1974-01-07

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises out of reports that the Canadian embassy in Washington has released a special report on Canadian energy policy. In view of the fact that this special report which has been released to the American press and business community is not available to Canadians from any source, including the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, members of this House are placed on an unequal footing with American businessmen in terms of knowledge of the government's fluctuating policy.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather that what the hon. member has in mind is more a grievance than a question of privilege which would require the proposing of a motion to the House. The Chair has to decide whether there is a prima facie case of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member. While the hon. member may have a grievance which has its usual redress under the rules of the House by the filing of a notice of motion for the production of papers, I am not sure that I could suggest this remedy to the hon. member.
I think I have to rule that there is at most a grievance, and I do not think the matter would be helped by a finding that there is a prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Cullen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order
41(2) I should like to lay on the table copies in both official languages of correspondence with Imperial Oil Limited with regard to the Athabasca oil sands, the Syncrude project. Letters in similar terms were sent also to the three other partners in the project.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I wish to raise a matter of urgency relating to unwarranted restrictions in the government's terms of reference for the Pickering Airport Inquiry Commission. Therefore I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That, in view of the blatant assumption in the order in council setting up the Pickering Airport Inquiry Commission that a second international airport is required for Toronto, and in view of the fact that the commission is restricted to a consideration of only new evidence as to need and location, new evidence being defined as something that was not in the mind of the Canadian government on January 30, 1973, and in view of the discriminatory rules as to evidence and costs adopted by the commission, the government give consideration to amending the order in council to permit a fair and objective inquiry with full public participation on an equitable basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity; the motion, therefore, cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Who determines spending of the budget of Sport Canada?

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	What percentage of the budget is for administering actual sport programs?
3.	What is the breakdown of the budget (a) by province (b) by age groups (i) 8-10 years (ii) 10-12 years (iii) 12-14 years (iv) 14-16 years (v) 16-18 years?
4.	How much money is earmarked for Sport Canada over the next (a) two (b) five years?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The minister, on the advice of his departmental officials.
2.	Sport Canada provides financial support to National Sport Governing Bodies which in turn administer the sport programs. The only sport program directly administered by Sport Canada, is Demonstration Projects, which accounts for less than 1 per cent of the budget.
3.	The Sport Canada budget is for support of National Sport Governing Bodies, for national events, international events, hosting world events and training. The support to competitive events is aimed at athletes 16 years of age or over. Sport Governing Bodies include all age groups; however, since age ranges are not determining factors in whether a Body receives a grant, an age breakdown is not available.
4.	Specific amounts over the next two or five years have not yet been approved by the government. However, in the Speech from the Throne, the government proposed to more than double the current level of expenditures under the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program over the next three years, in response to the increasing importance of fitness for the well-being and health of Canadians and the need for greater opportunities for people to participate in sports activities.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Did the government purchase special bars of soap for the use of Commonwealth delegates recently staying in Ottawa hotels and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did the government judge the regular bars of soap used by Canadians and other tourists in those hotels not to be appropriate and. if so, for what reason?
3.	(a) From whom did the government purchase any special bars of soap for the Conference (b) were competitive bids invited and, if not, for what reason (c) how much did the government pay per bar?
4.	(a) Who handled the sale of food to journalists and staff at the Commonwealth Conference (b) was this contract awarded after appropriate tendering procedures and, if not, for what reason?
5.	(a) How was the contract awarded for the food concession in Place du Portage in Hull (b) were tenders and/or competitive bids invited and, if not, for what reason (c) were Ministers of the Crown and/or Members of Parliament from the National Capital Region consulted in any way with reference to this award and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No.
2.	Not Applicable.
3.	Not Applicable.
4.	(a) Nate's Delicatessen, (b) Owing to the international situation there was no way, until late in the preparations for the meeting, that the Media Committee of the Heads of Government Task Force could make a realistic
estimate of the number of journalists who would wish accreditation and determine the service required. Further, structural alterations to the Connaught Building were necessary to accommodate the catering equipment. Since this equipment varied from firm to firm a rapid choice was necessary if the alterations were to be completed in time for the August meeting. Despite the indefinite number of people expected and the limited time available for making a choice of caterers, oral estimates were obtained and a thorough comparison made. An oral survey of 11 firms in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa was carried out and only three companies, all in Ottawa, indicated interest: Morri-son-Lamothe, Capital Foods and Nate's Delicatessen. Members of the Media Committee met with each of the caterers concerned and outlined the special requirements for service at the Media Centre. These included reasonable prices, an international menu, and service seven days a week sixteen hours a day with twenty-four hour-a-day service in case of emergency. Operations of the bar were included in the catering arrangement. Nate's Delicatessen was the only one of the three companies concerned considered by the Media Committee to be suitable for the job, since it was the only one experienced in operations of this nature. Reasons included a more varied and interesting menu, service including china and silverware rather than plastic utensils and paper plates, and more reasonable prices. Included in the more reasonable prices were bar prices. Nate's also had sufficient equipment to fully supply their own kitchen within the building. Other interested caterers did not have this equipment and it would have been necessary for the government to make supplementary arrangements for its provision.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In any settlement or negotiation ol aboriginal rights, is it the intention of the government to take into account the interest of individual native people who are neither Inuit nor registered Indians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In dealing with the various Indian and Inuit land claims, the government intends to take into account the possible claims of all persons who may legitimately advance such claims. It is expected that parliament would be the final arbiter of who has such an interest and the extent of that interest.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	What interest is the government receiving from the government of Bangladesh with respect to an $8,000,000 loan to finance development of that country's first earth satellite station?
2.	Will such an earth satellite station do anything to eliminate poverty in Bangladesh?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. The development assistance loan extended to Bangladesh for the construction of an earth satellite station carries no interest charges.
2.	The development of an adequate international communications capability is considered by the Bangladesh

January 7, 1974

government to be a high priority requirement. By facilitating international contacts of all kinds, including trade, it is expected that this communications system will contribute directly towards the economic and social development of Bangladesh, just as similar communications systems in Canada contribute to the economic and social development of this country.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In the light of the increasing need of the marine construction industry to modernize in the direction of the use of Computer and Numerical Control design and production, is it the intention of the government to ensure that all such computer services originating from outside Canada will be suitably charged according to the Customs Act?
2.	Have there been instances in the past five years in which such imported services destined for marine utilization or marine-related service have not been charged with duty under the Customs Act, and, if so, for what reasons?


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and National Revenue as follows: 1. It is the intention of the government to ensure that computer services entering Canada will be imported in accordance with Customs laws and regulations. An interdepartmental committee has been set up to study, among other things, the effect of the Customs law as it relates to computer programs and computer processed data.
2.	There have been no instances where duty has not been charged when applicable under the Customs Tariff.


Mr. Knight: 1.	What salaries, honoraria or expenses are paid to the Officers and Directors of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, listed separately for each person?
2.	What directorships, in addition to membership on AECL's board, do each of the 11 directors hold?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited advises as follows: 1. According to the by-laws of the company each director other than those in the Public Service of Canada is entitled to be paid salary at the rate of $100 per diem while engaged in the work of the company together with any expenses properly incurred by him in connection with the work of the company. It has not been the practice to make public the salaries of officers and employees of the company.
2.	The information requested is not within the knowledge of the company.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1.	1972-73, $76,473; 1973-74, $47,178.
2.	None. The above figures include direct advertising (i.e. purchase of space in periodicals, production of films and TV clips, exhibits and printing of publicity material). Publicity and information work was done by the department in-house and through federal government agencies.
3.	See No. 2 above.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: 1.	The amounts of money spent by the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission on publicity and/or information in each fiscal year 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date are as follows: Total expended 1972-73, $140,408.20; Total expended 1973-74 to September 30, 1973, $14,335.55.
2.	The purpose of this activity is to notify the public of the agenda of public hearings and of decisions of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. The advertising in 1972 and 1973 up to September 1973 was placed in Canadian publications through the following advertising firms: John Doherty and Co., 46 Elgin St., Ottawa, Ontario; The Harvard Agency, 85 Sparks St., Ottawa, Ontario; Carleton Cowan Public Relations Limited, Tower A, Suite 2100, Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario.
3.	None.


Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the name of each person who has been proposed as a member of the Port Authority for the Port of Prince Rupert?
2.	On what date will the said Port Authority be appointed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
Ministry of Transport advises as follows: 1. No persons have been proposed for nomination to the Prince Rupert Port Authority.
2.	Members of the Port Authority will be nominated in the near future.

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Firth: 1.	What were the amounts and purposes of grants or loans made by the government to the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute in the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	Is it the intention of the government (a) to table the terms of such agreements (b) to make available to the public the results of research made possible by such funding and, if so, in what manner?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. Loans for capital construction of research facilities: 1972-73, $2,500,000; 1973-74, $1,600,000 (budgeted). Grants for research and development: 1972-73, $325,000; 1973-74, $325,000, (budgeted).
2. (a) Under consideration, (b) A condition of the agreement is that there be effective dissemination of results. This is being achieved by publication of results in technical literature and also through the mechanism of the Technical Advisory Committee established under the agreement.


PRIVILEGE OF FREE TELEPHONE CALLS FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICES OUTSIDE OTTAWA
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Do offices of the government departments situated in locations outside Ottawa have the privilege of free telephone calls to (a) other government offices (b) Members of Parliament (c) the parent departmental office and, if not, is there a flat rate charge for each call made by these offices to the above?
2.	What is the amount of such charges in each case?
3.	Do any government departmental offices in Ottawa/Hull have free telephoning privileges to their counterparts situated in other locations and, if so, which offices?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. (a), (b) and (c), no. "Is there a flat rate?" No. Charges depend on the distance of the call and its duration.
2.	Calls made on the commercial toll network are charged for at standard tariff rates. Calls made on the government intercity network which is leased from the carrier and managed by the Government Telecommunications Agency are charged to the departments using these facilities. These charges to user departments represent an equivalent share of the costs of leasing the facilities and their administration. Economies of scale are realized due to the large quantity of facilities leased. The schedule of charges to departments is adjusted down to reflect improved efficiency of use or adjusted up when higher tariffs are applied by the carriers. Typical costs on this network for a six minute call are Ottawa-Vancouver $3.50 and Ottawa-Toronto 65 cents. These costs compare with equivalent commercial toll calls of $5.70 and $2.23 respectively.
3.	No.


GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO FRIENDSHIP CENTRES
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Of the $25 million which was announced would be spent by the government on assistance to Friendship Centres over a period of five years, commencing in the fiscal year 1972-73, for each of the five fiscal years involved, how much has been spent or will be spent in the following areas (a) core funding (b) capital projects (c) demonstration projects?
2.	With respect to the demonstration projects what percentage of the funds is anticipated will be spent directly by the Friendship Centres and what percentage by organizations and individuals other than the Friendship Centres?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Core	Capital	Demonstration1. Year	Funding	Projects	Projects
.$ $
1972-	73	
1,177,600.30	190,0001973-	74	
1,400,000.00	450,000
Parliament has not yet approved the Main Estimates for 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77.
2. The criteria for the Migrating Native Demonstration Projects fund have not been established. It is not possible to ascertain the relative amounts that may be awarded to friendship centres and to organizations other than friendship centres.


INCREASE IN NUMBER OF FRIENDSHIP CENTRES
Mr. Rowland: 1.	With respect to the $25 million which was announced would be spent by the government on assistance to Friendship Centres over a period of five years, commencing in the fiscal year 1972-73, what was the projected anticipated annual increase in the number of Friendship Centres?
2.	To date, what has been the actual increase in the number of Friendship Centres?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. Originally, it was anticipated that there would be an increase of six friendship centres, from 37 to 43, in 19721973 and an approximate annual increase of two per year thereafter.
2. To date, the department has funded 12 new friendship centres: nine in 1972-1973; three in 1973-1974.


COST OF OPERATION OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the total cost of the operation of the Prime Minister's Office for each fiscal year 1958 to March 31, 1973?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the operation of the Prime Minister's Office for the present fiscal year?
3.	How many persons have been employed by the Prime Minister's Office in each fiscal year 1958 to March 31, 1973?
4.	What was the total number of persons employed by the Prime Minister's Office as of October 30, 1973?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Available records do not permit an accurate answer to this portion of the question for the fiscal years prior to 1970-71. In these years the costs involved were part of the general operating expenditures provided in Estimates for the
January 7, 1974

Privy Council Office. As of fiscal year 1970-71 the operation of the Prime Minister's Office was budgeted as a Program Activity. (See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 12, April 9, 1970 of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates). Salaries, contracts and travel expenses 1970-71, $900,839; 1971-72, $1,131,398; 1972-73, $1,384,927.
2.	$1,486,814.
3.	See answer to Part 1. Man years utilized 1970-71, 85;
1971-72, 85; 1972-73, 88.
4.	Eighty-eight.


