reaching implications for Manitoba. Has the minister received word from the United States on whether or not the U.S. government is going ahead with the project? If he has not received word, why has there been no communication between Canada and the United States on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that I did mention that a note had been transmitted to the United States setting out our concerns in this matter. We have not yet received a reply but I am given to understand that we may expect one this month.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the International Joint Commission been seized of this problem, and is it negotiating directly with the United States counterparts so that this danger to Canadian boundary waters might be averted?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the International Joint Commission is not automatically involved in this matter. We have chosen for the time being to deal with it at an intergovernmental level. The other question can remain open for consideration.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary. Would the minister assure the House, and consequently the country, that if the House of Commons is not sitting when the minister or his department receives word, it will be made public as soon as possible so that all interested parties may know what negotiations have taken place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give that very serious consideration, but I would hesitate to give an outright commitment until I have had an opportunity to see the reply that we receive.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would inform the management of the CBC that many Canadians would like a chance to judge the merits of a television play by Mordecai Richler without having the CBC make that judgment for them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am receiving all kinds of advice as to my answer. Yes, I would be pleased to pass on that representation, but I can assure the hon. member that this matter is now being reviewed by the CBC.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the absolute confusion and indescribable tardiness of the minister's department in announcing LIP grants for 1974 and extensions of 1973 grants, to such a point that British Columbia has announced it is opting out of the program, can the minister inform the House what he intends to do to clean up this mess in his department?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of a very few, all LIP approvals which will be made have now been announced. Some 3,234 applications have been approved involving some 602,000 man-weeks of work. The last few dozen or so pending are subject to some controversy which will be cleaned up very shortly.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).J
January 3, 1974


SHIPPING
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of increased oil tanker traffic from Vancouver destined for the east coast, can the minister advise the House whether there has been any addition to personnel and equipment in order to deal effectively with any oil spill that may take place on the west coast?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there has been any increase in personnel. I know that all oil spills have been handled quite rapidly, but I will get the information required by the hon. member.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that the existing number of men and the equipment available were unable effectively to contain a minor oil spill several months ago in Vancouver harbour, can the minister assure the House that oil spill prevention and containment measures on the west coast will be substantially improved immediately?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the first part of the question but perhaps we can find another opportunity to discuss this. I think we have all the men and equipment necessary to handle oil spills.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver South on a supplementary and then the hon. member for St. Catharines, followed by the hon. member for Algoma.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on December 11 Mr. Allard, public relations officer for the Ministry of Transport, said the only equipment available on the west coast is that which was available at the time of the Erawan-Sun Diamond spill in the fall, which was ineffective, I ask the minister in all seriousness whether he will consider this matter and come back to the House in a few days and assure us that something will be done in order that we will be capable of dealing with a major oil spill which might easily occur in view of the increased traffic.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter, and if there are any shortcomings they will be corrected right away.


STANDARDS RESPECTING TANKERS MOVING ALBERTA OIL FROM VANCOUVER TO EAST COAST
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the requirements respecting transportation of oil by tanker down the B.C. coast, and the fact that Canada is now shipping oil from Vancouver to Portland, Maine, what standards are we requiring for oil tankers going down the U.S. coast, through the Panama Canal and up
Oral Questions
the east coast, particularly in view of the fact that Cape Hatteras is such a dangerous point? Are we requiring the same standards in respect of vessels using the U.S. coastline as we demanded in respect of the B.C. coastline?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have to transport oil to Portland. As yet, no tanker from Vancouver has gone up the St. Lawrence. When those tankers have to face such dangerous conditions as ice, we will doubtless have to reach decisions in each case individually because at the present time there is no fleet of tankers available for transporting oil.


J. Trevor Morgan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport failed to listen to my question. The Canadian government has made certain representations to the United States government as to the safety standards it will require in respect of oil tankers going from Alaska to Cherry Point. I ask the minister whether we are requiring the same safety standards in respect of oil tankers going from Vancouver down the U.S. coast, through the Panama Canal and up the east coast of the United States to Portland, Maine, particularly in view of the fact that Cape Hatteras is one of the world's most dangerous points of navigation. Do we require the same standards-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the minister has heard the question.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the question. We require exactly the same standards for all ships sailing under the same conditions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


INQUIRY WHETHER NUCLEAR REACTORS SOLD OVERSEAS WILL BE FUELED BY CANADIAN URANIUM
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was chosen by the Globe and Mail as man of the year for 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is obvious that all hon. members want to congratulate the minister and also the Globe and Mail on its choice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Do the recent sales of Candu reactors to Argentina and South Korea include an understanding that Canadian uranium will be provided to fuel these reactors?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his kind reference. In connection with the sale to
9012

January 3, 1974
Business of the House
Argentina, initially Canadian fuel will be used, although the option remains for that country to use Argentine uranium. In connection with the South Korean sale, this will be entirely Canadian uranium.


SHIPPING
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, my question might be supplementary to the original question about the movement of oil from the port of Vancouver. I direct it to the Prime Minister. On the matter of moving oil by tanker from west coast ports through the Panama Canal to the east coast, was the Minister of the Environment enunciating government policy when he said that any oil tanker used to transport oil from west coast ports to any port on the east coast would be required, at the very least, to meet the standards for oil tankers adopted at the recent IMCO conference in London? Was he stating government policy when he made that announcement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check with the minister as to the exact terms of the announcement, but on the face of it the minister was certainly speaking as the minister responsible for the environment in putting before not only his colleagues in parliament but the people of Canada his express wishes as Minister of the Environment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized on a last supplementary question, after which the Chair will call orders of the day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport in respect of the response just made by the Prime Minister. Inasmuch as it is government policy that these stringent standards be met, why is the Department of Transport not following up this matter and requiring ships moving oil in and out of the port of Vancouver to meet the standards set out in this government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the usual Thursday question about the order of business, if this is the proper stage of the proceedings to do so. I ask the government House leader what we can look forward to in the next few days, even though we do have some idea of the business, particularly in respect of the wiretap bill for which we have indicated our support.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I indicated earlier today, Mr. Speaker, the business before the House is Bill C-245, an act to impose a charge on the export of crude oil. That item

will be kept before the House for the time allotted and it is completed. Hopefully, at that point we will be able to again give consideration to the oil allocation bill. I have not yet reached any conclusion as to when the wiretap bill might be brought back before the House, but I would be happy to consider with hon. members opposite ways that might make it possible to deal with it quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the order of business for the coming days, and in particular in respect of the last point to which the government House leader referred, may I ask whether the government is considering, as a means of saving time, substituting for the notice that is now on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice a notice simply rejecting the Senate amendment to the wiretap bill so that the House can reaffirm the position it took when the bill was before this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, the government is not considering that point at the moment.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to the last question I put to the Minister of Transport who was a bit slow in rising to his feet although it seemed he was rising to reply to the question. I see he has now disappeared, so perhaps the point of order has no validity, but certainly the minister should be required to reply to the question as to why this policy of the government is not being followed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-245, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to use this occasion to wish you and the members of the House a Happy New Year. I wish Your Honour every good fortune in presiding over the affairs of this legislature. I noted the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Madame Trudeau on the birth of their second son. He mentioned the question of timing. It only illustrates that this government can do almost anything, Mr. Speaker. I do not take anything away from the notable achievements of the Leader of the Opposition in having become a grandfather during the recess. All I can say is that the difference between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister is just one of attitude.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I don't get that, John.
January 3, 1974


John Napier Turner: You will have to think about it. I am sorry the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has left the chamber, because he also celebrated a very important event in his life: he became married. I am sure we all wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Without any reflection at all upon the House leader, I want to say to the hon. member for Peterborough, the Secretary of State, that congratulations are due to him upon finally joining the human race.
In rising at this time, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading of this bill to provide for export taxes and charges upon exports of crude oil from Canada, I should like briefly to review the background and to draw the attention of the House to the rapidly changing international picture against which the substance of the bill must be assessed. I also wish to touch upon some of the internal ramifications of some of those external events and what the external events mean to Canada as a country, because it is now fully evident that the pricing of crude oil in Canada, from which this bill basically derives, now poses for our country an issue of great significance and complexity.

In some respects, it is a unique challenge in the entire economic history of Canada. This matter raises extensive economic, political and fiscal problems. In addition, it could become a serious threat to Confederation and national unity. With regard to that situation, the government of the country must provide a clear and firm answer. The bill involved is only one of various measures included in that response.
It is necessary that Parliament and all Canadians be fully aware of the unprecedented occurrence characterized by an imminent shortage and a very steep rise in crude oil prices.
For some time most of us were aware of certain basic tendencies which were emerging in the over-all picture of the world energy supply and demand in general and of oil products in particular. The Canadian position was outlined in a government analysis paper published last June. This document described the long-term reduction in oil supply as opposed to a rapidly increasing demand as well as the unavoidable necessity of price increases. However I should say that nobody could forecast the rapidly developing events which within a few months not only reduced the flow of supplies but also entailed a sharp increase in world prices. The immediate and direct effects of those developments on certain countries in a less favourable position than Canada are already beginning to be felt: for those countries the balance of payments is being dislocated, economic growth is being slowed down, unemployment is increasing and the standard of living decreasing. As for the indirect and long-term effects they are hard to evaluate. However one thing is certain: some industrialized countries and developing nations which are largely dependent on imported oil will be greatly affected.
Oil Export Tax
However until the end of last fall Canada succeeded in avoiding shortages and sharp price increases. But the sharp rise in world prices exerted heavy tensions on our domestic price system which was designed for the particular structure of Canadian production and market. We are producing enough oil to meet our own needs, since our over-all production slightly exceeds our national consumption. However, because nearly all of our Canadian production is obtained from the western provinces especially Alberta which by itself accounts for more than 80 per cent, and for economic considerations related to location, transportation and world prices, it has proven more profitable to export about half of our production to the United States and to import a lesser volume for the five more easterly provinces. The second half of our production supplies the markets of Ontario and our four Western provinces.

Since 1960 it has been national policy to foster and develop this production and marketing system. Along with the favourable corporate tax regime applicable to the resource industries, this policy helped greatly in stimulating and encouraging the exploration and development of crude oil and gas reserves in western Canada. With normal world trade and effective links between Canadian, United States and international oil prices, the over-all system provided for a reasonable balance in markets and prices to the mutual advantage of all Canadians. Indeed, the system was sufficiently flexible and balanced as to adjust to a one-third increase in wellhead prices in the west over the first nine months of last year, along with somewhat sharper increases in import prices. It was also able to accommodate the domestic price restraint program which was introduced in early September as part of our general fight against inflation.
All of that, however, has been drastically altered by rapidly changing external events. We now face the need to construct, on an entirely different basis, a new kind of oil policy for Canada. That was fully recognized in the Prime Minister's statement in this House in early December. In that statement he outlined the concepts of a national market, self-sufficiency and a national pricing regime as foundations for a one-Canada oil policy. Along with improved transportation facilities and security of supply, such a policy must mean a reasonable equivalence of prices for petroleum products across the country after adjustment for costs of transportation and distribution.
The question has been asked, however, why oil should be singled out now for special national attention when many other internationally-traded resources and commodities have also been subject to sudden shortages and sharp price escalation. It is a fair question. I have, I think, already indicated a broad, general answer in the House, namely, the fact that on the one hand we have long maintained a basic oil policy aimed at developing Canadian resources and, on the other, we now have to adjust to a very major external disruption.
However, three specific interrelated points can also be made with particular regard to pricing and taxation. In the first place, oil plays a unique and almost unparallelled role in our national life. In a sense, it is the lifeblood of our economic system, providing over one-half of our total
26695-58}

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
energy needs. No other single commodity penetrates so directly or so widely into so many aspects of our daily existence-fuel to heat our homes, to operate our productive industries, to provide essential motive power across the whole range of transportation services. That is why the government has felt it necessary to ask for very broad powers to deal with possible physical shortages, even if these are confined to only part of the country. By the same token, a steep and sudden jump in price can have gravely disruptive and distorting effects across the whole economic system.
Secondly, it is relevant to note the cause of these steep and sudden jumps in price. Normal competitive forces of supply and demand have not been responsible. Rather, these disruptions have been brought about by a deliberate monopoly pricing decision on the part of the main oil exporting nations. As is the case with all other countries affected by this deliberately concerted jacking up of price, we are compelled as a national government to adopt a national policy to protect the broad public interest.
Third, and as a reflection of the great importance of oil as an economic commodity, we must have regard for the staggering financial dimensions of sharp increases in its price. With total domestic production approximating two million barrels per day, and the most recent increases in international prices driving these prices up about $6 to $7 per barrel above present restraint levels, the potential sum involved in higher revenues to producers from higher prices to consumers approaches $5 billion on an annual basis. That sum represents about 4 per cent of the gross national product-not far short of a normal year's total national growth. To my mind, the sheer magnitude of the sums involved in the present oil situation compels a wide ranging assessment of public finance policies by the federal government to maintain stability, balance and equity across the country.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has indicated, a comprehensive oil policy for Canada in the near term, and certainly in the longer run, is predicated upon the development and use of Canadian petroleum resources for the benefit of all Canadians. Immediately, this means greater dependence upon the known resources of the western provinces. It underlines the importance of specific programs to accelerate exploration, research and development of those resources. We must recognize, however, that these resources are mainly within provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, an acceptable national policy can only be developed on the basis of accommodation with the provinces and due respect for their legitimate interests.
The producing provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular, rightly make the point that so far as established conventional reserves of oil are concerned, these are depleting assets of relatively short life. It is unfortunate that in recent years the search to add to these reserves has not been very successful. However, up until the year-end the provinces have been co-operating fully in maintaining the price restraint program and full supply, and I am confident that all Canadians appreciate that fact. I am hopeful that the provinces will continue in this co-operative way to share with all other Canadians the obligations of confederation as well as its benefits.


Tax equalization payments paid to the provinces by the federal government could create a special problem. As the House will recall, only four weeks ago, we were examining a bill to improve the equalization system which would integrate property taxes for school purposes, and we also noted that total federal payments will reach close to $1.4 billion this year. However, if domestic oil prices were to increase to the level of those prevailing on the international market and if the provinces would accept only half of the resulting increases in producers' profits, provincial treasuries would collect about $2.5 billion annually, in addition to current regular royalties and other oil revenues.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What prices exactly do you mean?


John Napier Turner: As it is now, that amounts to $7 or $8 a barrel.
Nearly 84 per cent of the total amount would accrue to the Alberta treasury. However, since the federal equalization formula resets receipts of provinces at an average national level the federal government would be faced with a rise in equalization commitments of over $800 million, an onus which would be cast upon the Canadian taxpayer. In those conditions we could be forced into considering appropriate amendments to the equalization formula.
We must also seek to find the most effective means of having closely equivalent prices across this country in a way which would be fair to producers, consumers and different areas. That will be one of the major items on the agenda at the first ministers' conference which is to be held in three weeks.
However, what is apparent at this time is that the very recent doubling of international prices by major exporting countries threatens to widen beyond the level of acceptability the spread between prices east and west of the Ottawa valley. Notwithstanding consumer discriminations the disparities in fuel and energy costs seriously weaken the competitive position of industry and trade in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Unless those disparities are reduced all the efforts made at the national level to stimulate regional developments in those provinces will be subject to a major setback. Consequently, to the extent in which domestic prices are limited it would seem more reasonable to offset the greater part of the sudden rise in imported oil prices through the comparable increase in export prices rather than tax provisions of general application to finance the required measures of relief. The imposition of a general tax would hit precisely those consumers and areas we are trying to help. That is why I propose to seek a solution that would not result in a burden for taxpayers of this country as a whole.