CANADIAN POSITION TOWARD LOAN CREDIT APPLICATIONS FROM CHILE
Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What is Canada's present position towards loan credit applications from Chile through the World Bank?
2.	To the knowledge of the government, has any political decision by a foreign government had any bearing upon the credit rating for Chile during Allende's government and the viability of the Chilean economy, in particular, from 1970 to 1973 and, if so, which one?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. Canada's present position toward loan credit applications from Chile through the World Bank is that such applications should be considered on their technical merits and in the light of the country's creditworthiness situation. Last summer, the bank management was negotiating with the Allende government in the preparation of a small initial loan designed to assist the government in meeting its debt service obligations to the bank. This proposal had not yet been submitted to the Executive Board for approval when the government changed, and since then it has been held in abeyance awaiting the completion of negotiations with the new government.
2. Political decisions by the Canadian government had no bearing on either the credit rating for Chile during the period of the Allende government or on the viability of the Chilean economy from 1970 to 1973. It would be inappropriate for a member of the Canadian government to comment on the effects, if any, of the actions or decisions of any other government on the credit rating and economic viability of a third country.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Mr. Schellenberger: How much money was budgeted by the Department of Agriculture for agricultural research in each of the past three years and, of that amount how much was spent on (a) Department of Agriculture Research Stations (b) universities (c) provincial research stations (d) private industry (e) individuals?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) Amount spent on Research	(b)
Budgeted	Stations including	
for Agricultural	Institutes, Experimental	
Research	Farms and Substations	Grants(SOOO's)	(SOOO's)	(SOOO's)1972-73 54,668	51,135	7991971-72 51,006	47,705	8001970-71 49,505 (c), (d) and (e), nil.	44,716	800
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-CROP RESEARCH
Mr. Schellenberger: What was the total amount of money budgeted by the Department of Agriculture for crop research for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1973 and March 31, 1974 and, of that amount how much was spent on (a) repeseed (b) soybeans (c) field peas (d) faba beans (e) other protein producing oilseeds (f) forage crops (g) cereal crops?


Eugene Whelan: 1972-73	1973-74
($000's)	(SOOO's)
Crop Research	14,741	15,827(a) rapeseed	800	1,040(b)soybeans	120	120(c) field peas	100	100(d) faba beans	20	20(e) oilseeds	Nil	Nil(f) forage crops	2,780	3,040(g) cereal crops	5,100	5,300


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-RAPESEED RESEARCH
Mr. Schellenberger: Of the total amount of money budgeted for rapeseed research by the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1973 and March 31, 1974, how much was spent on (a) removal of glucosino-lates (b) decreasing the amount of eruric acid?


Eugene Whelan: 1972-73	1973-74
($000's)	(SOOO's)
(a)	180	180(b)	180	180


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-SOYBEAN RESEARCH
Mr. Schellenberger: Of the total amount of money budgeted for soybean research by the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1973 and March 31, 1974, how much was spent on research into early maturity of soybeans?


Eugene Whelan: 1972-73	1973-74
(SOOO's)	(SOOO's)
20	20


CONFEDERATION BUILDING-INTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. O'Connor: 1. What was the total of all costs in connection with the tendering, construction and destruction of a number of cinder block walls adjacent to stairwells in the Confederation Building?

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to proceed with the wall construction project either in the form originally contemplated or in amended or modified form in the future and, if so, on what date?
3.	What is the purpose of such program and what are the anticipated costs?


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

2.	No. Fire doors are to be installed at six locations in lieu of the originally specified solid walls. The scheduled completion of the total project was November 30, 1973 but the revisions will extend the completion date to December 30, 1973.
3.	The purpose of this program is to comply with National Bui'ding Code Fire Safety Regulations enforced by the Dominion Fire Commissioner. The regulations require a fire separation of exit stairwells from the remainder of the building. These fire separations may be in form of fire-rated doors or by solid non-combustible partitions. The anticipated costs are $14,700.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-EQUIPMENT OF AIRCRAFT WITH EMERGENCY LOCATER TRANSMITTERS
Mr. MacLean: Are all aircraft operated by the Department of Transport of a class or kind required to be equipped with emergency locater transmitters (ELTS) by July 1, 1974, now so equipped and, if not, on what date will such aircraft be so equipped?


Jean Marchand: Ministry of Transport aircraft are not all equipped as yet with emergency locater transmitters, ELTS, but will be by July 1, 1974.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-AIR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION DIVISION
Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the answer to Question No. 2,759, how many air accidents have been investigated by the Air Accident Investigation Division since its inception and, of these, how many have been made public in each year?


Jean Marchand: Reports and Publications Released by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Division
Report Type	Number Published	Circulation	RemarksSummary	3177	8000	These reports have been issued on selected accidents since the organization of the division at the beginning of 1959. The selection is made by the division on the basis of its potential value to the aviation community as a preventive device. Since the beginning of 1959, of the 5,697 accidents investigated, 3,177 or 55.7 percent have been reported in summary form. Those not reported are the accidents which are repetitive in nature (e.g. ground-loops involving light aircraft).Synopsis	1400	850	This type of report was introduced during 1970 to supplement summary reports. Every accident in Canada is reported upon in this publication as quickly as possible to enable members of the aviation community to initiate immediate appropriate preventive action.Major Accidents Reports	13	300-1000	Reports of accidents which have been categorized as major have also been issued since the inception of the division. These reports follow the ICAO format for reporting significant accidents, and are more comprehensive than summary reports.Annual	1 year	1200	Is an annual statistical summary of all accidents in Canada. It is circulated to members of the aviation community and the public who have expressed an interest.Public Inquiries	2	on request	There have been two since the inception of the division. Such reports are prepared by the Commissioner and are made available to any enquirer.


NUMBER OF PILOT LICENCES ISSUED
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many licences has the Department of Transport issued to pilots by class for each year since 1965?
2.	How many have been issued to date this year?
3.	Does the Minister of Transport consider that sufficient staff exists to process such applications without critical delays to pilots involved?


Jean Marchand: 1. Number of pilot licences issued by Department of Transport since 1965.
Class of Licence	1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
Private	3,011 4,499 5,415 5,646 4,922 4,397 4,262 4,252
Commercial	660 1	1,225 1	1,394 I	1,354	931	845	780	959Senior Commercial	92	147	259	238	356	265	190	251Airline Transport	195	316	382	283	330	295	220	310Glider	55	64	99	150	159	173	147	203
2. Number of pilot licences issued by Department of Transport to September 30, 1973.
Class of Licence
Private Commercial Senior Commercial Airline Transport Glider
January 1, 1973-September 30, 1973
3,621
250
293
3.	Generally speaking yes, except that there are certain periods of the year in which flying training peaks sharply and in these circumstances some delays in the issuance of licences occur.

January 7, 1974


DRUG LEGISLATION
Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What are the results of a study undertaken to determine the effect of advertising and price listing on the consumption of drugs intended for the public at large?
2.	Will the old 1908 legislation be abrogated and, if so, on what date?
3.	Does the government ensure that the necessary steps are taken by the provinces to control the sale and distribution of these drugs so as to pave the way for the abrogation of this law?
4.	Does the government intend to take appropriate measures to introduce new legislations on drugs?
5.	Could the Minister of National Health and Welfare assure the House that the new legislations will prevent pharmaceutical firms from fostering their own interests at the expense of public welfare?


John Mercer Reid: 1. A nationwide study, concerning the use and reasons for use, of drugs that are advertised to the general public has not yet been initiated. Preparatory work is now being done. It is expected that the study will begin early in the new year.
2.	Legislation to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act of 1908 will be introduced at an opportune time.
3.	The conditions of sale and the distribution of drugs intended for the public at large are a Provincial responsibility. The Federal Government, however, will continue to assume its concern for the safety and effectiveness of all drugs.
4.	Yes, if necessary.
5.	Any new legislation respecting drugs will be designed to serve the interests of the public.


CNR-LEASING OF LOCOMOTIVES
Mr. Hollands: How many railway locomotives are presently under lease to Canadian National Railways from US railroads?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Sixty-six.


CNR-PURCHASE OF CONCRETE RAILWAY TIES
Mr. Hollands: Has the Department of Transport, or any agency acting for DOT, contracted with a British company to manufacture concrete railway ties for use by Canadian National Railways and, if so (a) what is the name of the company (b) on what date were tenders called (c) who were the bidders (d) what were the amounts of the bids (e) where in the CNR system are the concrete ties to be used?


Jean Marchand: Neither the Ministry of Transport, nor any agent acting for the Ministry has contracted with any British company to manufacture concrete railway ties for use by Canadian National Railways.


CNR-GRAIN CARS
Mr. Hollands: How many railway cars designed for hauling grain have been built for Canadian National Railways in the past 12 months?
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: None. However, the Canadian Wheat Board purchased 2,000 grain cars in 1972, of which 926 cars were assigned to CNR.


CNR-RAILWAY FLAT CARS CONSTRUCTED IN PAST 12 MONTHS
Mr. Hollands: How many railway flat cars designed for transporting lumber have been constructed for Canadian National Railways in the past 12 months?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Six hundred thirty-six bulkhead flat cars.


CNR-FLAT CARS PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Hollands: How many railway flat cars designed for transporting lumber are presently under construction for Canadian National Railways?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Two hundred thirty-six bulkhead flat cars have been delivered from a total of 400 ordered for construction.


PURPOSE OF TRIP BY W. C. HOOD TO ROME, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by W. C. Hood, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance (salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to Rome ($935)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


John Napier Turner: 1. To
attend, with the Minister of Finance, the meeting of the Ministers of Finance and Central Bank Governors of the countries in the Group of Ten, in Rome.
2. November and December, 1971.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY G. P. KIDD, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by G. P. Kidd, Vice-President of CIDA (salary range: $23,500-$29,000), to Nassau, London, Vienna, Barbados, Caribbean ($1,411)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. April 8-24, 1971, During this period Mr. Kidd was in Barbados to attend a meeting sponsored by the Caribbean Development Bank to discuss the Agricultural Development Fund and also in Antigua to attend a meeting of the Caribbean Development Bank; April 30-May 3, 1971, Visit to St. Lucia to attend the opening ceremonies of the Hewanorra International Airport; May 21-June 1, 1971, Mr. Kidd was in Vienna to attend a meeting of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization; June 1-4, 1971, Mr. Kidd went from Vienna to London to attend a meeting of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation. This is a fund adminis-

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
tered by the Commonwealth Secretariat; June 17-19, 1971, The trip to Bridgetown was necessary in order that Mr. Kidd could attend the seventh meeting of the Board of Directors of the Caribbean Development Bank; August 17-25, 1971, The trip to London was necessary in order to attend further meetings of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation; September 19-24, 1971, Mr. Kidd was in Nassau to attend a meeting of the board of representatives of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation and also a meeting of Commonwealth Officials and Finance Ministers.


PURPOSES OF TRIPS MADE BY D. G. HURST, PRESIDENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by D. G. Hurst, President of Atomic Energy Control Board (salary range: $28,000-$35,000) to (a) Boston ($246) (b) Washington ($160) (c) Vienna ($1,107) (d) Miami ($372)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: 1. (a) To attend the Annual Meeting of American Nuclear Society and to attend committee meetings; (i) Editorial Advisory Committee, Nuclear Science and Engineering; (ii) Honours and Awards Committee; (iii) Ad Hoc Program Committee, American Nuclear Society 1972 International Meeting; (iv) Planning Committee; (b) To meet with United States Atomic Energy Commission regulatory officials concerned with reactor safety and licensing to review problems of common interest, (c) To attend the 4th International Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, as one of five official representatives of Canada and give a paper entitled "Government, Utilities, Industry and Universities: Partners for Nuclear Development in Canada and Abroad"; to attend the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, as alternate delegate, (d) To attend the winter meeting of the American Nuclear Society and to attend committee meetings; (i) Ad Hoc Program Committee, American Nuclear Society 1972 International Meeting; (ii) Planning Committee.
2. (a) June, (b) July, (c) September, (d) October.


PURPOSES OF TRIPS MADE BY J. B. SEABORN, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by J. B. Seaborn, Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) Paris ($906) (b) Washington $161) (c) Paris ($643)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. (a) Paris, to attend Consumer Policy Committee meetings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), (b) Washington, accompanied Minister for informal discussions with American officials concerned with consumer affairs, (c) Paris, to attend Consumer Policy Committee meetings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

2. (a) June, 1971. (b) November, 1971. (c) December, 1971.


PURPOSES OF TRIPS MADE BY D. F. PARKHILL, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by D. F. Parkhill of the Department of Communications (salary range: $28,000-$35,000) to (a) Natik, Massachusetts ($78) (b) Ljubljana, Yugoslavia ($1,043) (c) London, Paris, Rome ($1,790) (d) Paris ($2,073)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. (a) Business meeting concerning mass computer memories with officials of "Photomem Incorporated", Natik, Massachusetts, (b) To attend International Federation of Information Processing Congress 71 as member of Canadian delegation, (c) i. Preparatory meeting, in London, with chairman of 5th Annual Conference of the Intergovernmental Council for Automatic Data Processing, ii. Head of Canadian delegation at 5th Annual Conference in Rome of the Intergovernmental Council for Automatic Data Processing. iii. Meeting in Paris with Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Secretariat to prepare draft report on policy issues of Computer/Telecommunications Interaction, (d) Chairman of meeting of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development panel on policy considerations of computer communications interaction.
2. (a) April, 1971. (b) August, 1971. (c) October, 1971. (d) November 29-December 4, 1971.


PURPOSES OF TRIPS MADE BY MAXWELL HENDERSON, AUDITOR GENERAL, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by Maxwell Henderson, Auditor General (salary range: $37,500-$42,-000), to (a) New York, Geneva and Vienna ($8,081) (b) Jerusalem ($1,060)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
purpose of the trips made by Maxwell Henderson, Auditor General in 1971-72 to: (a) New York, Geneva and Vienna was to audit of the accounts of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and all travel costs were recovered from those bodies; (b) Jerusalem was to address and participate in the Jerusalem Conference on Accountancy.
2. The trips to: New York were made in April, May, June, August, October and November in 1971 and in January and February 1972; Geneva was made in October 1971; Vienna was made in October 1971. Jerusalem was made in October 1971.


PURPOSES OF TRIPS MADE BY DOUGLAS FULLERTON, CHAIRMAN OF NCC, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1. In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by Douglas Fullerton, Chairman of the National Capital Commission
January 7, 1974

(salary range: $34,000-$40,000), to (a) Yugoslavia ($1,062) (b) England ($1,213) (c) Yugoslavia ($1,435)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. (a) Belgrade, Yugoslavia (June 6-12, 1971) Annual Conference, International Federation of Housing and Planning, including visits to new towns, (b) (i) Meetings in London with various planners of Greater London Council; November 29-December 3, 1971. (ii) Invited Canadian representative at Ditchley Conference on Urban Development; December 3-6, 1971. (c) Yugoslavia, Italy and England, (i) Conference in Zagreb; October 11-16, 1971, International Union of Local Authorities on "Citizen Participation and Local Government", (ii) Visits to three Italian garbage incineration plants, October 18-20, 1971. (iii) London, negotiation for Colonel By Papers October 21, 1971.
2. Answered above.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY J. F. HARMER, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. F. Harmer, Assistant Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Taxation (salary range: $28,000-$35,000) to Rio de Janeiro ($300)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation is concerned: 1. Mr. Harmer travelled to Rio de Janeiro to attend the 5th General Assembly of the Organization Centro Interamericano de Administradores Tributaries (CIAT).
2. The trip was made in May, 1971.
PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY J. A. H. MacKAY, 1971-72


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. A. H. MacKay, Deputy Postmaster General (salary range: $40,000), to Washington, London, Buenos Aires and Mexico ($1,620)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1 and 2.
June 7, 1971, to hold discussions with Postmaster General U.S. Postal Service, Washington. October 14-19, 1971, to attend Commonwealth Postal Conference London, England. November 2-3, 1971, Mexican Postal Administration en route to PUAS Congress. November 4-6, 1971, Argentina Postal Administration. November 7-21, 1971, to attend the X Congress of PUAS, Santiago, Chile.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY G. M. SINCLAIR, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by G. M. Sinclair, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to London, Brussels, Paris, Berling and Berne ($1,996)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?
Order Paper Questions


André Ouellet: 1. The purpose of the trip was to negotiate, with foreign postal administrations and foreign airlines, an agreement to receive and handle, at airports and airport postal facilities, all Canadian letter and printed matter mails that had previously been transported by surface means and to arrange for the onward transmission of additional foreign mails by foreign air carriers to countries not served by Canadian airlines. The trip was scheduled so as to coincide with meetings of the Universal Postal Union in Berne to meet with representatives of the following postal administrations on the same subject: Japan, Austria, Australia, Italy, Switzerland, Holland and Russia. Mr. Sinclair met with the German postal administration and officials of Lufthansa in Bonn, West Germany. He did not visit Berlin.
2. May 1971.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY W. BAKER, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by W. Baker, Assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works (salary range: $30,000-$32,000), to San Juan and Puerto Rico ($616)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
The purpose of the trip mentioned was to respond to an invitation to address a conference sponsored by the American Public Works Association. This is a non-profit association of "Public Service" agencies, primarily from the United States and Canada, but with some representation from other nations.
2. The Conference took place March 22-25, 1972.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY BERNARD OSTRY, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by Bernard Ostry, Assistant Under Secretary of State (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur ($3,365) (b) London, Paris, New York ($295)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


James Hugh Faulkner: Trips made by Bernard Ostry, Assistant Under Secretary of State: (a) Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, London, Paris ($3,365): To attend the Commonwealth Asian Pacific Regional Youth Seminar; meetings on youth and travel accords; July, August, and September, 1971. (b) New York ($295): To attend the American Immigration and Citizenship Conference; February, 1972.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY B. C. HOFLEY, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by B. C. Hofley, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Solicitor General Department (salary range: $23,500-$31,000), to France ($734)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. To attend a symposium organized by the International Centre of

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
Comparative Criminology on Crises in the Administration of Justice in Metropolitan areas.
2. April.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY I. C. CORNBLAT, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by
I.	C. Cornblat, Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Paris and London ($1,168)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
purpose of Mr. Cornblat's trip was the discussion of financial and administrative support for the Ministry's Transportation Liaison function in London, England, and to provide technical support for the minister's participation in the Paris Air Show, including the promotion of Canada's STOL expertise. Mr. Cornblat is now deceased.
2.	The trip was made during the period May 29 to June 5, 1971.


PURPOSE OF TRIP BY P. TASCHEREAU, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by P. Taschereau, Vice-President of the Canadian Transport Commission (salary range: $40,000-$45,000), to Washington ($284)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. To address the National Institute, American Bar Association, on the subject of the National Transportation Act and the Canadian Transport Commission.
2.	April.


PURPOSES OF TRIPS BY R. R. COPE, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what were the purposes of the trips made by R. R. Cope, Vice-President of the Canadian Transport Commission (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to (a) France, Germany, London, Sweden ($194) (b) Washington ($220) (c) Washington ($231) (d) Boston ($173) (e) Washington ($196) (f) London, Paris ($356) (g) Chicago ($219)?
2.	In what months of the year were these trips made?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1 and
2.	(a) London, May: Discussions with U.K. officials re user charge policies, user cost research, and international transportation research, (b) Washington, June: To attend Council Meeting of Transportation Research Forum, (c) Washington, November: To meet with consultants re pending Canadian Transport Commission Telecommunications Cost Study, (d) Boston, December: (i) Meeting with consultants re pending Canadian Transport Commission Telecommunications Cost Study, (ii) Luncheon address to Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Prac-tioners. (e) Washington, January: Meetings with consultants re CTC Telecommunications Cost Study, (f) Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris, February: Discussions on
(Mr. Allmand ]
expansion of international transport research with College of Europe, Netherlands Institute of Transport, and Institut des Recherches de Transport, (g) Chicago, March: To attend Council Meeting of Transportation Research Forum.


PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY A. SAUMIER, 1971-72
Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by A. Saumier, Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Munich ($1,143)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. A fact-finding trip in Mr. Saumier's dual capacity as federal representative on the Board of Directors of the Organizing Committee for the 1976 Olympics and as Chairman of the Senior (Federal) Interdepartmental Committee on the 1976 Olympics.
2. The trip was made in November.
PURPOSE OF TRIP MADE BY J. W. MacNEILL, 1971-72


Mr. Knight: 1.	In the fiscal year 1971-72, what was the purpose of the trip made by J. W. MacNeill, Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (salary range: $28,000-$35,000), to Paris ($788)?
2.	In what month of the year was this trip made?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. To represent Canada at a meeting of the Environment Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
2. February.


PRIME MINISTER'S CAR
Mr. Howard: 1.	How many miles per gallon are obtained by the Fleetwood Cadillac made available for the use of the Prime Minister?
2.	Does the Prime Minister intend to participate in the voluntary restraints program suggested for energy conservation by using a different type of automobile?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1.	8.3
miles per gallon.
2. Reply to Question No. 2,135 in part reads as follows: "The automobile to be used by the Prime Minister, by the Queen and by visiting Heads of State and Heads of Government ..The same reply referred to security and technical equipment provided in the vehicle. The vehicle is assigned to the Prime Minister by the RCMP and has been built to security standards recommended by the RCMP. The Prime Minister will use any type of vehicle assigned from time to time for his use. When he is not on official business and there is no security consideration involved, he frequently rides in a smaller police car, a Ford, or drives his own car.


CODOFIL
Mr. Grier: 1.	What is the annual salary of the Canadian adviser to CODOFIL?
2.	What are the responsibilities of this official?
3.	To whom is this official accountable?
4.	In what respects has Canada's financial contribution towards CODOFIL already produced considerable returns in publicity and goodwill?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. We understand that, at the time of his employment, the Canadian adviser received from CODOFIL an annual salary of $18,000. In the fiscal year 1972-73 the Canadian government contributed $8,000 to the adviser's salary.
2.	As adviser for technical and cultural co-operation, his main task was to conceive and develop action programs in the framework of the responsibilities given to CODOFIL by the Legislature of the State of Louisiana.
3.	He was accountable to CODOFIL authorities.
4.	The evaluation report recently submitted by an independent firm of educational consultants to the Louisiana State Department of Education highly commended the programs developed by CODOFIL in the area of French instruction at the primary school level. The adviser played an important role in the development of these programs. More directly, the 1972-73 contribution has resulted in favourable publicity for Canada in the local United States press and has promoted contacts between Louisiana and some Canadian and international non-governmental associations. Related to it was the offer to a Canadian student by a Louisiana university of a scholarship in Petrochemistry. The Canadian contribution was also well received in Francophone countries which have participated with Canada in international activities organized by CODOFIL.


STERILIZATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED
Mr. Rowland: Have persons diagnosed as being mentally retarded been subjected to sterilization before reaching the age of puberty in the past five years and, if so, in what numbers and in which jurisdictions?


Marc Lalonde: Only the provinces can provide a reply to this question as they have sole jurisdiction over the treatment of those under psychiatric care. Sterilization performed in National Health and Welfare hospitals occurs after the written and signed consent of the patient and the spouse has been obtained. This consent is granted by the person affected and the spouse only ofter a full explanation has been given.


TRAINING IN TORTURE TECHNIQUES
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Within NATO (a) does there exist a unit or other grouping which has as its purpose training in torture techniques or interrogation in depth, involving serious physical abuse (b) is there any organized capability within such a group for inflicting and sustaining torture and, if so, is Canada making efforts to have the practice discontinued?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Can the government give absolute assurances that no Canadians have been, are now, or will be involved in such activities within NATO?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a) NATO does not run or sponsor any type of training in torture techniques or interrogation in depth, (b) Not applicable.
2. Not applicable.


GREAT PLAINS PROJECT
Mr. Coates: 1.	What involvement does the government have with or in the Great Plains Project or with Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc.?
2.	Has the Prime Minister and his office sponsored this project and, if so, on what basis and in what amount and how was approval secured from Parliament for the use of such funds in this project?
3.	Has the Prime Minister consented to the use of his name and his office in the soliciting of funds from private business establishments and, if so, on what basis and what control does the Prime Minister, or his office, exercise over the expenditures of monies secured by this foundation?
4.	(a) Who are the officers of the Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc. (b) on what date was it established (c) on what date was Phase I of the Great Plains Project undertaken, who were the individuals involved in this project and how were they compensated for services rendered?
5.	What was the cost of Phase I of the Great Plains Project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. In the
initial stages, the government supported the Great Plains Project by providing financial assistance through the Prime Minister's office. In July 1973, officers of the project were informed that their dealings with the government should be channeled through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc. is the not-for-profit corporate arm of the Great Plains Project. The government has not had any involvement with Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc.
2.	Although the Prime Minister's office has provided financial support to the Great Plains Project, it is not a sponsor of the project. Funds for the project were included in Privy Council Estimates for the fiscal years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 (See reply to Question 107). The project was funded on a contract basis, as approved by Treasury Board, in the amount of $236,274.33, final, over fiscal years 1970-71 to 1973-74.
3.	No.
4.	(a) Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc. was incorporated in the province of Ontario. The names of its officers are not on the files of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, correspondence with the Great Plains Project indicates that its directors are V.H. Atrill, Ph. D., Major General M.T. Friedl, C.D., and R. Rohmer, Esq., DFC, Q.C. (b) According to a name-search done in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc. was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario under the name Mid-North Research and Development Foundation Inc. on September 24, 1969. Its name was changed to Great Canadian Research and Development Foundation Inc. on

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
March 22, 1973. (e) Formal approval of financial support for Phase I was given on December 1, 1970. The Chairman, V.H. Atrill, was compensated on a per diem fee basis. The Deputy Chairmen, Messrs. R. Shannon and R. Rohmer, together with senior developmental officers of corporations in Canada and senior developmental scientists from Canadian universities attended project meetings free of time charges.
5.	Thirty-six thousand dollars.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-OVERPAYMENTS-QUEBEC REGION
Mr. Godin: For the territory serviced by the Unemployment Insurance Commission Montreal Regional Office and for each fiscal year 1971-72 and 1972-73 (a) what was the amount of overpayments made to various unemployed persons (b) what amounts were recovered (c) what was the cost of legal proceedings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1971/72	1972/73
	$	%
(a)	2,430,247	9,680,798(b)	1,787,295	7,033,009(c)	Where proceedings	were taken.
was added to the amount to be recovered.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Laprise: Within the Winter Works Program announced on December 6, 1972, by the Minister of Finance (a) what provinces participated in the program to date (b) what was the number of projects and amount involved in each case?