The government has also expressed the firm view that under a unified pricing and market system the price of domestically produced oil must be allowed to rise. This will be necessary to ensure an accelerated program of exploration and development in the frontier and offshore areas and to bring into commercial production the tar sands and heavy oil resources of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Higher prices will also help to meet immediate needs

by encouraging the use of secondary recovery methods which can substantially increase the percentage recovered from existing reserves.
Further, a trading nation like Canada can never insulate itself in domestic pricing from the influence of world prices for internationally traded goods, commodities or services. Any attempt to do so, especially for a commodity like petroleum, will lead to distortions in consumption patterns, competitive use of energy, and international trading relationships.
In the longer run, therefore, domestic pricing for oil seems certain to track forward in some relationship with international prices. Even with future additions to west-east transport facilities, which might reduce our dependence upon high-priced foreign supplies, we will probably not want to eliminate all imports form secure foreign sources. A unified market and pricing system will, then, be most easily maintained and subject to minimum distortions if there is not too large a gap between domestic and foreign prices. One of the main advantages of the bill before the House is that the variable export charges it proposes will give us a very useful tool in maintaining the kind of flexible, administered prices most appropriate to Canadian circumstances.
Any prospect of an upward adjustment of domestic prices raises the compelling question of the so-called windfall profits which might accrue to the industry on the basis of production from established reserves. Increases in costs of production from established reserves tend to be nominal in comparison with potential gains in revenue from higher prices. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan have recognized this fact. They have recently taken legislative action intended to increase substantially the share of any increases in sales revenue taken as provincial taxes.
However, we must keep in mind the huge size of these potential increases and the need to be concerned about the burdens placed upon consumers by higher prices for either domestic or imported supplies. As the Prime Minister has emphasized, the federal government is therefore convinced that it must in turn develop some reasonable mechanism to provide, for the benefit of all Canadians, a decent share of the increased revenues which they themselves contribute. Any national policy worthy of the name must provide for some sharing of the burdens and benefits which flow directly from the international distortion of supply and price.
Now I wish to turn to some of the implications for international trade and payments. There is no question in my mind that we are facing an upheaval or reorientation of trade and payments patterns in the world of a magnitude and significance quite surpassing anything we have known since World War II. These consequences will arise in part from the immediate shortages of energy supply. To an even greater extent they will arise from the increase in the price of oil, given the size of the price changes which have already taken place and possible further changes.
The price announced for Arab light crude at the end of 1972 was just under $2.50 a barrel. On January 1, 1974, it was raised to $11.65. As for Venezuelan oil, the price
Oil Export Tax
increased from about $3 to more than $14. Although it may be difficult to convert the producers' prices to an average price for importers, this may well be $7 higher in 1974 than in 1972. If this were to happen, it would result in an astronomical increase of nearly $80 billion in the price paid by oil importing countries, on a basis of 30 million barrels imported per day. This would bring about a vast restructuration of the balance of payments throughout the world. Based upon 1972 imports, for instance, a $7 oil price increase would cost approximately $40 billion to western Europe and approximately $14 billion more in Japan and the United States. Since our oil exchanges with foreign countries are more or less balanced, an increase in the international oil price would have only a small total effect on our trade balance, in direct consequence of the new price of our oil exports and imports. The most important repercussions on Canada would rather take the form of a direct effect on the level of prices and the resulting inflationary consequences, trade problems and possibilities, a structural readjustment of expenses and production and, above all, as I indicated earlier, the necessity to share costs and benefits equitably throughout Canada.
All countries are not affected to the same degree. The increase in price of cheaper goods and the resulting loss of a favourable trading position will be greater in some countries than in others. Generally speaking, the revenues of the producing countries will be considerably increased. They may decide to reinvest these funds in the countries they are selling oil to. Although the volume of capital which will flow back to importing countries may very well correspond to the additional amounts of money they have to pay for oil, it is not likely that these payments will balance themselves from one country to the next. There will be strong and renewed competition between nations. In the face of this new struggle, maintaining the spirit of positive cooperation that existed in the establishment of the post-war policies will become one of the most important tasks. There is a danger that we may lose sight of our lofty goals which are the upgrading of the living standard in the developing countries, the liberalization of trade and commerce and the reform of the monetary system. One thing is certain, we will have to take a new look at these objectives in the light of changes with regards to energy.
Some developing countries are going to get rich beyond measure with the higher prices of petroleum products. Others will grow poorer. Most of the developed countries which give aid to other nations will certainly find it more difficult to increase their assistance. Let us hope that the newly rich nations will find a way to put their new resources to use for the development not only of their own economy but also for the development of the economy of the poorer and less developed countries.

It is as important as ever that the quest continue for freer trading rules in the world. It may be that the forthcoming GATT negotiations should be extended to embrace problems of access to supplies of goods and materials as well as freer access to markets.
The approach to monetary reform must also be reconsidered in light of the energy situation as it has emerged. We are in a period of more than usual uncertainty. It is a period of considerable realignment of the payments posi-

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
tions of countries in a magnitude hitherto unknown over such a short period. It would seem to me to be unwise in such a period to seek to be rigid or overly precise in our prescriptions for monetary order: the fast changing scene requires flexibility and adaptability.
We have taken the position consistently over the last two years that we should proceed to monetary reform by stages, dealing with the specific needs of the monetary system as they arise rather than by trying to impose an ideal structure at some predetermined date. I think recent events have confirmed the wisdom of this approach. I will be stating this position again later this month, in light of the new situation imposed by international energy developments, when I meet in Rome with ministers from the Group of 20.
I believe it is essential that nations keep their cool in the forthcoming period and use to the full all the channels of communication and co-operation open to them. Secretary Kissinger, I believe, was acting in the right spirit when he called for a co-operative approach to the questions of developing more rational uses of energy and more adequate sources of energy. But the need for co-operation is wider than simply the production and use of energy itself. The shortages and the higher costs of energy require sharp and large readjustment of countries' production and payments patterns. The periods of such readjustments can be dangerous periods for international peace and stability. The challenge to the nations of the world will be to accommodate the necessary changes by consultation, cooperation and common sense.
Let me turn now to the specific substance of the bill before the House. The success of the voluntary restraint arrangement introduced early last September required complementary measures to ensure that the price of Canadian exports to the United States would keep in line with the rising price of competitive oil in that market. Moreover, as I believe the House is aware, before the National Energy Board can authorize the export of crude oil it must be satisfied that the prices charged are "just and reasonable in relation to the public interest." Those are the words in the statute. To ensure that export prices were in fact just and reasonable, an export tax would be required equal to the difference between the frozen price in Canada and the price prevailing in the United States. On September 21, therefore, the government introduced a ways and means motion providing for this tax.

The establishment of this tax level by the government was based on information provided by the National Energy Board. The latter takes into account, in its recommendations, the expected discrepancy between the competitive crude oil price on the American market and the posted price that is frozen in western Canada, plus transportation and handling costs. After a review of this price discrepancy, this government put forward ways and means motions that provided for a taxation rate equal to 40c. a barrel in October and November, $1.90 in December and $2.20 in January. The bill provides for amendments to the Excise Tax Act, in order to include proposed taxes on the exportation of Canadian crude oil. During its four months of operation, this tax would provide for additional revenues of about $150 million.

I suggest that the export tax will achieve the required purposes. On a short range basis, it enables to maintain the freeze on domestic prices, to establish a fair and reasonable price for Canadian oil exports as well as to secure to Canadians the additional revenues derived from exports.
As a recognition of the need, on a long term basis, to provide for a more flexible control mechanism, the excise tax will be replaced by new oil export charges, as of February 1, 1974, according to the bill. The new tariff of charges on exported oil, in contrast with the temporary export tax, would include a variable rate according to quality and destination of each exportation. Charges would be established monthly by the governor in council, according to recommendations of the National Energy Board on what should be a fair and reasonable export price for Canadian oil. Charges would be collected on behalf of the Minister of Finance by the board that would be responsible at the same time for issuing export permits, as provided in Part VI of the National Energy Board Act.
There is one aspect of this bill which poses a special problem. There are some types of crude oil now being exported which clearly cannot bear the burden of the export charge. This occurs because the particular type of crude in question cannot compete in the United States market if the full export charge must be added on as part of the cost. Similarly, there are a number of instances where Canadian crude oil is exported solely for the purposes of refining, and then the refined product is reimported into Canada for use by Canadian manufacturers; but the cost of such reimported products reflects the added burden of the export levy. Clearly, these results are anomalous and run counter to the thrust of our policy, which is to keep prices down for Canadian consumers.
There is no easy answer to this problem. In some cases it could be dealt with by not imposing the tax on the transactions in the first instance, or by refunding the levy to the exporter. But this is not a full solution because in many instances the only way to be sure of achieving the appropriate result is to deal with the reimporter himself. Thus, we may require some combination of measures including remissions of the levy and direct payments. At this juncture we do not have enough facts to put forward a proposal to deal adequately with all appropriate cases. However, I can say that the government is aware of the problem and that we will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that this bill does not generate anomalous and counter-productive results.
Hon. members will have noted that the bill limits the authority of the governor in council to a maximum export charge of $4 per barrel. However, as a result of the most recent international events the maximum level of $4 is now insufficient. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has recently indicated that for the month of February the charge probably should be about $6.50 per barrel. Subsequent months may require a charge at an even higher level. Therefore it is my intention, after consultation with members of the House, to introduce at some stage in the proceedings of
January 3, 1974

this bill an amendment, by way of unanimous consent, to the ways and means motion and the bill to substitute a maximum level of, say, $10 in place of the presently proposed $4 limit.
I am confident that all members of the House will agree that this bill should be dealt with on a basis which sensibly reflects not only the current realities but also the range of future possibilities. There is no intent, in suggesting that figure or any figure, to lead prices but merely to assure enough flexibility in this measure to meet possible future international price moves. If the House were to allow the amendment to be put and, further, agreed to the amendment, then the governor in council would likely set the charge at an average rate in the range of $6.50 for February. Hopefully, it will not be necessary to set a higher charge for subsequent months. However, I cannot emphasize too strongly the need for parliament to enact a statute which permits the government to pursue a course of action which properly meets the situation as it may emerge in the months ahead.
The voluntary price restraint, combined with the export tax, has produced substantial benefits for Canadian users of domestic oil. I recognize, however, that it has also reduced the oil revenues which the governments of the four western provinces would otherwise have received. The bill provides, therefore, for sharing the proceeds of the export tax to January 31 on a 50-50 basis with these provinces. The shared revenues would be distributed among these provinces according to each province's share of total oil production. I feel that the bill provides for distribution of the export tax revenues which is clearly equitable. The 50-50 division would compensate provincial governments for the revenues forgone as a result of the price freeze. They would be reimbursed for royalty revenues and the corporate income and other tax revenues forgone in respect of their total oil production during the relevant period of four months.
On the other hand, it is evident that a new national oil policy based on a capacity for self-sufficiency in oil and oil products will require certain commitments and important financial outlays at the national level. Such measures would include research and development expenditures on western oil and other energy resources, the provision of additional oil pipeline facilities and a guarantee of expanded domestic markets for western oil. Requirements such as these provide a clear case for a reasonable national share in the export tax revenues already collected, and in future export charges.
More broadly, however, I believe that the great majority of Canadians fully support the principle that there must always be a reasonable sharing of income and wealth among all our regions and all our citizens. That is a principle which goes to the heart of national unity in a federal system of government. It is the basis for the whole fiscal system of taxation, spending and transfer payments which has steadily evolved over many decades. Certainly, confederation is not based on any notion that federal revenues derived from economic activity or wealth in a particular province should as a matter of course be returned solely to that province. If that were to be the nature of confederation, we would be hard put to call ourselves a country.
Oil Export Tax
As I mentioned previously, the export tax would be replaced after January by the tariff of charges as the means for securing appropriate export revenues for Canadians. The level of those revenues, and their disposition, will be related in part to the petroleum legislation recently enacted by Alberta and Saskatchewan. The Alberta legislation provides for the establishment of a petroleum marketing commission with the power to sell, as owner or as agent, all oil produced from Crown lands. That province has also indicated its intention of introducing substantially higher royalty rates on oil and gas production. In Saskatchewan's case, the new legislation provides for a royalty surcharge on all production from Crown rights.
Either of these provincial instruments could be used to influence the ultimate price to Canadian consumers of Canadian oil and thereby undermine the domestic price freeze. Such action would affect, in turn, one side of the equation which determines the level of the export charge. The application of these provincial instruments, as well as other factors bearing upon the level and disposition of the export charge revenues, will also be discussed by first ministers at the energy conferences in three weeks' time.
In summary, Mr. Speaker-and I thank the House for its patience-the bill provides for an export tax on crude oil covering the period October, 1973, to January, 1974, the revenues from which would be shared with the oil exporting provinces. It also provides for a flexible tariff of charges on oil exports commencing February, 1974. As I have said, however, I am hopeful that the House will be prepared to give unanimous consent to amendments necessary to bring the bill into line with the new situation precipitated by the most recent jump in international prices.
In these proposed measures we have attempted to strike a balance between the interests of the Canadian consumer and those of the oil producing provinces. We have also tried to ensure a reasonable return for all Canadians from the export of our oil resources. Having in mind the importance of the principles at stake and the major dimensions of pricing, taxation and revenue involved, I trust that the bill will be received with understanding by the members of the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in addition to dealing with the bill before the House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) made certain references to and discussed briefly, at least, some of the international problems-probably of increasing intensity-which result from the rapid and very substantial increase in the price of oil being exported by the oil producing countries. There seems to be no doubt that this situation will produce international exchange problems of massive proportions. It is difficult to see how this will not have important consequences for Canada although it may be difficult to foresee exactly what they are. Anything that threatens to disrupt international monetary stability of the scale these price increases for oil are likely to create, anything that brings about such worldwide instability in terms of international exchange is bound to have very important consequences for a trading nation like ours.

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
I say this without offence at all, Mr. Speaker, but I think the Minister of Finance is being just a little too casual about the consequences of these international problems for Canada. Although I would agree that it is not easy to foresee exactly what they are, they certainly indicate trouble for us and, I would think, dreadful trouble for developing countries. Our problems by comparison could be quite soluble, with good will, in contrast to the frightening proportions of problems being created internationally, particularly for developing countries.
There are two parts to this bill before the House. There is the export tax in effect for the months of October, November, December and January at various levels for each month, to which the minister made reference this afternoon. This tax really arose from the voluntary freeze adopted by the government in September. The export tax was, in a sense, an afterthought. The reason given by the government for the sudden imposition of the export tax was the desire, as put forward by the government, to maintain the so-called voluntary freeze on Canadian crude sold domestically and at the same time to get a fair, full price for Canadians for oil exported. That was the origin of the freeze and of the export tax. The tax, in other words, arose as a result of the voluntary freeze in Canada. The purpose of the tax was to assist in the maintenance of that freeze and at the same time get a fair price for oil exported.
The government said at the time that it had to act with great precipitation. I hope the Minister of Finance will pardon me for using that word because it might remind him of bad weather and various other troubles. The government felt it had to react very quickly. For that reason it felt it was justified in its failure to consult with the oil producing provinces at the time of the imposition of the oil export tax.
We take the view, and I took the view at the time, that the government ought not to have imposed an export tax on natural resources coming from the provinces, without consultation. I also took the view, and still believe, that with meaningful consultation either at the time or immediately after the imposition of the export tax, agreement on methods could have been worked out with the oil producing provinces which would have achieved the purposes the federal government said it was seeking to achieve, without producing the problems that were produced and without exacerbating federal-provincial relations because of lack of effective consultation.
But the tax has been continued. There has been no effective consultation with the provinces. It has been sort of an off and on affair. There were days, indeed weeks, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) seemed to be having real discussions with the governments of the producing provinces; then suddenly the federal government would take some unilateral action on its own again and everything would go back to the starting point.
The federal government made a commitment through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was not the commitment made today by the Minister of Finance. The federal government made the commitment that one

half of the proceeds of the export tax for those four months would go directly to the oil producing provinces. Whereas the Minister of Finance, as I understood him today, suggested that the balance would be used for federal purposes, or something to that effect, the assurance given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was that the other 50 per cent would find its way back to the provinces by investment in one way or another. I want the Minister of Finance to listen to me.