John Napier Turner: (a) All the
provinces are participating in the program, (b) To the end of November 1973 the number of projects and the amounts involved were as follows:
	Number of	Total approved Loans
	Projects	(millions) S
Newfoundland	103	10.9Prince Edward Island	30	2.1Nova Scotia	50	6.9New Brunswick	71	10.0Quebec	133	102.3Ontario	255	66.3Manitoba	25	5.7Saskatchewan	92	4.2Alberta	104	16.5British Columbia	53	18.3Yukon	-	-Northwest Territories	1	0.4917	243.6


MAINE CORRIDOR ROUTE
Mr. Corbin: 1.	With respect to the projected corridor route through the State of Maine between the Provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, have the governments of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or Quebec, individually or as a group, officially requested aid from the government (a) to finance a study on feasibility and, if so, on what date (b) to finance the construction of the road and, if so, on what date?
2.	Has the government undertaken or commissioned any studies on the feasibility of such corridor route between Quebec and New Brunswick through the State of Maine and, if so (a) what studies (b) on what date and by whom were they undertaken (c) what were the conclusions regarding feasibility and costs (d) is this proposal being studied and, if so, by whom?
3.	Has the Government of the United States and/or the State of Maine contacted the government or inversely have the government or Provincial Governments contacted the American authorities to discuss a corridor route through the State of Maine and, if so, on what date?
4.	What was the reaction of the government, the United States Government or the Government of the State of Maine and who were the Canadian and American representatives in each case?
5.	Has the government within the framework of a possible study on building a corridor route through the State of Maine, also studied the marked disadvantages of such a route, particularly for the economy and the development of hundreds of thousands of people, hundreds of communities and thousands of businesses which depend totally on the traffic on the Trans-Canada Highway and connecting roads for their economic well-being?


Jean Marchand: 1. This proposal has, as its main supporters, the Maritime provinces but there has never been a formal request made by these governments to study the feasibility of such a highway facility.
2.	It was considered at one time that a trade off could be made between the construction of the Maine Corridor Highway and the reconstruction of the Alaska Highway, (a) The study undertaken was entitled "The Maine Corridor Road and the Alaska Highway-An Examination of Comparative Benefits and Costs", (b) The study was undertaken jointly by the M.W. Menzies Group Ltd., and N.D. Lea and Associates Ltd. in the fall of 1970. (c) The study concluded that with respect to the Maine Corridor there could be a positive net benefit for Canada and a negative net benefit for the U.S. The specific amounts varied depending on the assumptions which were made concerning travel time and value of time, operating costs of vehicles, etc. (d) The study is not at present under evaluation due to the lack of interest by the U.S. government in the Alaska Highway.
3.	No, in so far as the government of Canada is concerned.
4.	This question is not applicable.
5.	No.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS-CONSTITUENCY OF LEEDS
Mr. Cossitt: How many applications were received from the constituency of Leeds for Farm Credit Corporation loans during each of the past three years for which figures are available, how many of these applications were granted and what was the total amount loaned in the electoral district for each year in question?

January 7, 1974


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that statistics are not maintained on a constituency basis. However, for the Counties of Lennox-Addington, Frontenac and Leeds, the answer is as follows:
Number of Applications
		Withdrawn or		Amount
Year	Received	Rejected	Approved	Approved $1973-74*	31	8	23	1,111,7001972-73	34	7	27	1,245,5001971-72	29	7	22	645,600
*April 1 to October 31, 1973.


OFY GRANTS TO HOMOSEXUAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many dollars have been allocated through the Opportunities for Youth Program in the past fiscal year towards projects for homosexual organizations?
2.	For what projects were OFY grants given to homosexual organizations?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
None. However, a grant of $10,845 was awarded to a group of individuals for a project whose objective was the publication of an information booklet on the subject of homosexuality.
2. The project to which the above-mentioned grant was awarded was entitled Operation Socrates, situated in the Kitchener-Waterloo Region.


MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Cossitt: With regard to the statement on September 4, 1973 recorded on page 6,184 of Hansard that there will be a milk subsidy of five cents per quart, for what reason has there been an increase of four cents since that date in quart packages of powdered milk sold by Dominion Stores Ltd. in Brockville, Ontario?


Eugene Whelan: The earliest date that milk powder prices could be expected to be reduced and contained was October 15, 1973, as agreements with powdered milk companies did not take effect until that date.


DISTRIBUTION OF POLICY STATEMENTS BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to answers to Question Nos. 2,827, 3,100 and 3,129 that copies and addresses to Liberal Party meetings made by the Minister of Agriculture were printed and distributed at public expense, is it the intention of the government to accord similar treatment to opposition parties and, specifically, is it the intention of the government to print and distribute at public expense copies of addresses to Progressive Conservative Party meetings made by the Agricultural Critic of the Progressive Conservative Party and, if not, is it the intention of the government to discontinue printing and distributing at public expense addresses by the Minister of Agriculture to Liberal Party meetings and to recover from the Liberal Party of Canada all public funds spent to date in this connection?
Order Paper Questions


Eugene Whelan: Policy statements by the present Minister of Agriculture to Progressive Conservative party meetings, if open to the public, will be treated in the same manner as any other public addresses made by the present Minister of Agriculture.


ELIGIBILITY OF WIDOW UNDER THE PENSION ACT
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the Pensions Act, what is the rate of disability at which the widow can receive a pension after the veteran's death?
2.	Is a widow of a disability pensioner able to receive benefits after his death if he was receiving a disability pension between 5 per cent and 47 per cent?
3.	(a) What is the rate of pension for the married veteran who has disability between 48-52 per cent with no children (b) what would his wife receive on his death?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Provision is made in the Pension Act for the payment of pension to the widow of a pensioner who at the time of his death was in receipt of a pension for a disability assessed at 48 per cent or more, whether or not his death was attributable to his service. The widow of a pensioner who was in receipt of a pension for a disability assessed at less than 48 per cent is entitled to a pension only if it is ruled under the Pension Act that her husband's death was attributable to his service.
2.	A widow of a pensioner whose disability was assessed at between 5 per cent and 47 per cent may be awarded a widow's pension if it is ruled under the Pension Act that her husband's death was attributable to his service.
3.	(a) $245 a month, (b) $294 a month.


ELIGIBILITY OF FEMALE VETERAN TO MARRIED RATE OF DISABILITY PENSION
Mr. Marshall: Under the Pensions Act whereby a disabled male veteran can qualify for the married rate with benefits for his wife, who is not a veteran, and their children, can a female disabled veteran, who is married and whose husband is not a veteran, qualify for married rates for her husband and children and, if not, for what reason is this practice allowed to prevail?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Yes, at the discretion of the Canadian Pension Commission.


ELIGIBILITY OF WIDOW UNDER PENSION ACT
Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the rate of pension for a married veteran with no children who has a disability classified between 43 per cent and 47 per cent?
2.	What would his wife receive on his death and, if nothing, is consideration being given to overcoming this discrepancy in the Pensions Act?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. $220.50 a month.
2. If it is ruled under the Pension Act that his death was attributable to his service his widow would receive $294 a month. If his death was not ruled attributable to his

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
service his widow would not receive a pension. No change with regard to this feature of the Pension Act is presently contemplated.


MEMBERS OF CYC
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many individuals are now engaged in working with the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	How many members now serving with CYC are repeaters, having served one term of two years and have now volunteered for a further period?
3.	How many people in CYC are working in the Metropolitan Toronto area?
4.	How many members of CYC have been added to the Company in the Toronto Metropolitan area in the past six months?
5.	How many members of CYC are not Canadian citizens?
6.	Are there any members of CYC who do not have legal status to remain in Canada?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. Eighty-eight staff and 225 volunteers.
2.	An inordinate amount of research would be required to supply this information as it would require a search of individual files.
3.	Four staff and 23 volunteers.
4.	No increase in the past six months. As of May 1, 1973 there were four staff and 23 volunteers.
5.	One staff and 10 volunteers.
6.	No. All those referred to in Part 5 have landed immigrant status.


STAFF OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What was the number of persons on the staff of the Prime Minister's Office in 1963, 1968 and 1973?
2.	What was the total budget for salaries in the Prime Minister's Office in each of those years?
3.	How many members of the staff in the Prime Minister's Office receive a salary of $20,000 a year or more?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. See
reply to question 3073 answered this day.
2.	Salary expenditure 1972-73, $1,002,442; Salary estimate
1973-74, $1,102,614.
3.	See reply to Question No. 3,072 answered on December 19, 1973 in the Votes and Proceedings No. 195, page 769.


PRIME MINISTER'S CAR
Mr. Stackhouse: What is the mileage per gallon of the automobile normally used by the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: See reply to Question No. 3,319 answered this day.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of National Health and Welfare on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO HOSPITALS IN CANADA
Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): 1.	What is the present government policy on providing financial support to hospitals in Canada?
2.	How much money has the government paid to provinces and/or municipalities for hospital (a) construction (b) facilities (c) research (d) teaching during the years 1960 to 1972 inclusive?
3.	What, if any, are the present financial commitments of the government for hospitals in Canada for (a) construction (b) facilities (c) research (d) teaching and what are the names of each hospital and where is each located?
4.	Does the government provide any grants to university medical faculties for (a) construction (b) facilities (c) research (d) teaching and, if so, how much and to which universities were amounts paid for the years 1960 to 1972 inclusive?
Return tabled.


ART BANK SHOW, PARIS, FRANCE
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many officials of the Canada Council (a) went (b) are going to attend the Art Bank Show in Paris, France?
2.	What are the (a) names (b) present positions of each such person?
3.	What is the cost involved in each case for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) per diem expenses?
4.	Are the spouses and/or families of each of those attending accompanying them in Paris and, if so, at what cost in each case?
5.	How many pieces of art from Canada (a) went (b) are going to the Art Bank Show in Paris, France?
6.	What was the cost involved for (a) gathering (b) handling (c) shipping (d) storage (e) insurance for Canadian exhibits at the Art Bank Show in Paris, France?
7.	What are the (a) names (b) addresses (c) work exhibited of each artist at, or going to the Art Bank Show in Paris, France at government expense?
8.	What in each case is the cost involved for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) per diem expenses for such artists?
9.	Are the spouses and/or families of such artists accompanying them in Paris and, if so, what is the cost involved in each case?
10.	Which government departments or agencies are bearing the costs involved and in what amount in each case?
Return tabled.
[Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan).J
January 7, 1974


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRAJECTOIRE 73, THE ART BANK SHOW, PARIS, FRANCE
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Who originated the idea of Canada participating in (a) Trajectoire 73 (b) the Art Bank Show in Paris, France?
2.	What are the present positions held by such persons?
3.	What means were used to contact artists to submit material for the purposes of gathering an exhibit for (a) Trajectoire 73 (b) the Art Bank Show?
4.	How was this accomplished?
5.	Who was responsible for the original decisions on which pieces would be submitted to the selection committees in each case for final choice?
6.	What are the qualifications and positions held by such people?
7.	What terms of reference were used in making such decisions?
8.	How many artists and from where, were originally contacted to submit material?
9.	What terms of reference were given to the final selection committee regarding the choice of material for exhibit at (a) Trajectoire 73 (b) the Art Bank Show?
Return tabled.


CONSTRUCTION OF AKONOLINGA BRIDGE (CAMEROON)
Mr. Stevens: 1.	With respect to the construction of the Akonolinga Bridge (Cameroon), what has been, to date, the total (a) study costs (b) design costs (c) construction costs (d) other costs?
2.	What portion of the total cost of the bridge was financed by Canadian aid and what portion of this aid took the form of a (a) loan (b) grant?
3.	What were the names, addresses and total remuneration paid to or billed by (a) consulting firms (b) architects (c) engineers (d) lawyers (e) contractors (f) project managers (g) others with respect to the project to date?
4.	What was the total cost of professional services expended on the project, including an estimate of government overhead costs related to the construction of the bridge?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO NISHNAWABI INSTITUTE
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	In each year 1968 to 1973, did the government advance by way of grant or loan any moneys to the Nishnawabi Institute and, if so (a) what was the amount or amounts of each such grant or loan for each year (b) by whom was money received (c) for what purpose?
2.	Did the government advance any money to Mrs. Lavell for the purpose of assisting her to pay the costs of the proceedings recently concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada and, if so, what was the total of such advances?
Return tabled.


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


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


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


CANADIAN CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION OF RHODESIAN REFUGEES
Mr. Wise: Does the government contribute to the education of Rhodesian refugees and, if so (a) who has control of the dispersement of such money (b) how was the money spent for the years 1969-72?
Return tabled.


ON-THE-JOB TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Stevens: 1.	What are government plans for further support for industrial on-the-job training and retraining?
2.	What is the ratio in Canada between such industrial on-the-job training and academic training?
3.	How does the Canadian ratio compare with that in the United Kingdom and in the United States?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Rodriguez: 1. (a) On what date did Canada become a member of the InterAmerican Development Bank (IADB) (b) did Canada contribute funds to the IADB prior to becoming a member (c) what was Canada's role in the IADB in terms of how its funds were disbursed prior to its

January 7, 1974
Order Paper Questions
becoming a member of IADB (d) what role does Canada play now that it is a member of IADB in relation to the disbursement of funds?
2.	(a) Did IADB receive any requests for new assistance from Chile from 1970 to 1973 and, if so (i) what was the total dollar value of these requests (ii) what position did Canada take in the consideration of these requests (b) what was the total dollar value of the requests approved by IADB for Chile during Allende's government (c) were the actions of IADB consistent with the policies of the government towards Chile during the years 1970 to 1973 (d) does any member of the IADB have a veto over IADB applications and, if so, which one(s)?
3.	What is the government's present policy towards loan credit applications through IADB and EDC under the present regime in Chile?
4.	What position was taken by the Canadian representative(s) to the IADB when it granted over $60 million in credits to the Chilean Junta after September 11, 1973?
Return tabled.


COST OF HEALTH CARE IN CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: For each of the past five years, what was the cost of health care in Canada in the form of (a) payments to physicians (b) hospitalization (c) payments for prescription drugs?
Return tabled.


MAINTENANCE OF STREETS IN HURON VILLAGE OF LORETTEVILLE
Mr. Godin: 1.	During the years 1966 to 1971 inclusive (a) what was the name of the contractor responsible for the maintenance of streets in the Huron Village of Loretteville (b) what was the total cost of maintenance and snow removal?
2.	For each year 1972 and 1973 (a) what was the cost for such works (b) what is the name and address of the contractor?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN WITHDRAWAL FROM ASSOCIATION OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMONWEALTH
Mr. Godin: Did Canada participate in any meeting of members of the Commonwealth in the past few years and, if so, has the question of our withdrawal from the Association been discussed?
Return tabled.


ACTION RESEARCH DEPARTMENT-GRANTS FOR OPERATION OF COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	Under the Action Research Program of the Secretary of State Department for each year 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973 to date, what was the total amount of grants made for the operation of Community Information Centres?
2.	(a) For each of the above years, what communities received grants and what was the amount of each grant (b) is this program still in effect?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the Bank of Canada saying that the extent of any price deceleration in Canada depends to an important degree on cost developments in Canada, and in view of the Prime Minister having said that any government that cannot cope with self-induced inflation deserves to be thrown out-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I would ask the Prime Minister whether the position taken by the Bank of Canada is also the position of the government, whether the government is preparing a comprehensive package of measures now and, if so, when will it be presented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the package to which the hon. member refers, if it were presented as a package, would be coming at the time of the Speech from the Throne.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the recent OECD study concluding that inflation in Canada has developed a momentum that can be offset only by a concerted anti-inflation program, is it the intention of the government to present such a comprehensive program at the meeting of finance ministers later this month?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the federal Minister of Finance will explain, the meeting at the end of January will, of course, go into economic problems and, not least, the inflation problem, but as to any announcement that might be made the Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until that time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is not only a question of my waiting but of the people of Canada who are waiting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The OECD study recommended as a first step that the government should set up-
Whereupon there was an interruption from the gallery.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is that your grandson?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not sure who is responsible for that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: It is a matter of timing.

January 7, 1974


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I can say, Sir, that if that was my grandson his voice is carrying all the way from Edmonton. But, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the-
Whereupon there was a further interruption.


John Napier Turner: Now you are terrifying the child.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know whether this is a new tactic being adopted by the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: It is working.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. In view of the suggestion in the OECD study that the government should set up consultative machinery, as a first step, involving government, farm, labour and business leaders to cope with inflationary pressures this year-


An hon. Member:: We did it four years ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Yes, they did it four years ago, but it is four years later than the hon. member thinks. Has the government given serious consideration to this proposal and, if so, is the government going to take this initiative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take as my text, "And a little child shall lead them".


Mr. Baldwin:: What do you think we have had for the last six years?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Some would think that is all we have got.


Mr. Hees:: You cannot be more childish than you have been, Pierre.


An hon. Member:: Better that than nothing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The consultation the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests is one which is going to be taking place at the federal-provincial conference at the end of the month, when the first ministers and then the ministers of finance meet. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that this process is one that we embarked upon in 1969 in order to attempt to come to grips with inflation, and it has never ceased being a matter of discussion every time there is a meeting with the premiers and the ministers of finance.


INQUIRY AS TO COMPLETION OF ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL AND FILING OF APPLICATION
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, without referring to the humble admission of the Prime Minister a moment ago may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the financial and other arrangements with regard to the pipeline to Montreal have been completed with Interprovincial or any other agency?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the House whether there is still discussion with regard to the route which the pipeline might take? Has it been settled that it will go from Sarnia to Montreal or is there still discussion of a route from Winnipeg or elsewhere through northern Ontario?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the route is still under discussion.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a final supplementary may I ask the minister when he expects that these discussions will be completed and when the hearings by the National Energy Board will take place? Can the minister assure the House that the construction of the pipeline will begin this coming spring rather than there being a disastrous delay of many months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the discussions would be completed within a matter of weeks and that the board might be in a position to accept an application in the spring.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell us when is the official inauguration of the Canadian embassy in Saudi Arabia, and also whether this embassy is opened in order to increase our country's oil buying power in Saudi Arabia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, discussions are now under way between the Saudi Arabian government and the Canadian government following my announcement of our intention to establish an office in Saudi Arabia.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour to follow up the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Given the fact that inflation does have some bearing on wage settlements, may I ask the minister whether he has issued guidelines to industry indicating what will be the minimum compensation for inflation in wage settlements and, if so, what are the minimum wage increases that he has in mind?

January 7, 1974
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not issued any such guidelines and I doubt very much whether they would have any impact. I have no legitimate authority to do so. This is a matter for the free, collective bargaining process which has worked adequately to date, I think.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact the Prime Minister has been stating that our inflation has been worldwide induced, has the minister conducted a study to ascertain what proportion of domestic inflation has led to wage disputes and what proportion of worldwide inflation has led to wage disputes? If so, when will it be completed and when will he table the results?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member should indicate what he considers to be a wage dispute. A sizeable percentage of claims in all areas where there is collective bargaining at the present time have been settled peacefully to the satisfaction of both parties.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga. Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member who has assumed the floor might be allowed a supplementary question after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Mississauga.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise, because of the seriousness of the matter, whether he will undertake to make such a study in order to determine in what proportions domestic and worldwide inflation are affecting wage settlements?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is so much data now in this area that it is hard to understand the hon. member. If the hon. member is suggesting that those representing labour want to be compensated for the inflationary factor, of course they do. When they bargain they take into account the cost of living aspect. That is a pretty rudimentary exercise which they go through at each collective bargaining session. They will continue to do so now as they have in the past and no doubt they will in future.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, to follow up the question of the Leader of the Opposition, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister indicate to the House how the inflation in the cost of new housing in Metropolitan Toronto, which is up 25 or 30 per cent over the cost one year ago, is related to international inflation? Has he done any studies on that, and can he tell us of the degree of international inflation with respect to housing?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has not.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Given the fact that the increase in shelter costs amounts to at least 31 per cent according to the Statistics Canada price index, surely the minister can give us an answer. Surely he can tell us the extent to which international inflation does or does not contribute-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is not a supplementary; it is argument.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As shortterm interest rates in this country are now higher than such rates in the United States for the first time since the summer of 1972, does the minister intend to ask the banks to roll back interest rates in this country, in other words, control interest rates in Canada?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the minister will not do that, will he undertake to amend the Bank Act to make it mandatory for banks to lend money to people on mortgages at interest rates no greater than 6 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think I have the hon. gentleman's views very clearly in mind.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It is in connection with the two recent appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada from the province of Quebec. Were those appointments given provincial government consideration before they were made?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is not our custom to discuss with provincial governments the persons we are considering for appointment, although quite frequently we are in touch with the appropriate provincial Attorneys General before the actual, formal announcement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask about the custom. Since the federal government, under the famed Victoria Charter of unlamented memory, accepted the principle that appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada should be made subject to provincial consideration, I ask whether in regard to those two appointments there was provincial consideration or whether the Victoria charter, so highly lauded, has died an unnatural death?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the proposals at Victoria, of course, went no further than that meeting and did not
January 7, 1974

result in a new arrangement in Canada. I meant to make it clear to the right hon. gentleman when I referred to "custom" that custom was followed in this case.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why it is so difficult to get a direct answer. I know the minister is anxious to answer the question. I ask him whether the Bourassa government was consulted in advance and gave consideration to those two appointments pursuant to the principle that this government stood for so strongly, namely, the need for reform in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, when the Victoria charter was up three years ago?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in order to give a clear answer to the right hon. gentleman, may I ignore the last three-quarters of his question and simply say no to the first part.


John George Diefenbaker: Then you broke your own agreement.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering the fact that General Motors and Ford of Canada announced layoffs on Friday exceeding 1,200 employees for an indefinite period of time, will the minister, if he has not done so already, obtain assurances from those companies that they will not transfer production of the largest vehicles they produce in both the United States and Canada from the United States to Canada and thus establish proportions different from what now exist?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have already had discussions with the automobile companies on this point. They have explained to us that the need for these layoffs is occasioned by inventory balancing. They have pointed out that the layoffs in Canada are relatively less than in the United States. The point the hon. member made in his question with regard to big car and small car balance has been made to them. I can assure him there is no indication the automobile companies are planning any change.


John Edward Broadbent: If he has not already done so, will the minister assure the House that in the near future he will discuss with the automotive companies the desirability of shifting their methods of production away from the largest vehicles to moderate and small size vehicles in the years ahead so they will not lose out the way they did a few years ago to Japanese and western European producers when small vehicles were first introduced on this continent on a large-scale basis?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the representations we have made plus consumer and market reaction over the past few years, and indeed the past few months, have made that point in spades.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


PROPOSED PASSENGER HEAD TAX-INFLATIONARY IMPACT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Have he or his officials calculated the inflationary impact of the proposed airport head tax coming at a time when it is proposed to increase air fares?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe that any increase either in taxes or airport operation costs will surely have an effect on prices.


COMBINES
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Can the minister tell the House whether he has received a request from the National Association of Confectionery and Tobacco Distributors for the amendment of the Combines Act in order to help small industries to survive? If so, what does he intend to do about the amendments suggested by the association in its request?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I did receive such a brief and the requests are being studied.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-PARTIES INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS-CAPACITY
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for York South. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources advise the House what specific group is negotiating on behalf of the federal government in connection with the oil pipeline to Montreal? Second, and this is part of the same question, are there any other groups that this group is negotiating with in addition to Interprovincial Pipelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House some weeks ago, the Deputy Minister of National Defence has been acting on secondment from his department for the purpose of assisting the government in this regard. At the moment, I think I would be correct in saying his discussions in terms of pipeline companies have been confined to Interprovincial Pipelines.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In these discussions the ex-Deputy Minister of National Defence is holding-
9100

January 7, 1974
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The present deputy
minister.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -has any decision been reached by the government as to the ultimate delivery capacity of this pipeline and as to the target delivery date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The maximum amount would be about 500,000 barrels a day. A factor which is obviously relevant to the discussion is whether full throughput will be sought at this time or perhaps half that amount.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In view of the fact that more than four months have elapsed since the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to proceed with this pipeline, may I ask what are the major obstacles in the way of reaching some agreement concerning the commencement of the project? Is it a matter of finance? Is the federal government being asked to put up some of the money and, if so, is this difficulty close to being resolved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say the major obstacle is the question of the route and on that basis, of course, the availability of supply.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-POSSIBLE FURTHER EXTENSION TO EAST COAST
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: In the
light of all the conversations which have taken place during the past two or three months, may I ask the minister whether the government has abandoned any consideration of extending this pipeline beyond Montreal to open salt water so that the four Atlantic provinces may enjoy some assurance of a 12 months supply of crude oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think I should tell the hon. member that while there might be some possibility of this being done in an emergency situation the current oil supply situation in Canada would not permit that kind of supply. However, the expansion of the pipeline network with further connecting pipelines to the east has been under very close scrutiny by the government.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the opinion of the Bank of Canada, as expressed on page 19 of its December review, that the extent of deceleration of living costs will depend to a very large extent on cost developments within Canada, will the minister advise the House whether he is prepared to take specific steps now to control domestic upward cost pres-

sures and, if so, what steps is he willing to take, and when?