John Napier Turner: I am listening
carefully.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The assurance given was that 50 per cent would go directly to the producing provinces and 50 per cent would find its way back to the producing provinces by way of investment. The choice, presumably, would be made by the federal government. That is different from what the Minister of Finance said today.


John Napier Turner: Not if you read my words.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will read the minister's words carefully. My willingness to support this part of the bill is based on what I thought was the clear understanding given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that 50 per cent would go back to the provinces directly and the other 50 per cent would go to those provinces, eventually at least, by way of investment. That struck me as being somewhat different from what the minister said today. I ask for some clarification of that point, Mr. Speaker.
We are now in this position. Since October the government has been indicating that the tax for these four months would be collected. The question before the House relating to this part of the bill is whether this tax is to be collected at the rates indicated by the minister or whether it is going to be left in the hands of the oil companies. That is the question the House must face. Whatever may be my reservations about the manner in which the government has proceeded and its lack of consultation, faced with this kind of alternative at this time, namely, of either supporting the export tax for at least four months or leaving this money in the hands of the oil companies, there is really no choice but to support this part of the bill. We shall support the export tax for those four months on the basis of the assurances given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to the disposition of those funds.
If this was the only part of the bill I should have no particular difficulty with it. On the basis of the assurances given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should have no difficulty in choosing my preference with regard to alternatives. The alternatives are either that the money shall simply stay in the treasuries of the oil companies, or our going along with the government despite the reservations I have expressed about the procedures followed by the government and the lack of consultation with the provinces involved.
But there is a second part to this bill. Following January 31, a charge is to be fixed against the export of Canadian oil in an amount to be determined by the government, and this is to be done on a month to month basis. The maximum is to be $4 a barrel, but the minister indicates that he is going to seek consent to raise that level to perhaps
January 3, 1974

$10. Parliament is being asked to delegate authority to the government in order to continue to impose a charge at a level which the government will select shortly before the federal-provincial conference which is being called, as I understand it, to work out a package of problems-a number of which were referred to by the Minister of Finance today-relating to a real oil policy involving some of the considerations he mentioned, as well as federal leadership and full provincial participation.
We are being asked, just before this conference is convened, to delegate this power to tax to this government. This tax is only one element, although it is obviously important in terms of the money involved, in the package of proposals which the government proposes to discuss with the provinces. It is only one element in what must constitute a meaningful national oil policy which the federal government hopes to work out with the provinces. This package must include various elements. It surely has to include a future pricing policy for Canadian domestic crude. We were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in December that the freeze would be kept on domestic crude until the end of the heating season. We were told that this would be determined at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. However, the Prime Minister has given no indication of what the pricing policy will be for Canadian crude following the termination of the freeze. That, obviously, is an important element in a national oil policy.


Mitchell William Sharp: What are you suggesting?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just take it easy.


John Napier Turner: We want to hear the hon. gentleman's policy.


Mr. Paproski:: Just listen and you will find out.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am very pleased to note that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Finance seem to be seriously disturbed by their lack of policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance also recognized today-and this is the first time any minister in this House has recognized it-the importance of reducing the disparity between prices paid for imported crude and prices paid for domestic crude. Heretofore the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have said, "This is just something that happens. It worked the other way for quite a long time. After all, we have a very generous Canada Assistance Plan. We will share 50 per cent with the eastern provinces; that will help them out a lot." That was a totally inadequate response.
My point at the moment-I will develop it as I go along-is that the Minister of Finance stressed today the importance of working under a one-price policy. I say we must not wait until 1980 to have a one-Canadian market principle which the Prime Minister talked about early in December. If we have to wait until 1980 to get something approaching equality, something approaching a one-price principle, maybe not exactly the same but something the
Oil Export Tax
country can live with, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces will be so deeply entrenched in economic disparity that what we have seen in the past will be nothing by comparison.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance emphasize this today. However, there is still no precision. All that is precise is what the government wants to tax. There is not a bit of information about a pricing policy which of course is clearly related to the amount the tax would actually be and very closely related to consumer interests. There is nothing specific about measures to be taken to reduce the pricing disparity. These are things I presume the government will put before the conference in a serious and specific way.
During the recess I was pleased to hear that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is beginning to recognize the urgent problems resulting from the price disparity faced by the five eastern provinces. This has been apparent to me and to others for a number of months. We expressed this position in the debate on December 10 and frequently repeated it after that, almost to the jeers of members of the government and members supporting the government. I was delighted to see today the reversal in principle of the Minister of Finance. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to refer to it as a new "Turner Valley find".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Following the Prime Minister's statement of position, I said that the position taken by this government toward the five eastern provinces was a savage policy. It certainly was. I am pleased to see that it is being abandoned, at least in principle. However, I would like to know what the government really proposes to do about it. It is not good enough for the government to come before this House and ask for the right to impose taxes at its discretion without telling us the rest of what it proposes to do.


Maurice Brydon Foster: What do you propose?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What a question! I said as emphatically as I could that the disparity which existed the other way to the extent of 50 cents or a dollar a barrel is something that can be lived with, but we cannot live with the kind of distortion we have at present. I said that as emphatically as I could; I do not know what I can say to get it through the hon. member's head.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let the government put before the House its package, not just its tax proposal. Let it put before the House its package with regard to the pricing policy of Canadian crude and imported crude. These are all questions that surely must be answered before anyone in good conscience could support this part of the bill. The minister talked about the purpose of the bill. What is the purpose of the bill? Is it to raise revenue? Is it to provide the government with the tool to help it control domestic prices? I would like to know the purpose of the bill. This is funda-

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
mental to the whole discussion regarding domestic pricing. On the matter of domestic pricing the government has been going around in circles. First there was to be a five-month voluntary freeze. Some hazy extension was then improvised to last until the end of the winter. The government will not say when that will be.
Our position has been clear and consistent. I said it is unrealistic to look at an indefinite application of the voluntary freeze. I said increases in the price of domestic crude should be phased in and that we should be able to work out a method of keeping Canadian crude prices below international prices. I understood the Minister of Finance to say he thought it was inevitable that domestic crude prices would have to track international crude prices. I do not accept that view; I think we should be able to keep domestic crude somewhat below that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In yesterday's Toronto Star the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is quoted as saying something to the effect that domestic prices will rise this summer to somewhere between $8 and $10 a barrel. That is the price of domestic or Canadian crude. If that were to happen, the government would be going from a policy of unreality that is simply talking about a continuing freeze to a pronouncement of the hardest of realities, with no explanation; that is, going from a freeze of $4.50 a barrel for Canadian crude in Toronto to $8 or $10 by the summer. That would be going from a policy of unreality to a policy of the harshest of realities-with no explanation, no hint of an attempt to stage the increases and no clear indication as to how this $8 or $10 figure was determined.
In the same press interview the minister referred to some form of tax at the wholesale level to sponge away windfall profits made by companies engaged in the oil business. This, presumably, is another part of the package that this parliament and the provinces will eventually be asked to consider. What kind of tax does the government propose in addition to the present export charge? To what would the proposed windfall profits' sponge apply? How would it fit into the revenues required to hold some acceptable level between the prices to western and eastern consumers? More questions arise and more vacuums are revealed as we examine this bill. There are many unanswered questions, so many that obviously it is impossible to support this part of the bill in its present form.
I thought when the bill was introduced that it should have been split. The part dealing with the export tax on oil at the end of January could be passed very quickly. In spite of any reservations we might have both about the precedent of such a tax and the absence of consultation, and in spite of any reservations about its method of implementation, we would certainly not oppose the part of the bill relating to the export tax for the four-month period. But the part dealing with the ongoing export charge should not be dealt with until the government is prepared to come clean and deal honestly with us, is prepared to give us the answers that we need to make a considered judgment as to what is the position of the government.

I remind the House that it was our desire from the outset to see these propositions dealt with separately. I endeavoured to achieve this by raising a point of order when the ways and means motion was presented. I do not know why the government has chosen to proceed by means of one omnibus-type bill. I do not see any real need for this practice, particularly when one part of the bill is as nebulous and unsupported by information as is the case here.
I do not know why the government is in such an all-fired rush to get this session recessed before the federal-provincial conference, before we have a chance to see what the package is and what arrangements are worked out in achieving a national oil policy with the provinces. I do not see any reason why detailed consideration of the export charge in the form of a separate bill could not be deferred till we have the answers that we need, indeed till following the federal-provincial meeting. If the government is not prepared to split the bill, then it should be prepared to defer the entire bill till after the federal-provincial conference.
There has been altogether too much confrontation and too little real consultation. There has been too much ad hockery, too little solid policy. There has been too much suspicion caused by too little information. I think that from time to time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has tried to get back to real consultation in order to develop a national oil policy on the basis on which he used to say it should be developed-in consultation with the provinces. I think real progress has been made in getting discussions back to a more reasonable tone following the failure of the Prime Minister to evoke a response from the Premier of Alberta to his rather vicious attack upon him in Vancouver some weeks ago. I hope that the federal government has received an indication that this problem has to be discussed not in terms of vituperation but in terms of consultation. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is working in that direction following a bad beginning. With the prospect of a new beginning that, hopefully, will result in a productive conference, it is all the more important, I believe, that the government take a reasonable and sensible attitude in the House on this legislation. I cannot accept it as either reasonable or sensible for the government to seek support for this double-barrelled bill on the basis of the information provided us today by the Minister of Finance.
We are looking ahead to three weeks which could be crucial weeks in the development of federal-provincial relations in this country as well as in the development of a national oil policy. If the government is really sincere about pursuing the path of consultation rather than seeking confrontation, for whatever motives, it could demonstrate its sincerity to me and my colleagues by following either of the courses I have suggested, namely, split the bill and defer the export charge aspect till after the conference, or defer the entire bill till after the conference.
There is no use pretending that this bill is not related to the balance of the package, because it is. It is obviously related to the question of domestic pricing. The export charge to be fixed by the government will be the difference between the international price as determined by the government and the domestic price. So these questions are
January 3, 1974

tied in together. It is nonsense for the government to present this bill as an isolated measure; it should be presented to the House as part of the package.
We are quite prepared to give very quick passage to the export tax aspects of the bill for the four-month period. We would be quite prepared to co-operate with the minister if he thinks he might be in some difficulty for the month of February, for example. We want to be co-operative. But we want to see what we are being asked to buy before we adopt something of an ongoing, permanent nature.
We would waive all notices required for the reintroduction of separate bills. We have agreed to a time allocation for the bill before us, and we would agree to a consistent time allocation respecting separate bills. I emphasize that we are certainly prepared to be here three weeks from now to deal with this matter and other matters following the federal-provincial conference, and to deal with them in the context of full information, or at least fuller information. I believe this is a reasonable approach on our part and that we could not do more in present circumstances without abandoning our responsibilities to the House and to the people of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We want to see the government's total package before giving further consideration to these matters. We do not operate on a system of executive rule in this country, though there is a large element of this involved in this tax bill. The government is asking to be delegated the right by parliament to fix from month to month the tax to be imposed. We do not yet have a system of executive rule and we do not yet live in a country that has a unitary government. We in our party consider the federal nature of our country and federal-provincial relationships, as I am sure members of the government do, basically to be a source of strength and we would like to keep it that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So in closing I simply say that it is fantastic that this government seeks this continuing power in the future in regard to the export charge, the amount of which is related to domestic pricing policy, policy that the government has not disclosed and has not even discussed with the House. It has given us nothing at all precise as to what it intends to do to reduce the disparity in price between those parts of Canada that have to rely upon imported crude and those parts using Canadian crude. These are all matters that will be presented to the federal-provincial conference and will be worked out there. I think this House, and in particular the opposition, is entitled to a lot more information, not just generalities, than the Minister of Finance has given us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has given the House a very exhaustive resume of the oil situation as it obtains in the world generally and in
Oil Export Tax
Canada in particular, and has put forward the thesis that the changing oil situation has necessitated a national oil policy. With that contention this party is certainly in agreement, but I disagree with the minister when he says the necessity for a national oil policy has arisen from the fact that the oil producing countries have acted in concert to jack up the price.
It is true that the actions of the OPEC nations, particularly the embargoes and restrictions arising from the Arab-Israeli war, have accelerated the crisis and I think in a way have fortunately demonstrated to us and to other western nations how vulnerable we are in respect of both the price and supply of oil upon which so many western countries are dependent. The fact is that this crisis has been coming upon us for a good while and has arisen from two factors. The first factor is the distribution of oil supplies in the world, and the second is the situation on the North American continent.
With reference to world distribution, some 80 per cent of the world's conventional oil is located in the Middle East. Although we generally think of Canada as a great oil producing country, we have only 2 per cent of the world's conventional supplies and the United States has only about 9 per cent. Therefore, the world has been very dependent upon Middle East oil and is becoming increasingly so as our domestic supplies are diminishing.
With reference to our own supplies of oil, we and the United States have passed our peak of production. In Canada we have a life index of conventional oil of about ten years. If we are fortunate and do not increase our consumption too rapidly, both the United States and Canada will be dependent, before the end of this decade, upon finding other sources of oil either from the oil sands or from shale. Therefore, we have needed for some time a national oil policy and the crisis through which we are passing has been of some use in that it has awakened the government and the country to the need for a national oil policy.
Almost 12 months ago members of this party were pointing out the need for taking a number of steps to meet the situation as it obtained then and as it has accelerated since. We pointed out the need for export controls to prevent our oil being taken out of the country at the prevailing rate of 50 per cent to 60 per cent of our production per day. We pointed out the need for establishing a two-price system so that Canadian consumers would not be required to pay exorbitant prices because of rising world prices, and the need for an export tax to ensure that the additional money received for oil exported did not go to the oil companies which have done nothing to contribute to these increased prices. We pointed out that this additional money should be retained for the benefit of future development. Finally, we pointed out the need for setting up a national petroleum company which would be the sole purchaser of both domestic and imported oil and would have the ability to equalize the price across the country so that people in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces would not be victimized by virtue of the fact that imported oil was reaching an astronomical price.
I submit, in all modesty, that the distinctive position we were taking about a year ago has been fully justified by the developments which have taken place since that time.