John Napier Turner: That report draws attention to the complicated interaction between world demand-pull inflationary forces and the reaction in Canada of cost-push forces, and throughout the breadth of the report it is stated quite categorically that the sharp increase in oil prices plus the rise in commodity and food prices constitutes the primary thrust of inflation in this country.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister not agree that the reply he has just given amounts to nothing more nor less than gobbledygook and shows he has no idea what the problem is, and has no intention of doing anything about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argumentative.


George Harris Hees: It was intended to be.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that approximately 10 per cent of the Liberal-appointed Senators are spending most, if not all, their time in organizational activities for the Liberal Party, including Senators Molgat, Davey-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is apparently in the middle of his question but even at this point I have a number of procedural objections to it. I am sure he will appreciate that he cannot make allegations or statements by way of preface to his question. I would remind hon. members also that it is not entirely good form to attack, if I might use that word-possibly it is too strong-members of the other House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the hon. member can ask a supplementary to a question which is clearly out of order. The hon. member for Trinity.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the recent recommendation to the railroads by the Canadian Transport Commission that they decrease the loads in their freight cars and reduce their cruising speeds, has the hon. gentleman's department looked into the effect of this recommendation, if implemented, in terms of added industrial costs for transportation?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be prepared to make inquiries and convey this information to the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister at the same time give the House the benefit of his views as to the means by which unused production capacity in the automobile industry might be transferred at this time to the manufacture of boxcars and some of the other transportation equipment essential to the long-term reduction of costs in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that a statement of such importance ought to be made by the minister on motions.


WHEAT-REQUEST FOR INTERIM PAYMENT RELATED TO FINAL PRICE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice as minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that initial prices for grain were established, on wheat, for example, at $2.25, while the Wheat Board's asking price is now $8.34, which means a fantastic sum of money is not available to farmers for use in paying bills or meeting other needs, is the minister about to agree with the request of the Canadian Wheat Board, the wheat pools and the National Farmers Union that an interim payment be made related to the final payment?


Otto Emil Lang: We have received no such recommendation from the Wheat Board. We may look at this question in the days ahead but so far we have not given full consideration to it.


William George Knight: Since initial prices are far below the projected final prices as enunciated by the Wheat Board, can the minister tell the House what formula is presently being used to arrive at an initial price which is one-third of the final price as projected by the board and whether this formula will be changed so as to ensure that the initial price will represent a greater percentage of the final price in the present crop year?


Otto Emil Lang: The initial prices for the year were first set on March 1 and subsequently, on the basis of existing facts, on July 29 they were altered. Of course, it is not common under the pooling system to move these prices up and down from day to day. If that kind of system is preferred one goes to an open system rather than a board system. At the time these prices were set on July 29, as far as I know we had received a request from only one farm organization for prices higher than the March 1 price. Moreover, the prices set on July 29 were as high as, or higher than, those contained in any of the suggestions made to us at that time and therefore, surely, should have been considered satisfactory. None of the members opposite asked for a higher figure at that point-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions Mr. Speaker: Order, please.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Give us the formula!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Many weeks ago the minister received a report from the Canadian Transport Commission resulting from its study of passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario. Can the minister tell us whether he is in a position to release that report to the House this week?


Jean Marchand: As I
have stated, I have received a report and it has been communicated to all interested parties.


Some hon. Members:: Not to us.


Jean Marchand: This report will be made public because it is to be studied at the tri-level conference to be held soon in Ontario.


RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Can the minister tell the House when the policy proposals, which have been promised by the federal government for over a year now, with respect to the transportation needs of southwestern Ontario will be made public? He has been promising them for over a year but we have not seen them.


Jean Marchand: In order to give a complete answer I must point out that we have not yet received the third report of the CTC on this question of transportation in southwestern Ontario. As soon as we have it there will be no objection to the report being made public or tabled in the House. As for the delay, the year which has elapsed, I am not responsible. The CTC is the body which is supposed to inquire in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The
minister says he will have no objection to making the report public. In a letter he sent to me he promised it would be made public in October. Why has this not been done? Will he make the report public this week?


Jean Marchand: The simple reason is that I was told by the CTC many months ago that I would get the report in October, and I did not get it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member wants to know everything that happened which would justify the
26695-63J

January 7, 1974
Oral Questions
delay, I am ready to make a report. He will see that some members resigned and another died. There are all kinds of reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the hon. minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, but the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo rises on a question of privilege.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this. The minister has admitted several times that he received the report on December 4, and we have known that since then. Why is he now misleading the House, albeit unintentionally, by saying that he has not received it, or that people have died and so on? Will the minister release the report? He has had it for over a month.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that is not a question of privilege. The hon. member is asking a question that he has been asked previously. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


REQUEST THAT DISTRIBUTION OF PREMIUMS BY GASOLINE
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As a result of the constant rise, especially in Quebec, of the prices of heating oil and gas, does the minister intend to control or at least put a stop to any promotion campaign through the distribution of bonuses, premiums or gifts from wholesalers, retailers or distributors who are trying to draw a larger number of customers by increasing their production and operating costs accordingly and who are complaining afterwards that their margin of profits has become insufficient?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have no such power for the moment, but I will be pleased to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister had discussions with the Newfoundland government, either at the ministerial or public service level, with a view to postponing or delaying the implementation of the new fisheries licensing policy?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions both at the ministerial and official levels. The policy as announced in the House will be continued. However, the discussions will also have some effect on future action.


James Aloysius McGrath: By way of a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether there is any ongoing program or plan to provide more information to the fishermen and the public so they can more fully appreciate and understand the long-term implications of this program?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, local committees have in most instances already been set up and they will continue to explore the program and help it evolve.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS OF HOUSE AND COMMITTEES
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the throne speech opening this parliament one year ago the government said it would recommend to the House the broadcasting, by radio and television, of all or part of the proceedings of the House and the proceedings of committees. Does the government still intend to implement this promise and, if so, when?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this certainly was the intention of the government. I understand that the House leader on the government side had discussions many months ago on this subject with other House leaders and that he was not met with much enthusiasm for this suggestion. If we could have more vocal support for this resolution that the government is interested in putting forward, we would act with as much expediency as the House would allow. Perhaps the hon. member will raise the matter in his own caucus.
January 7, 1974


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
the plane, have they all been carefully screened, and will they be given landed immigrant status on arrival?

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture is not here, I shall put my question to his representative.
Last December I asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the troubling diminution of milk production which is forcing Canada to turn to importation, he would propose a subsidy increase in order to raise the prices paid to the producers. The minister replied that he was consulting with the National Advisory Committee. Can the House now be told whether this consultation has brought results and whether a subsidy increase will be announced shortly?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question and I am sure that the hon. minister will give an answer to the hon. member on his return.
* *
*


POST OFFICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It relates to a case involving a constituent of mine which I brought to his attention at the end of November. Would the Postmaster General inform me what possible legislative authority his officials have for intercepting mail to a citizen of this country and turning that mail over to officials of the Department of National Defence and the RCMP?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes; there will be a government aircraft proceeding to Chile on January 12. It is expected that it will bring back approximately 140 people who have been screened and interviewed and have passed the immigration requirements that I announced in the House, I believe in December. I think that completes the answer to the question.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question which I would direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask him whether the 50-odd people who were given refuge in the Canadian embassy will be among the 140-odd who are coming to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. All of these cases have now been discussed with the Chilean government, and of the group in the embassy 38 will be coming to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Greenwood on a supplementary, but I remind hon. members that we will be running short of time and I hope we will be able to limit the number of supplementaries between now and the end of the question period.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In connection with this whole question of admitting refugees and others from Chile, would the minister give the House an up to date statement on exactly how many have been admitted from various sources before the House recesses?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I recall that the hon. member brought a specific case to my attention. I would like to check my files once again before giving an answer to the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If the minister is going to check into this, will he also check into why the mail has not yet been released to my constituent?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the figure is changing on a daily basis, but I can say that there have been inquiries on behalf of 2,321 people, and that some 350-odd as of now have been processed. The rest of the cases are still under review. As I say, the situation changes every day. I will be glad to update the hon. member as changes take place, but one statement is not going to cover the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt for a final supplementary on this point and will then recognize the hon. member for High Park-Humb-er Valley.


IMMIGRATION
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has a government plane been dispatched, or will one shortly be dispatched, to Chile to bring back to Canada Chilean refugees? If so, how many will be aboard


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether the government is considering the establishment of scholarships for refugee students who would like to get out of Chile under the present regime?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, no such proposal has been before the government.
Oral Questions GRAIN

January 7, 1974


POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH ARAB STATES TO TRADE CANADIAN WHEAT FOR OIL
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the Prime Minister's reply to my question on Friday regarding the trading of our wheat for oil with the Arab states, arising from the recent sale of approximately $165 million worth, can the minister advise the House whether he or the government is prepared to negotiate with the Arab oil states in a manner similar to the recent French long-term agreement whereby that country has exchanged Mirage jets and other armaments for 40 million tons of oil for the next 20 years?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we do not have a closed mind to any particular commercial deal that might be available.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could reply to my question and state whether in fact he is negotiating a possible trade with the Arab states?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. There are no such negotiations at this moment.


ACTION TO EXPEDITE MOVEMENT OF LOADED BOXCARS FROM COUNTRY ELEVATOR SIDINGS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since we are 125 million bushels behind last year's shipment of grain from country elevators and since elevator agents are expected to load cars over weekends and in stormy weather, I should like to ask the minister why loaded boxcars are allowed to stand for weeks at a time on railway sidings?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very desirable situation. It is one that everyone seeks to avoid, and regrets when it happens occasionally. Ordinarily the railways have a schedule for picking up cars which does not envisage this happening but, of course, it can happen from time to time.


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister intend to hold consultations immediately with the railways to see what they can do to correct this situation and clear up the backlog?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad if the hon. member would give me the specific details of the situation to which he refers. We are having constant consultations with all persons involved in the grain movement to make sure that we have the maximum amount of grain equipment available.


AIRPORTS
Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the restrictions in the order in council setting up the Pickering airport inquiry commission, which confines the commission to only new evidence as to need and location, and in view of the discriminatory and unfair rules adopted by the commission relating to evidence, witness fees and expenses, would the minister consider redrawing the order in council to permit a fair and equitable public hearing on the whole question of the airport, which might not be the case if the present terms of reference prevail?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to believe that the terms of reference are unjust. That is the hon. member's opinion. I am not going to interfere. This is an independent board set up under the Inquiries Act. It has all the powers under the Inquiries Act and I am surely not going to interfere at this stage.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two for the Minister of Transport, albeit I gave him very brief notice at the opening of the House. Can he indicate the present status of negotiations between his department, the Department of Finance, the Treasury Board and the Maritime Employers Association with regard to the guaranteeing of loans of some $10 million or $12 million for that particular deficit operation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the last time I heard about that-and I can inquire between now and tomorrow-there was no agreement reached between the bank and the National Harbours Board which is negotiating now with the help of the Department of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, but we have run out of time and I will have to see the Leader of the Opposition before we call orders of the day.


J. Michael Forrestall: My concern, Mr. Speaker, which is embodied in my further supplementary to the Minister of Transport, is that something undue does not happen in light of the 75 cents per ton increase at the port of Halifax compared with the picking up of the $12 million deficit for the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec. What I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary is whether or not he can give the House his personal assurance that no private deal has been entered into with the Maritime Employers Association with regard to this deficit and that any arrangements that are entered into on his behalf or on behalf of the Minister of Finance

January ?, 1974

by the departmental officials will not be the result of prior arrangements made?


Jean Marchand: There were no prior arrangements made with the Maritime Employers Association. I think the only thing we are doing now is trying to respond to what the House decided which was that those men should go back to work and have a full guarantee of work. We are trying to carry out this obligation without charging anything to Halifax or to any other eastern port.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the
Opposition.


PROTECTION OF PRIVACY BILL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. With regard to the bill ordinarily referred to as the wiretapping bill, I should like to ask him whether it is the intention of the government to bring it back before the House and proceed with it to completion before the House recesses, in view of the amount of time, effort and good will which have gone into trying to produce this bill and in view of the importance of the subject?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it certainly is my hope that will be possible and that it will be done. There have been discussions in the co-operative spirit to which the Leader of the Opposition refers which have led to a possible method to get this very important piece of privacy legislation in place. I am having discussions with my colleague, the House leader, to determine the exact time this could be done, but certainly it would be my hope that we would pass it before we adjourn.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his discussions with the House leader is the Minister of Justice considering the possibility of sending the bill back to the Senate in the way we sent it to their Honours the first time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the discussions which I had in that spirit of co-operation which was referred to had led to the placing on the order paper of a very specific order of non-concurrence but with a new provision for notice in regard to the bill which seemed to me to meet the needs of the situation and the legitimate interests of all persons in the House and the other place. It is in that form I hope to proceed with it in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Oil Export Tax



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 4, consideration in committee of 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-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. Perhaps I could give the committee 30 seconds to settle itself before recognizing the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.
When the Committee rose on Friday, January 4, clause 2 of the bill was under consideration. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar had the attention of the committee.
On Clause 2-definitions.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Chairman, when I called it four o'clock on Friday, I had placed on the record the position of the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, as he had stated it previously, in respect of the control of oil in that province. I said I was somewhat concerned about the aggressive attitude expressed by the Prime Minister, and indeed by the Minister of Justice toward the premiers of the two western provinces which were primarily involved in the production of oil. The Prime Minister, in language which I am sure was most unusual, said that the premier of Alberta was caught with his pants down. He said that Mr. Lougheed is in a corner and knows it, so the best policy for him is to yell and to set up a smokescreen. Mr. Chairman, if there is to be any hope of holding a conference that would be useful and productive, then I suggest the Prime Minister of this country should write a little letter to the premier of Alberta indicating that he really did not intend to be that vulgar, rude and childish toward the premier of one of our provinces.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources accused the premier of Saskatchewan of blackmail. How does the minister expect to negotiate productively with the premier of that province in view of such accusations? The Ottawa Journal for Friday, December 28, contains an article in which the following statement is to be found:
Justice Minister Otto Lang declared Thursday that Alberta and Saskatchewan oil marketing legislation is ultra vires.
He also stated that the federal government will probably test the legislation in the courts, and if necessary would even use powers of disallowance on the provincial legislation.
In advance of any consultation, I am sure that even with the great powers that the minister has he had no time to digest properly the action which has been taken in the province of Saskatchewan to conserve the resources in that province, the only province which has moved to take control of the resources with the announced intention of seeing that they serve the people of Canada and the people of that province. But the Minister of Justice took no note of this. Contrast this action with that of the Minister of

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
Justice when the province of Quebec decided to stop the other provinces from selling eggs in Quebec. At that time the minister never took any action. It was the province of Manitoba which had to go to court to establish the right to trade anywhere in this country. Apparently the provinces of this nation are equal but some are more equal than others. I believe we must have a better record if we are to have a united country. I think the action of the Minister of Justice was unbecoming to a minister responsible for maintaining justice within this country. It was irresponsible to say the least.
I should like to quote again from the same issue of the Ottawa Journal:
If there is conflict, the Justice Minister added, there is no question the provincial legislation "will fall''.
So, the Minister of Justice hurls his thunderbolts at the various provinces, and then expects them to go into a conference to achieve useful legislation. The minister and the Prime Minister are carrying on a vendetta against these two provinces. A headline in the Ottawa Citizen of December 28 reads "Oil subsidy 'inevitable' for Eastern consumers". Why is it inevitable? It is up to the minister to prove that it is advisable, if he believes that is what he should establish. The trouble with this government is that it was not the premier of Alberta who was caught with his pants down; it was the federal government of Canada. They are the ones who were caught without a policy, and they are still not developing a policy that will serve the people of Canada. They are making only initial moves, and I sincerely hope that they will be guided by the good sense and foresight of the premier of Saskatchewan and will start to think in terms of conserving our energy as well as developing new methods of using energy efficiently. We must envisage increasing public ownership of refineries and pipelines even before we consider the ownership of the oil because the right of ownership of the oil lies with the province. The federal government can play a useful role in the control and development of our refineries and pipelines. On December 6, the Prime Minister said that the government will not necessarily act in the area of refineries.
Another matter which we should consider is an efficient transportation system. At present our transportation system is so inefficient that the Canadian Transport Commission has stated that the safety precautions and standards are not maintained. Our railroads should be electrified. England and other European countries are ahead of us in that they use electrical power to drive their trains. We are far advanced in the technology with regard to the use of atomic energy. Why then can we not, through that method, develop the energy needed to bring our railroads up to date, to electrify significant portions of our railways and to reduce the need for fuel oil in that important method of transportation? We should consider whether it is economical or even wise to move a large amount of freight by truck when our railroads can be electrified thus enabling large volumes of freight to be moved without the use of oil.
We should also seriously consider the advisability of moving a large volume of express freight by ground transport rather than by air because less oil would be used. Our railroads have become so inefficient that some customers

have told me they cannot depend on delivery schedules. Let us improve that method of transportation to the point where we can use it to a greater extent. If as a nation we insist on using energy, specifically oil, in such a wasterful and profligate fashion as we have in recent years, then I doubt very much if any method of development or exploration can keep supplies up to our growing demands. At no time has the responsible minister said that we have this or that proposal in mind in order to develop an on-going, progressive and imaginative policy for the use of energy in Canada.
We are fortunate in that we have enough energy. We have the know-how and the technology. What we need is a sensible and coherent plan to use our energy and technology effectively. That is our principal need. If we were in the situation of some other countries which do not have oil, then our position would be very serious, much more so than it is now.
We need to consider very carefully any proposed method of subsidization. I am not opposed in principle to a subsidy given to the eastern provinces, if this is thought desirable. But, Mr. Chairman, we should carefully consider whether we could do more for the Atlantic provinces by electrifying the railroads, thus giving those provinces a first class transportation system, rather than trying to subsidize every gallon of gas and diesel fuel that is consumed between Quebec and Newfoundland. We must seriously consider in what way Canada can most effectively use its resources and technology. We are not rich enough to be able to afford to fritter away these things. I do not think any country in the world is rich enough to be able to fritter away the resources with which it has been blessed.
In the main, I hope that the Prime Minister and some other ministers of the Crown will drop the provocative attitude that they have shown to the oil producing provinces, and in its place develop some constructive, imaginative ideas to place with good will before those provinces. I can certainly say for the province of Saskatchewan that if the federal government does that they will be met with good will and co-operation. I expect the same would apply to Alberta and British Columbia. That is my advice to the government. It is what I would like to see happen, because the government is asking parliament to give it the right and the power to negotiate with those provinces. We should insist on one clear condition when we give the government that right and power, that it exercise it in good faith and with good will.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, hon. members will recall the debate on second reading on Thursday and Friday last when I said that the government was hoping to have the flexibility it needed to negotiate the question of price, revenue and taxation at the federal-provincial conference of first ministers which will be held on January 22 and 23. On the other hand, I stated frankly to the House that the maximum figure attached to the export charge in this bill, $4, had already been outrun by international events and was no longer realistic, but according to the rules of the House there was no way I could see of amending the ways and means resolution to give me and the government the authority to move that
January 7, 1974

figure from $4 to $10, or indeed to amend the relevant clauses unless there was unanimous consent of the House.
It became clear from the tenor of the debate that unanimous consent might well be not forthcoming, and so in the face of the procedural obstacles with which the government found itself confronted, those obstacles paved the way for discussions and for the proposal which I will be placing before the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Obstacles are sometimes useful.


John Napier Turner: The obstacles which the government finds facing it are not obstacles of the texture of the House but the rules of the House.
I suggest for the consideration of the committee a proposal which, if it were to meet with unanimous consent, because we are dealing with ways and means, again would require the government to gain unanimous consent to amend the ways and means resolution to reflect what I am going to say. But, as I say, if the committee were to find this a reasonable proposition then you, Mr. Chairman, might want to take matters into your own hands and suggest ways of accomplishing it.
The proposal I put forward is that for February and March we add to Part II of the bill a provision to extend an export tax in the amount of $6.40 for each of those months; that Part I of the bill relating to the export charge, after those amendments were carried, be withdrawn with the consent of the House; that therefore the sharing of revenues as between the producing provinces and the federal government for the months of February and March be the same as for the months of October, November and December, 1973, and January, 1974, but that it be made clear-this does not appear in the bill-that the undertaking of my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as to the destination of the federal share of that split, representing 50 per cent of those revenues, will be invested by the federal government in western resources in accordance with the undertakings given at the Western Opportunities Conference, which applies for October, November, December and January-again I repeat which is not set forth in the bill but merely reflects an undertaking of my colleague, one that I confirmed categorically in the House on Friday-in those terms be not extended for February and March.
In other words, whereas the statute would divide the revenues for February and March in the same proportion of 50/50, the destination for those revenues given to the federal government after January 31, 1974, would be part of a negotiation at the federal-provincial conference. Again in other words, my colleague's undertaking and my undertaking would obtain until January 31, 1974. Thereafter, the federal share will have to form part of the negotiation at the federal-provincial conference.


David Lewis: Not thereafter-beforehand. Thereafter the results of your negotiations will apply.


John Napier Turner: That is right. Obviously, this arrangement would need the unanimous consent of the House. The government would need an amendment to the ways and means motion, and if that were granted with
Oil Export Tax
the Speaker in the chair, then in the appropriate clause we would deal with it. I suggest that I table at this time, in French and English, the suggested ways and means amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I think that the tabling should be done with Mr. Speaker in the chair. The minister has pointed out something that has occurred to me as well. The committee of the whole is the servant of the House and I, therefore, feel that a direction from the House itself is the preferable practice. May I give these reasons for that suggestion? First, we will be dealing in part with a different ways and means motion; second, we may be, and probably are, going to deal with something substantially different from what the House approved on second reading; and, third, the committee of the whole, as is the case with all other committees, is bound by its order of reference.
Perhaps many things are possible by unanimous consent, but taxation measures in my opinion require very strict adherence to established procedures. Accordingly, I think it is better that I rise, report progress, and ask leave for the committee to sit again later this day, at which time points of order can be dealt with.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I have no quarrel with your interpretation, but I think it would be very useful for the committee if we were to have some expression of opinion at the committee stage before we ask you to report to the Chair.
I will outline what I believe would be the most convenient way to proceed. If the committee were to reflect a feeling for unanimous consent to deal along the lines I have suggested then, of course, you would want to report it to the Speaker. After that, I suggest that the committee might want to pass clauses 1 and 2, one being the short title and two being the definitions clause, then stand clauses 3 to 10, export charge and move to amend clause 11 in the title, which is the clause amending the export tax for February and March, then carry clause 11 and part II, and clause 12 part III which is the apportionment, 50-50 clause, and then carry the title. I would then ask the committee to allow me unanimous consent to withdraw part I of the bill. That would be the procedure that I would suggest for the consideration of the committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on the point of order raised by the minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising on a point of order but to speak to clause 2 of the bill in committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   Chairman@: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the sequence of events is that the Minister of Finance announced something he wished to do which led Your Honour to rule that we should rise and
9108

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
report progress. Then, the minister suggested that before we rise to report progress he would like to hear from the parties on the procedural aspect only of what has been proposed. It seems to me that there should be a decision of some sort. Either we are on procedure, in which case we deal with that, or we are on substance, for who knows how long.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, we were invited by the minister to express ourselves on this proposition. I think that is a worth-while idea and the Leader of the Opposition will be putting forward our thoughts, perhaps at some length, but it certainly would be our party's position in so far as the proposition is concerned at this stage.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair would have to hear the opinions of hon. members on whether there was the consent necessary. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the procedure will take any longer than it would have otherwise. There are some things I want to say relating to the bill and to the conference that will follow the bill. At the outset, however, I must say how pleased I am that the Minister of Finance has, at the eleventh hour, become as reasonable as we have been trying to be in sorting out the difficulties relating to this bill.
I am most pleased that if things continue to go along the way they now seem to be going along, we will be able to defer consideration of the export charge clauses of this bill until after the upcoming federal-provincial conference. I do not want to be gratuitous toward the Minister of Finance; he only did what he did under heavy pressure of events and circumstances, but I do want to compliment him on the way he has behaved in discussions regarding petroleum. I saw the Minister of Finance in a television interview at the weekend, and it was my impression that he displayed a sense of realism and sense of national perspective. These qualities have been lamentably absent in some of the outbursts of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope that all the minister's colleagues will take a cue for future behaviour in this regard from him.


An hon. Member:: You would make a great opposition leader, John!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, the minister has made only one spurious reference in the pursuit of getting his bill passed. He indicated somehow that the federal government would be at a disadvantage, in some way would have its hands tied, if it had to face this conference without the export charges provision of the bill being endorsed by parliament. I have never felt that this was so, and I do not feel that way now.
In the first place, there is no way in absolute terms that this government can go to this conference at a disadvantage in terms of jurisdictional authority. It has every power it needs, and it has used a couple of these powers already on a temporary basis. There are others at its disposal as well. So, there was never any question of additional powers being required to meet the provinces of this country on an equal footing. I assure the House that we gave this point detailed and careful consideration

before adopting our position. Despite what the government said, we felt it really had no case and it would be wrong for us to extend any further provisional trust to the government on the basis of a non-existent case.
I further assure all hon. members that our position was not predicated on any narrow, regional or provincial interest. I must say I have been surprised by the horror expressed in some quarters when we voiced any concerns about the role and rights of the provinces. There has never been any suggestion on our part tfpt the provinces are, in effect, sovereign states, but they are not colonies either and their rightful claim deserves to find expression in this House.
There is unquestionably a basis for federal interest, a federal presence and a federal responsibility in the development and pricing of petroleum. No one has ever denied that, to my knowledge. In the present circumstances, there is no denying that a federal interest and federal presence must be involved in pricing policy and revenue sharing policy. Let that be very clear.
Canada has had a national oil policy since 1961, and it has served the country well. It was adopted under the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert which also established the National Energy Board. It has been that policy, Mr. Chairman, which has been serving the country. Had it not been for such a policy we would not have had the development, the delivery capabilities and the reserves on hand that make us the envy of a troubled world today.