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
The government moved, belatedly it is true, but it did move eventually last September toward taking steps along the lines I have just indicated.
The bill now before us presented by the Minister of Finance, divides itself logically into two parts. Part II simply gives legislative effect to the export tax which the government has been levying since October 1. This was a tax to ensure that the profits which the multinational oil companies would obtain from selling Canadian crude oil at world prices would not accrue to those companies whose profits are already substantial, but would accrue to the federal and provincial treasuries. We supported the imposition of such a tax. In fact, we advocated the imposition of such a tax and we certainly support wholeheartedly this part of the bill. We not only advocated the imposition of an export tax but we urged very strongly that the proceeds from this tax should be returned to the producing provinces, in part to compensate them for the royalties they would have received had the price freeze not been imposed last September and also to enable them to finance, if they chose to do so under the cover of public ownership, the development of alternative oil supplies.
I am taking it for granted that the commitment which has been made in this House repeatedly by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) still stands. That commitment was that 50 per cent of the proceeds from the export tax would go back to the provinces in lieu of the royalties they would have collected, and that the other 50 per cent would be spent exclusively in the oil producing provinces for the development of energy resources. The Minister of Finance made no reference to this apportionment of the revenues from the export tax, and certainly before this bill passes the House we want a categorical assurance from the minister that the commitment made by his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is a commitment made by this government and fully endorsed by the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We now come to the second subject covered in this bill under part I which deals with the imposition of an export charge under the Excise Tax Act. I certainly agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that this part of the bill raises more questions than it answers. For instance, what is to be the basis of this export charge? There is no doubt what the basis of the export tax was: it was the differential between the restrained, or frozen price in Canada and the price the national board estimated the Chicago price would be for a given month. That was 40 cents in October and November, $1.90 in December and $2.20 in January. It is now estimated that for February it could go as high as $6.50.
But what is the basis upon which the export charge will be levied? It cannot be on the differential because the Minister of Finance today, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources outside the House, have both said that the price freeze is to come off at the end of the winter season and that the price will be allowed to rise. How much will it be allowed to rise?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And why will it be allowed to rise? Who will get the proceeds from that increase in the price?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the next question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Those are questions not answered in the minister's statement. If the price is allowed to rise and if, as the Minister of Finance says, the price will track the international price, then what differential will there be upon which to base an export charge? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources keeps making contradictory statements every few days, so it is difficult to follow what is the government's policy. He has said repeatedly that it would be the international price at Montreal. The international price at Montreal will be increasingly the price of imported oil; it will not differ largely from the Chigago price or the Gulf coast posted price. So what will be the differential upon which to base this export charge?
The second question which comes to my mind as I read the bill is this: Is this export charge merely a temporary measure, to be replaced later by some other tax mechanism? The press reports the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as saying, first of all, that the price of oil probably will double this year and reach $8 or $10 a barrel and that a tax will be placed on oil possibly at the wholesale level in order to prevent windfall profits. Is that type of tax mechanism to replace the export charge and export tax?
I notice that the oil companies have indicated they would like some measure of this sort, and understandably so because any tax they would pay under the circumstances would be chargeable against their corporate tax payments. Also, they will be able to use the substantial revenue they will get from rising prices for oil development, which will increase their assets. They will be making large profits which do not show and cannot be taxed: they will put this money into inventory by developing additional oil reserves which will belong to them but which will have been financed by the taxpayers of Canada and by the oil consumers of Canada.
I recognize that some increase in the price of oil may be necessary, but only if the additional price paid by the Canadian consumer is to be used by the federal and provincial governments to ensure that there will be additional supplies of oil when our present conventional oil is used up-not if it is to go into the pockets of the oil companies so they can either enlarge their profits on the one hand, or develop further oil reserves on the other, which will of course tremendously increase their assets and their present holdings.
The minister said nothing about how the revenue from the export charge will be apportioned between the federal and provincial governments. Clause 12 of the bill provides that the minister can make an apportionment of the profits, but there was no indication by the minister in his statement today concerning the basis of that apportionment. Is it to be the same as the distribution of the export tax enunciated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, 50 per cent in lieu of royalties and 50 per cent to finance oil development in the oil producing provinces? If that is what the government intends to do, then certain-
January 3, 1974

ly I think that is commendable. But the minister has not said so and the bill does not say so. Therefore, there should be some clarification on that point.
Mr. Speaker, since I have only a few minutes left before we must turn to another matter, let me try to summarize briefly what I think is required in legislation designed to implement a national oil policy. First of all, it must be a policy that will guarantee Canadian consumers against an unnecessary increase in the price of domestic oil. Second, it must prevent the multinational oil companies making windfall profits out of price increases that are due not to any effort on their part but to a worldwide situation which has pushed up prices and will continue to push up the price of oil in the world market.
I think the one thing on which the government has not come clean is how we propose to finance the future development of oil resources in Canada. This is the number one question. If we think we face a crisis now, in a country which produces more oil than it consumes, I ask members of this House to think of the situation when our conventional oil supplies diminish to the point where we are dependent upon imported oil, as we could be in Canada in not too many years. We in this party have no hesitation in saying what we believe should be the policy for ensuring future development of our oil resources. We have said that the federal government and the oil producing provinces ought to get together in a program for the proper development of the oil sands and heavy oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan, so that in the future the great reservoir of oil which is in western Canada will be in the hands of the Canadian people and will be developed for the benefit of the Canadian people at reasonable and fair prices.
Every so often someone on the government side sort of lets the cat out of the bag. One has the uneasy feeling that there are other forces at work in this country. The Globe and Mail for Friday, December 14, reporting from Calgary, states:
There is as much as $20 billion in profits to be reaped in exporting synthetic crude produced from the Alberta oil sands by the end of the decade, says federal supply minister Jean-Pierre Goyer.
But the federal and provincial governments and the industry must act quickly to capitalize on the oil sands before the United States- Canada's largest customer-achieves self-sufficiency in energy by 1980, he said in an interview-*
Mr. Goyer predicted that at least 40 billion barrels of synthetic crude could be pumped out of the oil sands in northern Alberta, giving profits of $2 billion to $3 billion a year.
"We have very good customers, eager customers and wealthy customers", especially the United States, Japan and West Germany.
At the very least, the minister said, 40 billion barrels of synthetic crude can be produced from the oil sands, using present technology, at an approximate cost of $5.50 a barrel.
Export contracts should stipulate minimum and ceiling price levels but $8 would be a realistic figure in the next few years, he said.
"This could mean a net profit of $2 billion to $3 billion a year for the next seven or eight years".
Mr. Goyer said the United States should be approached to help develop the oil saids. "We can pay the loans back in oil."
This is what we did 40 or 50 years ago when we turned the great oilfields of Canada over to American multinational oil companies, and we have been paying through the nose for it ever since.
Oil Export Tax


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am saying to the government that if this government or any other government starts to hypothecate the oil from the oil sands of western Canada to American multinational corporations or any other group of foreign investors, the Canadian people are not as unmindful as they were 40 or 50 years ago of the implications of foreign control of their great national resources. As far as we in this party are concerned, it will be over our dead bodies if the government tries to ever get away with a policy of that kind.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are going to vote Conservative.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would be prepared to vote Conservative if I thought the Conservative Party would do anything to stop multinational oil companies milking this country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is exactly what we are going to do.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have found them all too often getting the cow to stand still so that it could be milked more placidly.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That was 20 years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker. May I conclude by saying that in this bill the government has set forth the details with reference to the export tax, which we support; but we want some confirmation as to the apportionment of the revenue. We want a great many more answers with reference to the export charge and with respect to the government's policy on pricing after the end of the price freeze. I hope the minister will be able to give us this information, because so far we have not been able to secure it and we absolutely require it if we are to make any favourable decision with reference to this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) will be recognized at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 40, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Manpower-Local Initiatives Program-Allocation of funds-Grant criteria-Request for reference to committee; the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn)- Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Charges against members working at Malton airport-Request for investigation; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) - Regional economic expansion-Northern Ontario-Date of announcement of agreement for development-Degree of co-operation between governments.
Election Expenses ELECTION EXPENSES

January 3, 1974
(1710)


PROVISION OF PAYMENTS TO CANDIDATES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF PARTIES FOR CERTAIN BROADCASTING TIME
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 21, consideration of Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, to interrupt the proceedings now. The House will proceed to the consideration and disposal of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-203, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act, in respect of election expenses. After the ringing of the bells, somebody on behalf of the House leader will announce the motions on which votes are to be taken. Call in the members.
And the members having been called in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seeks the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the divisions now to be taken. Perhaps since the motions are all in the names of members of this party, I might indicate certain agreements that have been made.
It is satisfactory to us, Mr. Speaker, when we have taken a vote on motion No. 3, that if that is defeated we will accept that as defeat of Nos. 4, 5 and 6; but if motion No. 3 is carried, we hope the House will accept that as the carrying of Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
After that, we would suggest that there be a vote on the amendment to motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31 which appear at the bottom of page xi, first column. After that has been disposed of, there could be one vote on Nos. 7, 17 and 31, either a vote on all three together or a vote on No. 7 which would cover the other two.
We then suggest that when we come to motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, that the first one that passes ends the story; if not, that there be a vote on No. 8, then Nos. 9 and 10 together and then a vote on No. 11. Finally, there needs to be a vote on No. 42.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that this reduces what looks like 13 recorded divisions to seven.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will require the guidance of hon. members as we proceed. Beginning at the beginning, we will call motion No. 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
As agreed, the result of the division on motion No. 3 will be to the effect that motions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are deemed to be carried. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Knight) agreed to.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Rodriguez) agreed to.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Peters) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now consider the vote on the amendment to motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on motions Nos. 7, 17 and 31 as grouped.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motions lost. The next question is on motion No. 8.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on motions Nos. 9 and 10 as grouped.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motions lost. The next question is on motion No. 11.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on motion No. 42.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: By special order, now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of hon. members that the division be taken at this time without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. MacEachen) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 70)
Bell
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blais
Blaker
Blenkarn
Boulanger
Breau
Brewin
Broadbent
Buchanan
Caccia
Cafik
Caron
Carter
Chretien
Clarke
(Vancouver
Quadra)
Clermont
Coates
Corbin
Corriveau
Cossitt
Cotd
Cullen
Cyr
Danforth
Danson
Darling
Dick
Diefenbaker
Dinsdale
Douglas
Drury
Dubd
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Epp
Ethier
Fairweather
Faulkner
Fleming
Foster
Fox
Frank
Fraser
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier)
Gendron
Gilbert
Gillespie
Gillies
Gleave
Goyer
Grafftey
Gray
Guay
(St. Boniface) Guay (Levis) Guilbault Haidasz Hales
Election Expenses Messrs.
Haliburton
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Harding Harney Hees Hellyer Herbert Higson Hopkins Horner
(Crowfoot) Hurlburt Jarvis Jelinek Jerome Kempling Knight Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Korchinski Lajoie Lalonde Langlois La Salle Lawrence Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-
Kent)
Lefebvre Lessard Loiselle MacDonald (Cardigan) MacDonald (Egmont) Macdonald (Rosedale) MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey MacKay MacLean Macquarrie Marceau Marchand (Langelier) Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)
Mather
Mazankowski
McCain
McCleave
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinley
McRae
	YEAS		
	Messrs.		
Alexander	Baldwin	Beatty	Allmand	Basford	(Wellington-	Andras	Bawden	Grey-Dufferin-	AllardAndre	Beattie	Waterloo)	BarnettArrol	(Hamilton	Bechard	BeaudoinBaker	Mountain)	Begin (Miss)	Boisvert
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dionne
Godin
Howard
Mitges Morgan Morin (Mrs.)
Muir
Munro
(Esquimalt-
Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East) Murta Neil
(Moose Jaw) Nowlan Nystrom O'Connor Olivier Orlikow O'Sullivan Ouellet Paproski Pelletier
(Hochelaga)
Pelletier
(Sherbrooke)
Penner
Portelance
Reid
Richardson
Ritchie
Roche
Rodriguez
Rompkey
Rooney
Rowland
Roy
(Laval)
Rynard
Saltsman
Schellenberger
Scott
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stackhouse
Stanfield
Stewart
(Marquette)
Stewart
(Cochrane)
Stollery
Symes
Trudeau
Turner
(London
East)
Turner (Otta wa-Carleton) Walker Watson Whicher Whittaker Wise
Woolliams Yanakis-174.
Laprise Leggatt Matte-10.

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now resume the business interrupted at 4.45.


OIL EXPORT CHARGE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-245, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax, be read a second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House desirous that the Chair call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, before passing judgment on a bill such as the one before us, it would be appropriate to set the record straight, because the subject matter of this bill is obviously of current and even urgent interest as we readily realize. When we have to face a crucial problem that is even called a crisis, it is always extremely important to act wisely and to give the matter careful consideration before passing judgment.
For instance, there is an important point that should be made at the outset as regards oil: to me, it is unthinkable, if not ridiculous, in a country such as ours which produces and even exports oil to other countries-of course, in the present case, other countries mean the United States-to have to cope with an oil shortage. That is nonsense. It is as if we were to read in the newspapers tomorrow that Saudi Arabia or Kuweit have an oil shortage and wondered what to do to help them. Such is the situation in Canada. This is what is happening at the present time. Such is the energy crisis which we heard about. As a solution, it was proposed to turn down the thermostats and to close the windows properly. All such little measures seemed all the more ridiculous as we were exporting 60 per cent of the Canadian oil production.

Then, this is a point to be considered. Should we not have taken some action based on sound economy, on basic principles, simply to the effect that a country must consume its own production first and thus make financially possible what is materially feasible? Mr. Speaker, the Social Crediters have been saying this for many years, and today we find ourselves before the facts. At present, some countries are taking advantage of a crisis that they provoke themselves. We are entirely dependent on them because we want it. There would not be any problem for us if we wanted to get oil even from Arab countries.
Mr. Speaker, it is not really about this that we should be talking although it is related in a certain way, but about the fact that if we had a policy based on common sense, on the fact that we must consume first our production before throwing ourselves on the mercy of foreigners. The more we think of this, the more we wonder how such a situation could exist.
How is it that we have to put up with so much, to reach such conditions? And we find similar conditions-not that I intend to digress greatly-in many fields, in areas which are still as easy to develop as food products, livestock. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have problems and we import from abroad. Why import lamb from New Zealand, Mr. Speaker, when it is known that we have good lands for sheepbreeding? But a policy based on things like that can only lead us to the dead end we are now reaching. There is oil in Canada but we cannot distribute it adequately throughout the country. Because of whom? This is due to a lack of foresight, at the very least, on the part of leaders, and nobody can deny it. In spite of what will be said or done, a policy should have been worked out to provide for that.
But I repeat that if we followed the basic principles of a sound economy, such situations could not occur. So, there is some reluctance to undertake the study of a bill which is presented at a moment when we are in a blind alley and we have to find a solution. Advantage might be taken of the situation to assume rights which do not belong to the federal government. We have already seen that in a more serious crisis situation, the war, when advantage was taken of the situation to assume provincial rights. This explains why family allowances and old age security allowances are administered by the federal government when they obviously fall under strictly provincial jurisdiction. But we took advantage of a crisis situation to appropriate that. What I fear now is that we take advantage of a crisis which will be probably only temporary as we will discover some new oil fields. The Arab nations will open more freely the oil tap. We are in a temporary situation. Are we going to pass bills that could, in the long run, create problems in Canada at a moment when we have a temporary crisis situation? Mr. Speaker, did we consider that in a provincial field like energy and oil, once we have a foot in oil, we could slip into something else? Electric power is also a very important energy source. We can foresee the conflict, Mr. Speaker. Should the federal government ever decide to impose a tax on the kilowatt-hours from the province of Quebec sold to the United States it would be a terrible disaster. So, care must be taken. At a time when a precedent is being set in one field, it can also be established in others. Hence some reluctance to admit that they are meddling with certain things, Mr. Speaker. If we analyze this legislation, and as the Leader
January 3, 1974

of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) put it, I think that he was right then, we do not know too well where we are heading. Here is one interpretation that can be given, for instance: This is an indirect way of establishing royalties since a tax which changes constantly, every month, according to international oil prices, becomes simply a royalty, a percentage taken on a natural resource, which according to the constitution ought to be the exclusive property of the provinces. Therefore, I realize why the provincial governments concerned, including the Alberta government, obviously do not agree with the federal government policy in that field. It has also been stated during the afternoon that a policy had to be agreed to all the same in the present situation in order to prevent excessive differentials between oil prices in eastern and western Canada. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the government in the present situation to try and avoid this inequality of treatment among citizens of the same country.
However, if the government intends to use this charge in order to effect this distribution, this balance, we would have to be informed in a much more detailed way so that we know precisely what we are voting on.
I feel therefore that we must have a great many reservations concerning this bill, taking into account the government's apparent eagerness to accelerate things and its failure, as often is the case, to do what it should have done.
What is the reason for the many unilateral decisions? How is it, Mr. Speaker, that the government did not realize how important it was, in a matter of great concern to the province of Alberta, to go and have discussions with the main people involved? This is quite elementary. But no, it chose to act unilaterally and stir up passions. How will all this turn out, nobody knows. And yet, this bill concerns this particular problem. No one knows exactly what will become of it since the provincial premiers' conference on the subject will be held subsequently. The provinces were not consulted; yet a bill has been introduced which directly concerns the provincial governments. As I said earlier, this shows a lack of wisdom. I know the present problem is urgent, but its urgency should not make us lose our heads.
On the other hand, one must admit that the problem would doubtless be solved if there were a pipeline to Montreal. Of course, we would then have less difficulty with regard to oil prices throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why it is not possible to transport oil from a western province to eastern Canada. I fail to see why trains of tank cars cannot head from Alberta to Montreal. I simply cannot understand it. Let trains be made up that are one mile, or two miles long, if need be; within a matter of two or three days, the oil will have reached its destination. I fail to see why that should be a major problem.
I do not understand either why the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said in answer to a question put to him this afternoon that he did not believe that the maintenance of the St. Lawrence Seaway could ease up the oil problem. Yet we know that what is involved now in Canada is an oil transport problem. Therefore we should
Oil Export Tax
try harder to settle the problem where it is. Since a transport problem is involved, let us first solve this problem. Then it will be so much easier to fix the domestic price when we can be sure that the oil is truly Canadian. And that will be done to the satisfaction of all concerned.
These considerations, Mr. Speaker, lead me to express some doubts, since we don't know exactly what is the purpose of this bill, this purpose is very vague. As a matter of fact, it reads as follows, and I quote:
3. (1) For the purpose of obtaining the best return for Canada on the export sale of crude oil while allowing the price of crude oil used in Canada to be determined in relation to the circumstances of the Canadian market-
The clause then stipulates what the requirements will be.
Here the objective of the legislation is spelled out. Canada is to be favoured. Mr. Speaker, every measure we adopt tends to favour someone. The terms are not clear or precise enough, particularly since we are acting in an area where once again unilaterally, it is decided, as it says in the second part of the bill, that 50 per cent of the taxes will go to the provinces concerned.
There is still one thing which can only be settled by the provinces themselves. And, as I said earlier, I do not see at all how at a given moment the problem of Hydro-Quebec or Ontario Hydro taxes could be settled. And since oil is a source of energy similar to electricity, how is it that we are trying, through this bill, to settle some problems which are first and foremost provincial problems? I do not suggest that the government has no coordinating role nor that it should not be concerned with regional interests. Of course, this is its role. But it should not play this role by assuming the rights of regions which, in this case, happen to be in a favourable position because they have this natural resource which is called oil.
This is why I am quite reluctant to approve this bill and I would like to have further clarification on its motivations and particularly on its objectives. Furthermore, we are presented with this bill at a time when we cannot fully appreciate it in view of the fact that we are in the middle of a so-called energy crisis and that we might pass a legislation which, within the next few months, could turn into a bone of contention for the whole country. This is why I wonder whether before introducing such a bill the provinces should not be consulted. The federal government should act only after those consultations as its role implies as a coordinator and not by imposing initiatives. With those few remarks, I do not quite agree with this bill. Perhaps some amendments should be proposed or the bill should be more precisely explained so that we do not take a decision which we would regret in a few months or years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising tonight to speak on second reading of Bill C-245,1 should like to say how interested I was in the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who spoke at some length this afternoon with reference to consultation and commonsense. It seems that when this government is in great difficulty, when they reverse themselves and con-

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
tradict themselves as they have on this and other issues, the Minister of Finance is always called upon to take the leading role in either piloting a bill through the House or getting the approval of parliament on a difficult problem such as this. I was thinking also of the War Measures Act. All those dirty jobs seem to be handed to that gentleman in the front row, the Minister of Finance who was formerly the minister of justice. One wonders who plans these events. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may recognize that this minister has the ability to help him out of tough spots or it may be that he wishes to dim an image. At any rate, I do not believe the government can take any credit for attempting to lead people to believe they have any idea of consultation or that there is any commonsense in the way they have tried to make out that they have an oil policy.
At the outset, I should like to say that my home province is the province of Alberta, the largest oil-producing province in Canada. I was born in another oil-producing province, the province of Saskatchewan. I am a westerner. I have always appreciated, whether I represented the former constituency, now represented by another member, of Palliser-Bow River or whether I represented Calgary North, a new constituency established in 1967-68 by redistribution, that I come here to speak as a Canadian; as a Canadian member of parliament I must look at the whole picture from a national point of view.
I should like to endorse what my leader said today. I want to incorporate his remarks in mine and also much of what was said by the former leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). In their criticism of this bill I think both these gentlemen were right on target.
I want to deal with the bill itself and why I think it should not be brought before the House in this form. I think it can be emphasized again that clause 2 of the bill should really be clause 1. Clause 2 is really asking this parliament to affirm what is already a fait accompli; namely, that the government implemented a surtax against exports of crude petroleum in the amount of 40 cents per barrel in October and changed that to $1.90 on December 1, 1973 and finally changed it again to $2.20 in January, 1974.
I have dealt with one part of the bill. I shall now deal with another contentious part. I realize that on second reading one does not refer to specific clauses. However, for the sake of clarity and brevity, may I read part of Clause 3(1):
For the purpose of obtaining the best return for Canada on the export sale of crude oil while allowing the price of crude oil used in Canada to be determined in relation to the circumstances of the Canadian market,-
Whatever that may mean,
-there shall be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of crude oil exported from Canada during any month commencing with the month of February, 1974 a charge in such amount, not exceeding four dollars, as may be prescribed in a tariff of charges for that month made by order of the Governor in Council-
The clause uses the words, "determined in relation to the circumstances of the Canadian market." We do not

know what those words mean. I will say more about them later.
The Minister of Finance, no doubt on instruction, referred to the ceiling of $4. There was a suggestion that this could be raised to $10 by order in council. So, there is to be a new kind of budget in Canada, a budget brought in by order in council. We have to trust the government and hope that it will implement this program with fairness and equity. I am not prepared, as a Canadian, to accept that kind of suggestion from this government, particularly in view of its waffling and the changes in its oil policy which have taken place over the last few months.
It has been suggested that there has been really no change in national oil policy since 1961, when the Progressive Conservative Party, after consultation with the provinces, brought in a policy under which the Ottawa Valley line divided the country, the part west of the line using western crude oil and the part east using imported oil from Venezuela and elsewhere. That policy was made after consultation with the provinces and with the United States, as at that time we had been unable to market sufficient oil, even for a very low consideration. The American government gave us the right, by agreement, to export to the northwestern part of the United States. In return, we were to take imports from Venezuela and from other parts of the world of oil, which, no doubt, was financed with American money.
Let me return to the export charge. Perhaps we will discover in committee, although I doubt it, how much money is to be raised. What share of this money will go to the provinces, and how much money will the federal government keep? Let us look at some figures.
In October, the export tax was 40 cents a barrel; in December it was $1.90, and in January $2.20. Crude oil was authorized to be shipped in the following quantities: in October, 30,888,750 barrels; in November, 27,207,990 barrels; in December, 25,628,730 barrels, and in January, 29,270,100. What was the revenue accruing to the government from the export tax? I shall quote figures to show the astronomical amount that would be raised if the export were $10 per barrel. Just before coming to the House this evening I heard someone in the gallery say that one could raise money just by waving one's hand. I do not accept that philosophy. Let me, therefore, show what revenue will accrue to the federal government during the months in question. In October, the revenue was $12,355,500. That much was collected by the government. In November, the figure was $10,883,196. In December, it was $56,383,206, and in January the figure will be $64,394,220, for a total of $144,016,120, in four months. Those figures relate to the surtax of 40 cents, $1.90, and $2.20.
If the surtax were increased to $4 per barrel, the government would gain $120 million per month, or $1,440 million per year. At $6.50, the government would gain $195 million per month, or $2,340 million per year. At $10 per barrel, the government would gain $300 million per month or $3,600 million per year. That is close to $4 billion.
We may ask, how much money will actually be raised? We do not know. This is the first time any government has asked the House of Commons to tax the Canadian people on the basis of an order in council. That is how a commodity is to be taxed. In other words, the government will
January 3, 1974

bring in a budget by order in council, and the budget will provide for revenues of almost $4 billion, without the approval of Parliament. That is one of my reasons for saying this bill should have been split.
One can also ask, is this taxation by inflation? Is this taxation primarily aimed at unrest in the Middle East? What is its purpose? Is this taxation to grease the Liberal gravy train? Is this taxation aimed against the west, or is it designed to get votes? Some think it is. Also, who is to get the money? What share will go to producing provinces and wjiat share will go to those provinces now suffering because of the increase in the price of crude petroleum imported from Venezuela and the Middle East?
Early today I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) if any Arabian country had offered us 360,000 barrels per day, spread over one year, at prices cheaper than those we are paying for Venezuelan oil. I could not hear the minister's answer, so I assumed he must have some knowledge of this. When I raised this matter a second time, he said he would make inquiries as to whether such an offer had been made. I am sure the minister knows the details. You cannot get any information from ministers of this government which they feel may hurt them in this House or in the eyes of the Canadian people.
One could boil down this bill to one thought. It introduces a budget by order in council, without parliamentary approval. That sums it up pretty well. I have asked how much money will be raised by way of order in council, and I have not heard the answers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says one thing, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says another and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) says still another. Each statement contradicts the other. I shall put these questions to the minister in committee, when we are dealing with the export tax.
In this connection may I read some comments to be found at page 12 of Issue No. 44 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous estimates. I said, as recorded:
I shall try to be brief in my questions and I trust, Mr. Minister, as I only have five minutes that you will be as brief.
I then said,
First, could you advise the Committee, if there is any decision on when the export tax of $1.90 a barrel of crude petroleum would be repealed or rescinded?
That was to give us a little idea of what might happen when the government is given carte blanche authority to tax the public as under Clause 3 on page 3 of the bill.
The minister replied as follows:
The amount of the tax will depend on the judgment of the National Energy Board, from month to month, as to the price or value of Canadian oil when sold into the Chicago market. For example, its finding in early December for the month of January 1974 might be that Canadian oil has either dropped or increased in price. Therefore it might vary either above or below that level.
Basically, we shall be putting before Parliament a measure to deal with the differential between the Canadian and the Chicago price.
The point which my leader and the former leader of the New Democratic Party made this afternoon is that under
Oil Export Tax
the other surtax there was at least a frozen price of approximately $3.83 a barrel which most people accept as $4 a barrel. There is a differential between that and the Chicago and Montreal market.
I will refer to what the Prime Minister said when interviewed by Bruce Pillips of the Southam Press. Once the freeze is lifted, then what formula and criteria do we really arrive at? That has not been answered. I hope it will be answered when we get to the committee stage. What is the Canadian price after the freeze comes off? Is there such a price? Of course, there is not. Is it the world price? Who knows? That is the mystery. The minister went on to say:
I think it is fair to say that there will be a substantial reduction in this differential on February 1 when the Canadian price is allowed to rise to international levels at Toronto and Montreal.
Will that be the price of crude from Venezuela? Someone mentioned $14 a barrel or $11.75 from some Arab countries. What is the Canadian price? Without knowing that factor, there is no formula and no criteria. I then asked:
Mr. Chairman, do I take the answer from the Minister, on the criteria and the formula he has set out, that no decision has been made as to when the export tax will be either rescinded or repealed?
The minister replied:
No decision has been made in this regard, whether it be in the form of an export tax or some other control mechanism.
If that is the control mechanism, it is some mechanism because it is incomprehensible. To follow that up, I asked a question with regard to the division of the surtax, namely who would get it. That is found at page 13. I will not read all the answer because it is half a page in length. When I asked the same question in the House of Commons, the minister finally reduced the answer to one line. Dealing with the export tax as it has existed until now, he said that 50 per cent will go back to the producing province and the other 50 per cent will be used by the federal government for exploration, technical development or what have you.
The hon. member for York Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) then picked up the ball because my 10 minutes had run out. So there will be no mistake about what was said with regard to sharing with the provinces, this is what is found at page 30 of volume 44, and I quote:
Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the Minister could clarify a statement that he made earlier with respect to the $1.90 per barrel tax. Did I understand him correctly to say that either directly or indirectly the entire tax will go back either to the province or be used within the province where it originated?
The minister replied very clearly:
Yes, sir.
I now wish to refer to what was said by the Prime Minister when interviewed by Bruce Phillips. I want to be fair to the Prime Minister. I suppose there are two thoughts that are not clear. It is not clear whether he is talking about this charge the government is trying to implement by this bill or about the tax during the last four months. The Prime Minister said the producing provinces will get 50 per cent, but the other 50 cent may be used to assist those provinces which are now forced to pay so much for imported crude petroleum. There are two contradictory statements. Surely, the Minister of Finance and

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should have been able to clarify that. I hope it is clarified if and when this bill gets to a committee. That is the very basis of my reason for saying we cannot really trust the government.
On November 28, 1973, as recorded at page 8223 of Hansard, I asked the following question:
Will the minister make it very clear at this stage what mechanism or alternative measures will be suggested to replace the export tax when the price freeze goes off so that the consumers of Canada will be protected against the high cost of fuel and gasoline?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward a draft bill to the House for first reading to deal with the export tax and the continuing system in this situation. With regard to the question of the economic rent to be yielded by an increase in the western part of the Canadian market, we have had discussions with several provincial governments on this question. This may indeed relate to the kind of royalty programs they are planning on instituting in the near future.
To date there has not been any consultation. The big question to be asked is, what is the criteria when the freeze comes off. That question has not and cannot be answered because I do not think the government knows the answer. The minister appeared before the committee. He said he had a special technical committee advising him. Under the other bill that is now before the committee, the minister is asking that a new board be set up.
I want to read from Issue No. 26 of December 20, 1973. Mr. Armstrong, the president of Imperial Oil, was appearing before the committee. This will give some insight into what the committee advising the government had in mind. After several questions, I asked Mr. Armstrong this:
Now, may I put this to you? Since you say on page 2, having dealt with the question of emergency and with the pipeline and got your position, that
Imperial is prepared to volunteer experienced personnel to achieve
such a state of readiness under the administration of the proposed
Emergency Supplies Allocation Board, and you have said in paragraph one that your company firmly supports the intent of the bill-and I expressed my opinion in that regard, I agree with the intent-has there been any discussion on record or off record to date with the Minister, or with any officials of the department, on your supplying personnel at this time to the government?
Mr. Armstrong replied:
We have supplied personnel in the form of a member on various and sundry committees or subcommittees under Energy, Mines and Resources.
In other words, one of the members of the advisory board which has been advising the minister is an executive of Imperial Oil. Then, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked the following question:
We must determine whether or not there is a crisis at hand. You agree that there is not one now-
By the way, Mr. Armstrong said there was no crisis, there was no emergency.
-but there may be one. The bill says something about an expected crisis. I just forget the exact terminology, but in any case, it is a crisis or a-


An hon. Member:: A potential crisis.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Yes. There is not a crisis now, but there may be a potential crisis, but not as far as your company is concerned. Have you one person from your company on this Technical Advisory Committee on Petroleum Supply and Demand that we hear so much about these days?


Mr. Armstrong:: Yes, we do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What advice is he giving? Is he giving the same advice you are today to this Committee, that your company will not-


Frederick Thomas Armstrong: He had better be.
I have dealt with Imperial Oil in a small way for years, and probably most of us have an Esso card. We are asked tonight to approve a bill that might set a surtax anywhere from $6.50 to $10 a barrel without any floor price or any criteria having been given to us. Where will the government get its information on which to base a decision as to what to charge? Is the technical adviser to Imperial Oil, who sits on a committee, going to advise the minister? The president said "He had better listen to me or he won't be working for the government". Is this government in the pocket book of Imperial Oil? That is the question. Certainly, one wonders. That matter was raised in the committee and I should like to have it answered.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on, Eldon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Talking about costs, the bill refers to the Canadian price in clause 11. That clause provides:
There shall be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of crude oil exported from Canada-
Then, follows certain provisions imposing the tax to be applied to Canadian exports of oil. The only evidence that we have as to what the tax might be is in the statement made in the House by the Prime Minister on December 6 last. This is what he said, according to page 5 of the notes for remarks made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons debate on petroleum policy on that date:
A characteristic common to all frontier oil, and oil from unconventional sources such as the tar sands, is that it is much more expensive to develop and to bring into production than wells in the southern parts of Canada. This simple, undisputed fact is often ignored because it contains an unpleasant truth. It means that the days of abundant, cheap energy for Canadians must come to an end. It means that the cost of producing domestic oil must go up before too long. It means that Canadians must be prepared sooner or later, in some way or another to pay for these additional costs or go without oil. Any attempt to hide these facts and to formulate future policies without taking them into account can only lead in the longer run to even greater shortages and hence to even higher prices than Canadians are now experiencing in eastern provinces. In short we must in the long run allow the price of domestically produced crude oil to rise forward a level high enough to ensure the development of the Alberta oil sands and other Canadian resources but not one bit higher.
Is that to be the Canadian price, or what will it be? The Syncrude economists engaged on the tar sand project estimate that the cost of production will likely be $10 a barrel. Is this the price that the Prime Minister talks about, or will it go as high as $14 a barrel, as it has in Venezuela? What charge is going to be added to the Canadian price so that this formula that will be applied by order in council will mean anything at all?
I should like also to refer to what the Prime Minister said on December 21 and December 30 when he was questioned by Bruce Phillips and Carol Taylor in regard to what action we might expect from the government. We ask the government questions every day and each day get a different answer. I am referring to page 8 of the transcript, where the Prime Minister said this:
January 3, 1974

I think here it's a question of perhaps not communicating the facts well. On the freeze we said quite frankly we'd changed our mind.
Both the leader of this party and the spokesman for the New Democratic Party have pointed out that when the freeze comes off we will want to know the Canadian price. The Prime Minister continued:
When we announced the freeze on the 4th of September it was till the end of January. That was before the Middle East war, before the Arab nations had decided to cut back drastically on their supplies. We were then fighting inflation and we said a freeze till the end of January will give us time to adjust. A month later, less than that, the Middle East war breaks out, energy becomes in short supply. It's no longer a question of fighting inflation. It's a question of making sure we have enough. So I say quite frankly, quite candidly on television, after a lot of agonizing thinking the government has come to the conclusion that we should extend the freeze. You can call it a contradiction. I prefer saying that the government has extended its policy. It felt that its first decision, made before the Middle East war, about which nobody could have any sure prediction, was a wrong prediction-
The question is, how long will the freeze stay on? The Prime Minister was then asked about supply, because he had said that this mechanism was really to guarantee supply. After being interrogated as to why his government had done nothing since 1967 to build the pipeline, he said this, as reported at the top of page 9 of the transcript of the interview:
I think the simplest and to me a telling answer to that, Bruce, is that on the 4th of September when I announced that we would extend the pipe line, Quebec said-never. We don't want to have to buy your bloody well western oil. You won't put a pipe line in here, or if you put a pipe line, we'll make sure that we send the oil in the other direction because we're getting cheap oil from the Middle East and we'll never accept this pipe line. So a stitch in time, for them even the 4th of September was not time.
In other words, the reason he did nothing about the problem, which has now become a crisis not only in Quebec but in the Maritimes, is that the government of Quebec had said "We don't want your bloody oil". I do not know whether to believe that or not, but that is what the Prime Minister said on television. Then, he went on to say this, and this is why I mention the point about consultation. Bruce Phillips said:
There are occasions when what provincial governments have to say to you about the energy question is not a point of view that you would necessarily accept.
I will not read all of the Prime Minister's reply, but he went on to say that we were going to build this such and such pipeline anyhow, whether Quebec wanted it or not. This is the kind of consultation the government has recommended this afternoon. It is the kind of consultation that the premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, experienced, and it is the kind of consultation that the province of Quebec gets from the Prime Minister and his government.
I cannot accept for a moment that we are going to get consultation and common sense from the government, either through the Minister of Finance or through the Prime Minister.
Let me examine for a moment the history of this surtax since it was applied. The Alberta minister of resources visited Ottawa to discuss the problem of petroleum shortages. He had not reached home by plane before the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources double-crossed him and applied the first surtax. And the government talks about consultation! The government's consultation is like the old system that we used to read about but which I
Oil Export Tax
have never had tried out on me, though I have heard about it. It is like the mother and father who told son and daughter, when they were sick, to open their mouths and take cod liver oil whether they liked it or not. This is what I call the cod liver oil consultation method of the Liberal party, and it is the kind of consultation that the provinces are going to get.
I cannot believe for a moment that Mr. Lougheed-and I shall have something to say in a moment about Mr. Bla-keney-is going to come to this energy conference with the kind of goodwill that I am sure everyone would like to hope would prevail, since he has gone through this recent experience with consultation. The Prime Minister asked: "Well, when I was out in western Canada, in Calgary, why didn't the provinces then raise the question of a national oil policy?" Surely, the Prime Minister does not expect the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to sit down with him and plan a national oil policy for all of Canada. Yet this is the reply we are given. It is the sort of answer we receive when we ask whether there has been consultation and why the government does not have a policy. To summarize part of what I have said, I say that to give this government the power it wants to tax by order in council is to ask the Canadian people to accept in good grace what I would say is the greatest tax fraud ever perpetrated, not only on the Canadian people as the taxpayers but on the consumer using this energy in great quantities, whether at the individual consumer level or at the industrial level.
I started by saying I thought every member of parliament, whether he comes from western Canada, central Canada or the Maritimes, if he realizes his responsibility in coming to parliament, must speak in reference to the national interest. I was most interested to read today an article written by the Premier of Saskatchewan. I hope the government studies this article well before the meeting, because he has said some very important things.


An hon. Member:: Table it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says I should table it. That is all this government would do. It tables everything but nothing happens. It is full of words and documentation, but there is no action.


John Napier Turner: Everything is right on the table; everything is in the open.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, everything is on the table all right, but nothing ever gets past the drafting board. Let me quote from what Mr. Blakeney said:
Some parts of Canada face a shortage of gasoline, heating fuel and other petroleum products this winter, and perhaps for several winters, and no one should pretend that this is not going to lead to hardships for some Canadians if nothing is done to protect them from a situation they did not cause.
That situation may or may not be serious, we don't know yet. But it can be met by well-considered joint action by the provincial and federal governments without resort to panic measures.
I think those are pretty reasonable words from the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan. He went on to state in this article:
9036

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
We will face a much more serious problem in Canada if our major trading partners, particularly the United States, run into deep recession. Canada may be able to take some evasive action, but we could not escape the serious effects of such international events largely beyond our control.
There are parts of this nation where poverty has been an involuntary way of life. There are regions where many of the people, for generations, have struggled against adversity and have had few of the comforts and luxuries of our most prosperous regions.
I might say that this is true of the province of Saskatchewan in which I was born, and was also true of the province of Alberta in 1935 before a certain development took place. It was one of the provinces which did not default on interest payments on its bonds during the depression. That is the point Mr. Blakeney is making. He goes on to state:
Some people may not be able to afford to buy as much gasoline as they need for their cars. But they have cars.
Some people may lose their jobs, perhaps for many months, and this will be very hard on them and their families. But those jobs will return.
This crisis of inequality is the real national crisis we have to cope with. We are talking about large numbers of Canadians, quiet Canadians, who do not make headlines very often. Canadians who have been around for a long time.
He goes on to say that the real crisis is a crisis in respect of regional disparity at various points across this country, and he ends his article with a reference to the surtax provided by this bill:
Only oil, oil belonging to the people of Saskatchewan, should be sold on a different basis. It should be sold at a price, we are told, related to cost.
Now Saskatchewan doesn't object to the principle of selling essential commodities on a cost-plus basis. But why stop at oil? Indeed, why start with oil?
What about freight rates?
Western Canada was promised at the last conference that something would be done about freight rates, but all we have received has been information. Mr. Blakeney then asks:
What about freight rates? Lumber? Building supplies? Chemicals and fertilizer? Farm machinery? Automobiles?
Certainly, there is an inflationary price situation in respect of petroleum products which is working a hardship on those areas to which Mr. Blakeney and Mr. Lough-eed have referred, but we must realize that in the city of Toronto the value of a house today will be increased by $6,500 within a few months. We must remember that the price of lumber has gone up under this government by 200 per cent and that we have practically the highest interest rates we have had since confederation. We all realize there is real concern in the country.
Let me say to the government before I sit down that it had many years to make certain that energy could be transported to the various parts of Canada where it is needed at reasonable prices and with equity. The real problem today, whether we are dealing with oil, wheat or potash, relates to transportation. We cannot get the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to take action in respect of the railroads. This government has done nothing but vacillate and procrastinate as far as these problems are concerned. Our real crisis now is a crisis of government

resulting from the fact that this government is doing nothing and, as far as I can see, will do nothing.


Mr. Bechard:: And you call that democracy.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this bill which I find most important like everybody else. I have spoken on Bill C-236 which is related to the present crisis and to the problem now facing us.
In our view, the government is introducing a measure that will give it rather extraordinary powers in matters of taxation on a natural resource, which is questionable all the same, from the point of view of provincial jurisdiction. The latter feel, of course, this is an encroachment upon their rights. It is for this reason perhaps that I would like to say a few words on this bill, considering the respect we owe to the provinces.
We must also recognize that quite legitimate wish of each province to try and protect its natural resources. What concerns me as well as many others is to see that this bill that we are asked to pass in this House seems to be premeditated if one considers that we know full well that a federal-provincial conference of first ministers will soon be held. I have had the opportunity of referring to it two weeks ago. The bill now before us today prompts me also to urge that it be passed only after the conference.
We will be told, Mr. Speaker, that this piece of legislation is urgent, that we must act very fast in order to grant the government some powers that are said to be absolutely necessary.
We are also taking advantage of a temporary crisis and I suggest that this piece of legislation would give the government some extraordinary powers.
For the time being we know nothing about the wishes or desires of each province. One can be sure that the provinces are preparing right now briefs to be presented to the conference that will take place in a few weeks. We will know then where the provinces stand. It would be detrimental, it would be a mistake should this Parliament pass this bill quickly without knowing exactly where the provinces stand, their wishes and their desires.
We read in newspapers and we heard the comments of the provincial premiers or of the ministers of national resources of some provinces.
Now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) gave us an excellent account this afternoon. He introduced his bill very clearly, as the leader of the opposition pointed out. The first part of this bill is very clear as far as the repayment of the collected tax is concerned, but in the second part, one notices an obvious lack of information as to what the government is going to do once the said tax is collected.
We surely expect the producing provinces to be rewarded, we expect the profits of this tax to be distributed to them, but we do not know exactly where the other provinces stand. We are perfectly aware of certain projects on the part of the province of Quebec, as regards the petrochemical industry. Certain agreements were to be con-
January 3, 1974

eluded apparently with some countries. They are directly concerned with the bill before us today.
We are not entirely sure about the position of the province of Quebec nor that of several other provinces at the present time. A few weeks ago, we heard the minister responsible for energy speaking of a two-price policy. I was glad to hear last week, Mr. Speaker, that because of recent increases, he was considering a subsidy formula that would be agreeable to all provinces. However neither the formula nor the reaction of the provinces are yet known.
I was also pleased to listen to the hon. member for Lapointe saying on television last week that the government should lose no time in subsidizing Quebec and the Maritime provinces, in order to implement this one-price policy across the country.
I take this opportunity to ask all hon. members from the province of Quebec to follow the example of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau). I had a chance to ascertain the position of Quebecers on this legislation. We have gone through several days of discussion on bill C-236 and the one now before us, and we regret the silence of the majority of Quebecers on this legislation. I must say that recently the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made strong criticisms, that members from Quebec were betraying their own province on this legislation. I know that may irritate some hon. members, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is our duty to urge our members to fall in with the wishes of Quebecers.
For example, I see members representing the province of Alberta who do not hesitate to comply with the wishes of the people of Alberta and try and vindicate the interests of a resource that now exists in Alberta, and I congratulate them for doing that job, Mr. Speaker. And I am glad to see that now it is not the province of Quebec that is quarreling with a lack of consultation with the federal government, but Alberta. We had reasons to criticize the federal government or ask for certain powers. Alberta now feels the need to do the same. Members representing that province are doing it beautifully, and I congratulate them on their job. I think that on the current problems, especially the increases that hurt and scare them, as is probably the case with Maritimers, Quebec members have the responsibility of asking this government to understand the importance of knowing the position of the provinces.
That does not mean that the bill introduced by the minister is unacceptable. I think that the first part of the bill undoubtedly meets reality. On the other hand, we would want to know all the implications of that policy and above all know the response of the provinces to the powers that the federal government is trying to vest in itself through this legislation. I therefore, suggest that it is logical for me to appeal to my colleagues from Quebec, as members from Alberta seem to do in performing their first duties in this house. As far as I am concerned, I repeat this appeal to Quebec members. I must say once more, Mr. Speaker, considering the high percentage that they represent within their own party-over 50 per cent-that we must expect a very serious representation on the part of Quebec members, and in view of their substantial number, they should be in a position to make responsible ministers as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) aware of the
Oil Export Tax
wishes and needs of their own province. I dare believe that this appeal will be answered, as the hon. member for Lapointe did it so well last week on television. I was pleased to see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) had suggested that he would think about the possibility of developing a grant formula for Quebecers.
As to the bill now before us, surely the province of Quebec, as all other provinces, has its word to say, and I think that at the time when this bill is being introduced, it would be wiser to wait for the federal-provincial conference to take place, and thanks to the briefs that will be put forward and to the fact that the provinces will surely make their positions known, I believe that the federal government would then be in a better position to satisfy the wishes of the provinces.
I owed it to myself to make these few comments in order to urge hon. members and the minister or ministers who are responsible for the overall energy policy to try and understand that it is important for the provinces to explain and state their needs perfectly well and to determine to what extent it will be possible, once this bill is passed, to give a favorable answer to the provinces.
I feel it is unthinkable to pass energy legislation before the federal-provincial conference. Responsible ministers or premiers should be asked what they want exactly in the context of oil problems. I think it is nonsense to ask for their opinion after the legislation has been passed. That is why I think it is tremendously important that this bill before us as well as the other bill we will be discussing in coming days should not be passed before the positions of the provinces are clearly known. This way I think we will have met prior consultation with the provinces. That is the way to render acceptable that federalism about which we are told and attempts are being made to convince us of its viability. It will be to the extent in which that consultation with the provinces will have taken place.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on those few words by calling upon and urging ministers and hon. members to insist that the federal-provincial conference be held before those pieces of legislation are passed. I hope that knowing better the positions, the claims and briefs of the provinces we will be able to answer them in a positive way. I think we will have also met the wishes of our constituents who have the right to think and demand that we take position on legislation as important as this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Is the hon. member for Laval rising to ask a question?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I heard the pious wishes of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and I understand why he rose in this House. But the government members have established structures to sensitize ministers through-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. If the hon. member wishes to make a comment or to take part in the debate, he may do so in due time. If he wishes to put a question, he must ask the consent of the hon. member for Joliette.
9038

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, is the caucus of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) setting up a policy on the energy crisis?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) that in the caucus of the hon. member for Joliette, as he so justly said, the freedom to speak according to the interests of our constituents and all other Quebeckers exist. The policy would be based on the interests of my province, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I ask my hon. friends from Quebec to answer in the same way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Labelle.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my intervention in this debate is not to reply to an invitation of members of the official opposition or of other parties. The present crisis is real regardless of what some Progressive Conservative members thought in early December. Of course the crisis interests all hon. members from Quebec, notwithstanding the views of some hon. members who pretend that this matter can be solved in terms of decibels. I think that the already obvious confrontation between Canadians in some parts of the country could increase and become much more serious if, instead of making much political noise with the political problem which we are now facing, we kept a cool head and looked at the situation as it really is.
I believe that the right hon. Prime Minister gave us an excellent example of this on December 6, 1973, when he announced in the House, for the benefit of everyone, the action that the government was planning to take to reduce the difficulties that this crisis could bring to Canadians. Among other things, he wanted to assure Canadians that there would be no serious shortage like the one in Great Britain, Japan, West Germany and other countries, and to announce to the country the action that he and his government were planning to take to prevent Canada from being ransomed as most of the countries by nations which are trying to use this weapon which oil is now for political purposes.
Bill C-245 is precisely designed to permit the government to impose an export surtax of up to $4 per barrel. This bill would also permit controlling our oil exports. In his excellent speech, the minister stated this afternoon that already those $4 might be considered inadequate and that through an amendment they might be increased to $10. This bill also insures the sharing of the benefits drawn from this export surtax. A 50 per cent share for the producing provinces and a 50 per cent share for the federal government are put forward in the bill.
Without anticipating on the government's decision, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the adoption of measures to alleviate the difficulties of the Easterners is foreseen when one considers that 50 per cent share which will not be returned to the oil producing provinces.
In the speech he made last December 6, the Prime Minister stated that in the East, Canadians will probably have to pay a little more for their oil and that this was
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
already a recognized fact. However, he indicated that limits will be set to this difference and that these limits will not be allowed to exceed a certain figure.
Surely we can expect that following the federal-provincial conference which will be held on January 22, and 23, next, measures will be taken to see to it that Easterners are not penalized when purchasing oil and mainly home heating oil.
However, this temporary crisis seems to be the weapon that certain politicians were waiting for to overthrow the Liberal government of Mr. Trudeau. A campaign is now underway in Quebec and we have a Mr. Masse-not Mickey, but Marcel-who says to anyone who will listen that the Liberal members from Quebec have simply abandoned their responsibilities and betrayed the people by ignoring the difficulties.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true.


Maurice Dupras: He is an ignorant who does not know what is going on in the Liberal caucus, for if he knew he would understand exactly the pressures and interventions made by members from Quebec. If one could realize and measure the contribution of the Quebec members to some legislations, one would be amazed. I see a number of Progressive Conservative members complaining about "French Power", and there are some people who tour the province of Quebec saying that we are selling out the province. May someone make up his mind: Either it is sold out or not taken care of.
During their unproductive discussions and debates, Mr. Speaker, on consideration of Bill C-236, we repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition: What is your policy on this problem?


An hon. Member:: He does not have any.


Maurice Dupras: They do not have any!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Dupras: The propagandists who tour the province of Quebec in an effort to destroy the confidence vested in Parliament by the Canadians from that province keep saying that we are doing nothing, that we do not care about the problems of the Quebecers. On the other hand, I wonder who is sincere. The Progressive Conservatives should establish some communication between the various branches and the various parts of their party, to make sure they all tell the same story. They have a group saying that the members from the province of Quebec have betrayed their constituents, and another saying that there is a "French power" in the House of Commons. They should make up their minds once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, if there is trouble between Canadians from various Canadian regions, it is because these regions are very much concerned and unable to make up their minds about supporting the steps the government has decided to take to prevent situations which are common in other countries from happening here. In fact, this legislation is not as complicated as all that.


Some hon. Members:: Ah! ah!
January 3, 1974


Maurice Dupras: You are laughing because you do not understand it.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) tried this afternoon-and I feel he succeeded quite well- to explain to a large number of hon. members the mechanism whereby Canadians will have the necessary means to develop their own non-renewable resources, including oil and all energy resources. And this tax, which is limited to $4, could be increased, should Middle East and Venezuelian producers continue to raise their prices, in order to make sure that the necessary funds will be available for the development of new techniques, the construction of the pipeline which is essential to supply eastern Canada, and that Canadian firms prospecting for oil will operate at a profit.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted everything I said to be taken seriously. I know the situation to be fairly serious and I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) considers it to be a good joke on certain areas of our country.


Mr. Baker:: We think you are funny.


Maurice Dupras: I have not heard your comments on the subject. I am anxious to know what you think about it. Perhaps you do not have the same opinion as have the westerners in your party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would ask the hon. member to address himself to the Chair. In that way, the debate will be-


Maurice Dupras: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Through you I would like to remind the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that if the western members of that party can agree with him, perhaps if they had a serious caucus meeting on the matter and got everyone to agree on the subject, he would be able to rise here-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Let us see what policy you have, Wally.


Maurice Dupras: -and we would learn what policy his party has.


An hon. Member:: They do not have a policy. [Translation]


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, each time such a crisis arises, some politicians take the opportunity to divide the country or say that someone wants to divide it. It is quite the contrary. In 1961, the country was divided when the Ottawa Valley line was established. We have abolished it. And if in 1961 we had not taken such a decision, we would probably not be faced with the difficulties we now have.
Oil Export Tax
Mr. Speaker, I find it quite odd that we are being accused of dividing the country when we are doing just the opposite. We are putting all Canadians on an equal footing, that is, we are going to help them all to get a sufficient supply of oil so that houses may be heated at a reasonable price.


Mr. Gauthier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Labelle meant the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and not the hon. member for Ottawa East because that riding is not known as Ottawa East any more.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join with my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier in those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. This is hardly a point of order but a correction.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the proportion of difficulty which the Atlantic area will suffer through the differential in price for petroleum products has certainly escaped the powers of influence exercised on the government of Canada today. In spite of all the presentations which have been made by the premiers of the Atlantic area, and in spite of all the presentations that have been made by members to your left in this House, Mr. Speaker, presentations on behalf of the Atlantic area, there is still nothing of any concrete nature which would suggest that there is relief in the offing for a new form of disparity which will exist in that area.
Actually, in contrast, we have had statements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which would indicate it is his feeling that the provinces themselves should pick up the tab for the difference in price, and relieve the industries, the homeowners, the individual truck owners, etc., of the extra burden which they must now expect. He indicates that the provinces themselves should do this. On one occasion he mentioned that the grants to the provinces had been increased and, therefore, they were quite capable of looking after any disparity which may exist.
This is totally unacceptable to the Atlantic area, and regardless of what those members from the Atlantic area who sit on your right, Mr. Speaker, have said to their caucus, it is still not acceptable. Regardless of what the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) may have suggested, it is very obvious that there is very little significant influence or input, very little change in policy to be arranged by the presentation of the eastern Canadian problem as it presently exists in connection with the petroleum situation in which we find ourselves.
The unfortunate part of it is that all of the grants which have been made to the provincial governments have been made for equalization and other purposes. They may have been increased for the purposes of education, for the purposes of welfare, for the purposes of DREE, or for any

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
other purpose you may wish to mention. But as the grants were increased for one purpose or another this was only done in recognition of a problem which then existed.
I think the Prime Minister showed his total misunderstanding of the concept of grants from the federal treasury to the provinces when he suggested that the provinces should pick up the tab themselves, and that it was not the responsibility of the federal government. I say to hon. members opposite that they had better go back and review the synoptic report, or Hansard of this House, because the Prime Minister did say that the provinces should pick this up, and they were quite capable of doing so. Read his reply in response to the question posed by the hon. member for St. John's. Read it before some of the members of the Quebec government caucus allow the government to ride roughshod over eastern Canada, including Quebec. I say read it before you make your partisan, divisive speeches, like that of the last speaker, who accused everybody of division except himself, but who in his remarks showed he is sort of fuzzy in his comprehension of the whole problem, and used this occasion to attack others in a personal way. He did not show any real knowledge of the problem that his province faces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: We are . not just making idle, idiotic remarks like some hon. members. We are not resorting purely to charge and countercharge across the House. Instead, we are pleading that the government change its course, and recognize the needs as they presently exist. The provinces of eastern Canada, including the province of Quebec, do not have the economic capacity to take up the difference in the cost of the operation of industry, of families, of automobiles, indeed of any facet of our lives.
How serious could this be, Mr. Speaker? It could be so serious that it would negate the effect of all the good intentions of the policies of governments, present and past, which recognized that Atlantic Canada, including part of Quebec, had to have certain special conditions if it were to share in the standard of life which was the objective of the government of the day. Now this is a new burden, a new inequity, which is hurting the economy of eastern Canada, including Quebec. We are being asked at this moment in time to say that this bill will cure the problem. The government has been saying, "Give us all the legislation we want with respect to energy, and we will cure the problem."
I would like the government to answer some questions. I would like it to tell us what the effect would be on the economy of the Atlantic area, what would be the effect on the pulp and paper industry, what would be the effect on the food industry, what would be the effect on all the industries of the Atlantic area which, for various reasons, may have been directed to the use of oil during the past 25 years because it was the cheapest possible source of energy and heating? Now, the increase in the price has reached such a degree that some companies, which have high energy requirements for the production of their goods and services, will find that the cost of fuel in certain instances exceeds the margin of profit which they enjoyed during the last five years.

As of December 15, the cost of home heating oil in the Atlantic area had already risen 60 per cent over a year ago. The cost of gasoline from the refinery, has virtually doubled and, depending on the tax structure, the motorist and the trucker in the Atlantic area have experienced a 30 per cent to 40 per cent increase in its cost. There is no longer any guaranteed source of supply in the Atlantic area. Consumers are discovering that their suppliers are saying they can supply them for the month of January, but then there is uncertainty, even though the National Energy Board has indicated that it can supply Maine with a little oil for its pulp and paper mills. But suppliers cannot see beyond January. As I say, supply in the Atlantic area is uncertain. The only thing certain is that the cost will keep going up.
The increases in costs which I have mentioned came into force before the last change in price. What a pleasant New Year's message it was to learn that Venezuela is going to increase the price of its oil by $4.80, or 80 per cent a barrel. The full impact of this increase is yet to come. What a nightmare for the Atlantic area to learn that the Middle East countries may raise their price as high as $17 per barrel. This means, of course, that Venezuela will follow. What does this do to the price of oil for the farmers, to diesel oil or gasoline? I do not think that we have to tell you that since fuel oil has already gone up by 30 per cent to 40 per cent or, rather, 60 per cent, the rise has just begun. There is no indication in anything said in this House today that any legislation, or regulations which may emanate from legislation will do anything whatsoever to relieve that price rise in Atlantic Canada when the full impact of the increases in the price of crude oil are felt.
The government shows a serious lack of understanding of the principles of confederation. Perhaps because I spent a number of years in a provincial legislature, I am aware of the diminishing responsibility of provincial governments as intrusions by the federal government follow one upon the other. If one has learned anything by observing this government in action for one year as of tomorrow, and perhaps by the day, one year today, it would be that its philosophy is that it cannot put up with the negotiation that is required in a democratic system; that it must establish for itself an autocracy and dictatorial authority; that it must put its power in the hands of boards which are not responsible to anybody. This is what it has done in this energy situation and is what it did in the foreign investment control structure. These things, sir, are not in tune with the creation of a united and harmonious Canada.
I am particularly concerned that this House has been asked to pass either of these bills relating to energy prior to the time that the provincial premiers meet with the government of Canada. This is a philosophical blunder; a complete lack of recognition of the authority, the pride and the responsibility that provincial governments should have, do have and would have if any other party in this House were the government. No other party in Canada has anything like the authoritarian complex and the dictatorial desires which are illustrated by the legislation we are being asked to pass today. This is a tragic situation, Mr. January 3, 1974

Speaker. It is this kind of system which brings disharmony. No matter what the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) might say, this is the kind of thing that irritates Canadians from coast to coast, to say nothing of the divisive statement, the personal attack ard the regional attack which that hon. member so unjustly and improperly mentioned in this House.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) said that this government was going to administer a dose of castor oil to the provinces, whether they liked it or not, by the virtue of the authority which would be vested in them by this legislation. I might say that the castor oil they are going to give would not taste much worse or be more offensive than the lack of recognition which has been given to the Atlantic area up to this time.
The Atlantic area wants to know what this government is going to do to alleviate that cost increase. We want an answer to that question and we are entitled to an answer. What is the government going to do to assure the Atlantic area in particular of a supply of fuel oil? It has already stated that there is no visible physical capacity in Canada to transport oil from our present national supply to the Atlantic area or to the province of Quebec. What then are we going to do about price?
I am concerned about the remarks made by the minister today. But first, I wish to associate myself with my leader. I agree totally with what he said; I agree on the lack of clarity of policy and I agree on the lack of understanding of the Canadian problems. I feel very sorry for the people in the Atlantic area who get no understanding from this government, who get no sympathy from it; I feel very sorry for that part of Atlantic Canada which is represented by members on the government side of the House who have not had the courage to speak in defense of their own constituencies and their own communities.
I wonder what is going to happen, for instance, to the pulp and paper industry? Looking at the economic structure of that industry in the Atlantic area, it will be seen that the province of Newfoundland has found it necessary to take over a pulp mill. In many instances, in order to get further development, the provinces have had to find ways and means to support, subsidize or guarantee capital for the construction of new buildings and new production capacity. In these structures and in this production there is a massive consumption of petroleum products. If there is inflicted upon us a doubling, trebling or quadrupling of fuel costs, that industry which has been seriously hurt economically for the past ten years and is just getting on its feet, will receive a further serious setback. What does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) have in mind for this area? What does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have in mind for the farming industry?
In the last ten years, during the administration of this government, the farming industry has faced a trebling of labour costs and a doubling of mechanical costs. Apparently between now and the spring it will face roughly a threefold increase in fuel costs. What solution is the Minister of Agriculture going to offer to eastern agriculture to this problem? The industry is already hard pressed by viture of the massive increases in every other field concerned in the cost of production. What is going to be the
Oil Export Tax
continued effect of the various cost increases in fuel on food costs as eastern agriculture undertakes production for a price conscious consumer population?
I noticed with interest the other day that the cost of an acre of potatoes has increased almost threefold in the last ten years. This quadrupling of the price of fuel which we can apparently look forward to will be passed on to the farming community. The Atlantic area to a large degree has become dependent upon highway transport. Are the difficulties of this industry to be recognized? Will additional assistance in the transportation field be offered so that the trucking industry can carry on? This is a very serious situation and trucking firms are looking at their profit and loss sheets. They are looking at the rate structures and are finding that, with existing increases, they are in serious trouble. I suppose it is proper to say that firms in New Brunswick are not going to be in competition with firms in Alberta; therefore, the trucking industry is isolated in New Brunswick and you do not need to give it any special consideration. But we must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of transportation always has been and always will be an integral part of the prosperity or lack of prosperity of the Atlantic region, and this is going to be a major cause of increases in transportation costs, as a large percentage of our goods are moved by truck. Even though presidents of trucking companies have been in contact with the government, and even though stock holders of trucking companies have been in contact with the government, they cannot get answers.
There is one question to which some truck owners would like an answer. I direct this question to the Minister of Finance, or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald). Are suppliers to be compelled to continue to supply the trucking industry, as they have been supplying them in the past year? Is the trucking industry to get any assurance that its fuel will be guaranteed and available, and is the government pressing suppliers to this end? I happen to know that one particular firm has received a virtual ultimatum from its supplier of quite some time. That ultimatum has been, "We don't know how long we can supply you, or if we will supply you at all". We have found that the price increases, as applying to some fuels, have been almost exorbitantly passed on to the trucking industry. This is particularly true in a case in which the trucking company may have sought a new supplier for reasons of price some time within the last 12 or 15 months. May we have assurances that this government will say today that as the trucking industry must be supplied with the necessary fuel, it will have priority. This assurance is particularly pertinent to the potato industry, which depends upon trucking for a large percentage of its deliveries to the Canadian market. If, perchance, we do not get that assurance, the lack of it may well impede the whole economy of the Saint John River Valley, which will suffer.
I heard a member from the other side of the House suggest that we, on this side, have no policy. If that were the case, I would have to say, after listening to the Minister of Finance introduce this bill today, that we are certainly in company with others who are no better off than

January 3, 1974
Oil Export Tax
we are. Let me say that the only policy introduced in this House is one giving the government the right to control and to tax, without first explaining to the people of Canada exactly what will be the consequences and the effects of those actions. We do not know what is the grass root attitude towards the policy. What will be the effect upon Canada if the policy is implemented? What will be the benefit to Canada of the law, as enacted? What will be the opportunity for the provinces to state their case and obtain their just rights? There is no way to tell what the effects of the policy will be. As I said before, I am deeply disappointed that virtually all we have received has been the philosophical point of view regarding what might be done, what should be done and what can be done, but we have not been told emphatically or concretely what will be done.
We have been told that tens of millions of dollars will be collected weekly. We have not been told of what benefit this will be to Canada. The only benefit that would seem to accrue to Canada is this: more money will be brought into Canada, which in itself is a benefit as I acknowledge. But what is the rest of the benefit? There has not been associated with this tax and with this legislation any suggestion that we are going to seek oil, that we are going to facilitate the distribution of oil, that we are to facilitate the exploration for oil or that we are to harness the resources of Canada and try to relieve the situation in one year, two years or even six years. Nothing concrete has been put before us. There has been no suggestion of substituting one form of energy for another, or of developing new opportunities for energy. There has merely been a concentration of power in the hands of government, under a dark cloak, purely for the edification of the government. The government wants to say, "Look at how we are trying?" It does this so that its public relations people can tell all in this land of the importance of the legislation which it has brought forth. But, when members of the government are asked to expound the benefits of this legislation directly, area by area in Canada, they become as confused as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras). That hon. member showed that he has no concept of the general policy of his party, and he cannot put forward a policy for himself.
I was interested in listening to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle), who suggested that Quebec was being ill served by this legislation. He was another member from Quebec who said that the province is being ill served by the present policies of this government. His was a much more logical, proper and obvious approach for a Quebec member to take. I say to other members from Quebec that unless the government will implement some unknown factor which may be behind this legislation, Quebec will suffer with the Atlantic area. It will pay prices it cannot afford. Further, we are being led by a Prime Minister who comes from that province. He is selling the province down the river without considering the realities for eastern Canada. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



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

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr.Speaker, on November 9, as recorded at page 7697 of Hansard, I asked the following question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of apparent inequities in the allocation of LIP funds to constituencies, would he be prepared to ask the House for a reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of the matter of the allocation by constituency of funds for LIP projects and the criteria which have been employed in making those allocations, and would he agree to appear before the committee and provide that committee with a list of the allocations made?
The minister replied to the effect that he would be appearing before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and would make that information known there. I then asked the minister the following question:
Can the minister assure us if he makes an appearance before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee during consideration of the supplementary estimates of his department, that the figures, constituency by constituency, of the amounts of money and the criteria will be made available to the members of the committee and that his officials will be there to defend their position?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, that would be my intention. I point out that the expenditures under last year's Local Initiatives Program were made available in response to a question on the order paper, and that is what I would intend.
Since that time I have been looking for last year's expenditures, which the minister indicated would be made available. They were not made available at that time, nor were they made available later. Further, having looked at this year's allocations, I have done my very best to make heads or tails of the rationale behind them. I find it very strange that the bulk of the large grants to constituencies were made to those of Liberal cabinet ministers. I cannot claim that the allocations were made solely on political grounds because the smallest per capita grant in Manitoba was made to the constituency of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), a Liberal member. However, when you look at Winnipeg, Vancouver, northern Ontario or Toronto, you see that the second largest grants are almost invariably allocated to constituencies of Liberal cabinet ministers.
According to Manpower officials, funds were initially allocated to a province as a whole. That allocation was made in relation to the over-all unemployment figures of the provinces. They were made, roughly speaking, to the province as a whole, in the same proportions as in 1972-73. Within the province, statistics on unemployment and population were used to calculate allocations on the basis
January 3, 1974

of Canada Manpower areas. These allocation figures were in turn converted to a constituency base. They were then further modified to take in potential man hours of unemployment as proposed in the project submissions themselves. That is the official explanation of the officials of the Local Initiatives Program.
If the above explanation did indeed fully account for the methodology employed, then it is hardly likely that the constituency of Winnipeg South, that of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), would reasonably qualify for its accorded allocation either in terms of local employment rate or size of population as a percentage of provincial population or both. It is the second largest allocation in the province of Manitoba. The largest allocation of local initiative grants was made to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He represents the core area of Winnipeg where the largest population of the poor and under-privileged is located. That is just. However, the Minister of National Defence represents what is probably the richest constituency in the province.
I have attempted to convert the Canada Manpower Centre figures to the constituencies and that is impossible. I have attempted to convert the Department of Regional Economic Expansion designated and specified areas to constituencies and that is virtually impossible. As a matter of fact, I placed a question on the order paper and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion cannot supply the answer with respect to how many constituencies fall within designated or special areas. I attempted to relate the amounts allocated to the native population within a constituency and that proved to be impossible. I am not going to allege that patronage was involved in the allocation of the local initiative project funds. I really cannot do that when I consider that Winnipeg South, which is the richest constituency in the province, has received the second largest allocation of grants, second to Winnipeg North Centre, a constituency represented by one of my colleagues. The lowest per capita grant in the province went to St. Boniface-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), as stated by him in the House and before the miscellaneous estimates committee, the first stage in the implementation of the objectives of the local initiatives program was to allocate funds to the provinces and territories in the same proportion as in 1972-73. The 1972-73 allocation was based on historical seasonal unemployment patterns. Especially in urban constituencies, statistics on unemployment by constituency are not maintained.
However, there are operational records measuring the number of persons without employment who are registered at Canada Manpower Centres. As an intermediate step, therefore, an allocation was made to CMC areas, based on the total number of people unemployed in each CMC area during the first quarter of 1973.
Adjournment Debate


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-CHARGES AGAINST MEMBERS WORKING AT MALTON AIRPORT-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, on November 6 last I asked certain questions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in relation to problems that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seemed to be having in connection with the taxi business at Toronto international airport. I have been in touch with the Minister of Transport about the matter on many occasions, but the matter has now become serious for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. This is the police force that represents some of the highest ideals of Canadians and which is becoming involved in disciplining taxi drivers at the airport, creating an impossible situation for a police department to handle.
The problem results from a judgment of His Honour Judge Shapiro of the county court of the county of Peel given last year, as a result of which the authority of the town of Mississauga to licence taxis doing business at Toronto international airport was removed. As a result of this, if you, Mr. Speaker, were to decide tonight to drive to Toronto international airport, you, too, could become a taxi driver without being asked to take out a licence and would be able to pick up a fare. All you would need to do to operate legally is to put 25 cents into what is called the "spitter"; this would satisfy the Minister of Transport and you could pick up passengers. In addition, you could surcharge any fare as you felt was desirable, and it would not be necessary for you to have a meter. Nor would it be necessary for you to carry insurance on your vehicle. Indeed, it would not even be necessary for you to demonstrate that your vehicle was roadworthy. As I say, all you would need to do is to pay 25 cents to the "spitter"; you would then get in the lineup like anybody else. Of course, when you have people who are legitimate taxi drivers and have spent a great deal of money buying a licence and a proper vehicle, and anybody and his brother is allowed to get into the lineup, then you have a problem. The problem has arisen because of no licensing, no regulation and no control. People are cruising and picking up passengers.
The ROMP, who are trying to police the airport, have had an impossible situation to deal with. They have had to arrest and charge people who are trying to earn a living. The whole situation has become so serious that one member of parliament I can mention, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), has spoken to me about the problem he had in getting a cab at the airport. He told me he wanted to get over to the Cara Inn but could not get a cab because the fare was only a dollar or so; therefore he had to walk and carry his bag to the Cara Inn.
The Minister of Transport has refused to attempt realistically to regulate the taxi industry at Toronto international airport. In spite of pressure from the industry and repeated complaints not only by myself but by other members of this House, the minister has in effect abandoned his responsibility to police and to organize public transportation at the largest airport in this country. I suggest there is a hands-off policy or an "I don't care" policy. The result is that Charterway Service, which runs the limousine service at the airport, will probably very
9044

January 3, 1974
Adjournment Debate
soon, if it has not already, discontinue its entire limousine service at that airport.
The charges against the members of the RCMP to which I referred, and certainly there are not 90 as suggested by me in my question, have been laid by persons prosecuted. This has led to a situation in which the police are not even trying to enforce the inept regulations that do exist. It is high time the Minister of Transport took his responsibilities seriously and organized a system of licensing those persons allowed to use commercial vehicles to pick up passengers from this airport.
It is a disgrace that people who come to the city of Toronto to do business, or come as visitors, get taken to the cleaners by some hotshot people who pretend to be cab drivers operating rotten automobiles, without being licensed and without having reasonable metered fares. Surely, they should not have to accept this kind of service at an institution under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. The minister has a responsibility to regulate the taxi service at this airport. He has no right to sit back and suggest that Toronto or the province should get organized. This airport belongs to the people of Canada and is under the control of the Minister of Transport, so this service should be regulated by him. It is not an excuse to put the RCMP in an impossible position, as has been done. There is a requirement on the minister to do something, and that is the reason I raised these questions on November 6 last.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member put this question to me in the House on November 6, I told him I would investigate the situation and report to him. I did so by reporting to him in a detailed letter on November 16. Much of what I said to him then I will have to repeat tonight as not much has changed.
In his question on November 6, the hon. member said some 90 charges of assault and similar offences had been made by private individuals against members of the RCMP in connection with their work at Malton airport. When I investigated and reported on the matter on November 16, I indicated that during the last three years only four charges of any kind were preferred against members of the RCMP at Malton airport; one in 1972, which was dismissed, and three in 1973, one of which was dismissed and the two others were withdrawn. Since November 16, five additional charges of common assault were preferred against members of the force. Two of those charges were withdrawn, and three remain to be heard by the courts. One will be heard in January and two will be heard in March.
I must say that there is a difficulty existing between taxi cab drivers and members of the RCMP resulting from the enforcement of airport vehicle control regulations under the Government Property Traffic Act, and the government airport concession operations regulations under the Department of Transport Act. Enforcement activities in the main involve illegal solicitation of fares and illegal parking by taxi drivers at the Toronto International Airport.

In addition there is a conflict between the taxi cab owners and drivers and Airline Terminal Transport, which operates the limousine service, as to prime pickup designations at arrival and departure gates 1 and 2.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-NORTHERN ONTARIO- DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT-DEGREE OF CO-OPERATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) announced last May that officials of his department were meeting with officials of the provincial government to work out a general development agreement for northern Ontario. That meeting began on June 10, 1973. The minister expected to announce the specific program of industrial development for northern Ontario. In September 1973, I asked the minister in the House whether he was prepared to announce a strategy of industrial development for northern Ontario. The minister replied that in a few weeks he would make such an announcement. On October 29, 1973 I asked the minister once again the following question:
In view of the answer given by the minister in the House in September 1973, that an announcement would be made within a few weeks or a month with regard to development in northern Ontario, and since it is now, over a month, can the minister inform the House when he now intends to announce such a strategy?
This time the minister avoided answering the question by saying:
It is the working out of a general development agreement that is taking considerable time.
We are well aware of how long it takes for the government not to plan anything. In the meantime, the minister gratuitously announced that the current designations of regions and areas for purposes of the regional development incentives program had been extended to June 3, 1974. In the meantime, the minister continues to dole out, in a most haphazard fashion, a grant here, a grant there, so-called 'incentive' grants, which, for the most part, do nothing at all to alter the existing inequities borne by the workers and the small business people of the underdeveloped regions in this country. There is no apparent urgency felt by the DREE minister, or indeed by the government. There is no apparent pressing commitment to a fundamental restructuring of DREE. At best, its incentive program is as helpful as a straw to a drowning person and, at worst a travesty on the public purse.
Every announcement of change made by the minister is followed by another announcement postponing the previously announced change, which is then followed by another postponement, much in the manner of the one-step forward, two-steps backward routine that has characterized the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no! Why us? Leave us out.


John R. Rodriguez: -throughout the history of this country. DREE follows the pattern of every other situation in Canada. Under the regional development program, the overdeveloped regions get the one-step forward, and the underdeveloped regions get stuck with the two-steps back-
January 3, 1974

ward. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was first seeking election in 1968 as Prime Minister, he declared publicly that there were two specific goals for Canada he was dedicated to accomplishing. One was national unity and the other was elimination of regional disparity.
Regional disparities were created and have been guaranteed by the lack of serious long-term planning and attention to the problems of remote or disadvantaged areas. There has been a dearth of ideas and well thought out possible solutions, and consequently a complete lack of productive adjustment to the DREE program. The Liberal and Conservative Parties have always found it easier to let things go until a crisis presents itself. That approach, that philosophy, reigns still, as DREE staff produce working papers that suggest, for instance, tourism as a solution to the problems of northern Ontario, when northern Ontario sits on, and mines, some of the richest ore bodies in the world. While the jobs produced by the minings of those ores go south and to countries all over the world, DREE suggests tourism for northern Ontario and slips in small incentive grants creating three jobs or four jobs or five jobs, and no fundamental change occurs.
If this government's success is to be gauged by the reduction of regional disparity between northern Ontario and southern Ontario, then it has failed miserably. Those of us who live in northern Ontario firmly believe that there is no excuse whatsoever for nickel plating plants, steel mills, wire factories and so on to be built in southern Ontario while our municipalities lack basic amenities or enjoy the highest taxes to provide such facilities. It boils down to simply a lack of sincerity on the part of those who govern to eliminate regional disparity in our neck of the woods. We are no closer to equality of industrial opportu-
Adjournment Debate
nity within our province than we were prior to the Trudeau years. Yes, time is running out on the Liberal Party in northern Ontario, and the sooner the better.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) made it clear to the hon. member in his reply on October 29 that there had been excellent co-operation between officials of the province of Ontario and those of DREE throughout the detailed consultations carried out to develop the contents of a general development agreement with Ontario. The fact is that the process of consulting with the provincial government, and of discussing the policy thrusts that will govern the new regional development policy in Ontario, is a lengthy one. The hon. member will agree, I am sure, that full account must be taken of local opportunities and circumstances in this process to ensure that the developmental activities are tailored to the needs of the province and to the requirements of its slow growth regions.
I am pleased to assure the hon. member that the preparatory work on the general development agreement covering the development of Ontario and on subsidiary agreements to provide for the identification and pursuit of specific development opportunities is now in its final stages. I know that my colleague, the minister of DREE, will be pleased to inform the concerned members of this House as soon as the contents of the agreements are finalized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
26695-60*

Friday, January 4, 1974