Two main possibilities arise in the present oil situation which would influence these equalization payments. Ongoing, significant price disparity would be hurtful to the economies of the five eastern provinces, thus pushing them further below the national average. This could cause equalization payments to increase. Likewise, ongoing significant revenue increases to any wealthier province which would materially raise the national average of expenditures by provinces would cause equalization payments to increase. These increases are borne by the taxpayer; there is no other source. As I say, they are paid principally by the wealthier provinces.
For all these considerations, it is certainly agreed that a national policy must be put into place and that the federal government, through this parliament, has a large part to play and has a large responsibility, because this parliament is representative of the entire country. But the federal government does not properly play its part and properly discharge its responsibilities by acting arbitrarily; and, regrettably, this is how it has acted to date.

From the federal point of view, there seems to be three possible approaches to this matter.
The government could adopt a laisser-faire attitude, that is let the provinces establish their own prices-ignore the discrepancies in prices in some areas-and show no interest towards the millions of Canadians whose taxation burden would increase to compensate the increase in equalization payments.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, this alternative is not acceptable to any party in this House and is also inacceptable I believe in all areas of this country.

A second alternative for the federal government would be to take arbitrary and unilateral action through its existing powers, or seeking others, in order to impose its own will upon the whole country. I am not yet prepared to believe that any federal government would choose to select this approach; but I must say, sir, that many of the actions of this government up to this time have given my faith a sizeable shaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The third available alternative, surely the only acceptable one, is for the federal government to work out an approach in concert with all the provinces, and representatives of the territories should participate as well. This approach and its implementation, which would follow, would not be easy. But that approach would provide the basic necessity for good will and the finding of common ground which can provide renewed strength and purpose to Canada for generations to come.
In this process the provinces consuming Canadian crude oil must come to recognize the legitimate claims of the producing provinces which are entitled to get a reasonable return for their shrinking non-renewable resources. In pursuing my own understanding of this, sir, I looked at the example of the price for hydroelectricity, a renewable resource which is under Canadian public ownership. The price of hydroelectricity in Canada is about 3.5 mills per kilowatt hour; that is the lowest range. Taking its thermal
Oil Export Tax
energy content and equivalent price to hydroelectricity at 3 Vi mills, which is pretty cheap energy, a barrel of oil would bring a price of about $6. I am not suggesting that this should be the index. I am merely using this as an illustration of comparative value.
The oil producing provinces, as I say, are entitled to a reasonable return, and they are entitled to share in an adequate way in national development through federal policies that do not militate against their development and diversification while other, wealthier parts of the country use up the non-renewable resources of the producing provinces. I say that all Canadians in other parts of the country must come to better know and understand the plight of our five eastern provinces which are vulnerable to international oil prices and will continue to be vulnerable for years to come. On that point, I want to emphasize, for the benefit of anyone who may have the wrong impression, that the extension of the oil pipeline to Montreal, which should be completed in a couple of years, if they ever get the damn thing started-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: - will only initially ease about one third of this vulnerability in quantitative terms. In other words, about one third of the oil requirements of the five eastern provinces will go through that pipeline, according to present plans. Other new developments, such as reliable production from undersea discoveries off the Atlantic coast and other delivery systems will be necessary to make further inroads into the vulnerability of the five eastern provinces. And these prospects go much further into the future than a mere couple of years.
I have mentioned the interest of the large provinces in consuming domestic petroleum and of the concern of provinces over questions affecting the competitive position of their industries. They are concerned about the effect that equalization payments might have on taxes. As I say, in order to design a national oil policy for the years immediately ahead, a policy for the next decade, the role of the federal government must be one of leadership in bringing the whole thing together. I have conceded that this will not be an easy task. It will not be easy for the federal government, or for the provincial governments. But it is, surely, the only way to proceed, and I believe the prospects are very hopeful.
In the first two weeks of last October I travelled around the country and met with several provincial leaders, including those of Ontario and the four western provinces. You will recall, sir, that at that time all the elements of the world energy situation were already with us; only their magnitude has changed since then. The federal government had implemented a voluntary price freeze on domestic crude and had instituted its temporary export tax. Federal-provincial relationships were not at a high level. Yet in my discussions around the country I came to see many areas in which things could be worked out. I also saw the necessity for certain guiding principles which could form the basis of an accord, the basis for a new national oil policy to serve us in the immediate future. I previously expressed a number of these principles, but I think it would be worthwhile to summarize them in point form today. I think these are the kind of guiding princi-
26695-64'

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
pies which the federal government should take to the upcoming energy conference of first ministers.
First, there should be an objective of de facto national self-sufficiency. This involves the extension and modification of existing transmission systems and construction of new ones. At the optimum, it would also involve new production from undersea sources off the Atlantic coast. Second, there must be a better return, a realistic return, to the citizens of those provinces now producing from shrinking conventional petroleum reserves. The determination of a fair return should involve an examination and adjustment of federal transportation and development policies which would allow those provinces to diversify their economies. Third, an understanding should be reached on a fair price for oil from existing conventional petroleum reserves. This price should be below international prices, and it would be highly desirable if price increases up to the agreed price were phased in over a period of time to ease the impact on consumers.
Fourth, between the federal government and the producing provinces there should also be an understanding reached which would put into place a satisfactory flexible mechanism to administer export prices for petroleum and royalties and revenues derived from these export sales, rather than the federal government simply taking unilateral action. Fifth, there should be federal-provincial accord on appropriate levels of taxation and royalty schedules which would, at one and the same time, remove any prospect of massive windfall profits going to the oil companies but allow sufficient incentive to stimulate new production from new developments. Continued frontier exploration, undersea exploration and expanded development of petroleum in the tar sands and heavy oil deposits are the key to assured supply at stable prices in the future.
Sixth, until de facto self-sufficiency has been achieved, it will be necessary to apply some shelter to petroleum product prices in those parts of the country which are supplied from international sources. I say that with all respect to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar who just spoke. Seventh, in addition to providing development incentives in the existing private sector and providing the means for a national price shelter program, increased revenues to governments should be primarily dedicated to increasing Canadian participation in the ownership and development of new energy resources and the technology associated with such development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Eighth, federal incentive programs should be instituted to apply to the expansion of storage facilities in vulnerable communities throughout the country. It should be national policy to ensure that there is a minimum of 90-days supply held in storage at all times. Ninth, conservation must be a basic consideration of national petroleum policy. Governments must set a good example in their own operations and accept responsibility for generating public awareness of the urgency of conservation practices. We must all recognize, in the course of reshaping our economy and redirecting our way of life, that getting away from the profligate use of oil is just as

important as the discovery and development of new petroleum resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Tenth, at the upcoming first minister's conference on energy some ongoing national forum should be activated, a forum which would continue to bring together the jurisdictional and administrative groups involved in energy development in order to place national oil policy in broad perspective.
These principles are not represented as exhaustive, Mr. Chairman, although listening to them may be exhausting to the House. They deal with petroleum and they deal only with the needs of the immediate future. We all know that conservation is a very broad issue. My party takes a back seat to no one on this concern, and representatives of this party have been most emphatic in declaring the urgency of research and development of alternate sources of energy, alternatives to petroleum. Petroleum is a vital resource in the manufacture of many essential commodities. We owe it to future generations of Canadians to husband this resource with the utmost care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have not dealt with natural gas. It is rather amusing the way natural gas has stayed out of this whole controversy. It is a fuel which has been unrealistically underpriced for years. Revisions of natural gas policy will have to be undertaken in the very near future. It would be my hope that the successful negotiations and settlement of a national oil policy would bear dividends of goodwill when these revisions are undertaken. As an extension of that concept, I think there are other benefits to be derived as well if principles of sharing and fairness that are arrived at in the course of developing a national oil policy are extended to all the resources of all the regions of Canada.
For the time being, for our immediate needs vis-a-vis a new national oil policy, I hope the government will follow the principles I have outlined and, more important, I hope they will follow them in good spirit. Regarding the position which we have taken in respect to this bill before us, this matter of proceeding in good spirit concerns us deeply. The development of a national oil policy calls for federal consistency and federal consultation. However, the present federal government has provided us with a classic example of inconsistency and vacillation. It promulgated a voluntary freeze on domestic crude prices with an agreed and assured end date, then abandoned that for some hazy extentions of the freeze with no declared end date.
As a crowing price of shameful judgment this government, through the Prime Minister, put forward an unrealistic and savage policy early in December, a policy which left Quebec and the Atlantic provinces totally at the mercy of rising international prices. It was ludicrous and tragic that the Prime Minister added insult to injury by calling this travesty a "one-Canada" oil policy. As I indicated the other day, I was pleased to see the government withdrawing in principle from this abominable policy, although it turns out they have withdrawn to something quite unacceptable, if we can believe the Minis-
January 7, 1974

ter of Energy, Mines and Resources. Why did they ever announce such a thing in the first place? Why did the Prime Minister then try to cover it up with utterances about adequate help being available to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec through the Canada Assistance Plan and increased equalization payments? Why he said that, I do not know. Why the Liberal members from Quebec and the Maritimes said they would accept it, I will never understand. How could the Prime Minister say on December 6 that he was putting forward a "one Canada" oil policy? Given the immediate valid criticism with which we responded and the responses from the provincial governments involved in this announcement, why did it take another three weeks and another round of international price increases before the government abandoned the position it took on December 6, in principle at least?
What has replaced that position? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has apparently been the spokesman delegated to cover up the Prime Minister's policy in this regard. This minister says that in December a difference of 10 cents a gallon was thought to be tolerable, but that today a difference of 20 cents a gallon is not. It is truly incredible, particularly in relation to the ongoing, permanent power the government was seeking from parliament through this omnibus bill, that a savage policy in the course of being reversed would bring forth an explanation which only reconfirms the intended savagery of the original policy. We have been given precious little in the way of information by the government, but we do now have this bit: the government believed, and still believes, that for years into the future it will remain tolerable for Canadians in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces to pay 10 cents a gallon more for gasoline, heating oil and other fuels than anyone else in the country, quite apart from any differential brought about by provincial taxes. This is the new, revised "one Canada" policy and this is the kind of approach we are expected to endorse by granting extended permanent powers to the government. We cannot and we will not ever endorse, accept or lend a shred of support to that kind of thinking.
Over the past few months, I have talked about specific price shelters and I have talked about a general shelter which would narrow the price disparity gap to a range of from 50 cents to a dollar between a barrel of domestic crude and a barrel of imported crude. That is the sort of disparity which worked the other way for a number of years. It must be remembered that we are talking, now, about a disparity which will continue into the future, a disparity which will not be remedied even when the pipeline is extended; a disparity which under the best of circumstances will not be overcome by de facto self-sufficiency for close to a decade. The government says it is tolerable that this disparity should amount to 10 cents a gallon on heating oil and oil used by industry generally. We say the maximum allowable disparity at the present time, based on a gap of 50 cents to a dollar per barrel, should be something less than 5 cents per gallon, and we maintain that the relationship of this order must be maintained for years into the future until self-sufficiency is achieved. That is our approach to national policy.
Oil Export Tax
I hasten to add that I am not engaging in any auction here. I repeatedly put forward this figure long before the minister invented and disclosed his figure a week or so ago in the course of fabricating a cover-up for the Prime Minister's folly of December 6. A gap of 10 cents a gallon is, of course, not tolerable at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To quote the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that would be a real kick in the pants-I think that was the expression he used. This discriminatory approach on the part of the government is monstrous. It must be obvious that if the government is looking for a gap of 10 cents a gallon it might as well close down the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and provincial development agencies might as well throw in the towel, too. With a 10 cent a gallon penalty for locating in one of those provinces, a petroleum-fueled industry could not be attracted there for love nor money. It is surely absurd to think that new industries, and existing ones, would not look for more desirable locations.
This insanity is all we really know about the government's approach to national pricing policy. I would think that this, in itself, would be enough to demonstrate the need for the government to meet with the provinces, as we have insisted it should. This in itself is enough to explain why the government must be exposed to reality, why it must reveal the balance of its intentions before any member is asked to give it support for any aspect of its so-called national oil policy.
In the course of the debate on the bill before us, I have been encouraged to find that the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands has expressed on behalf of his party concern similar to that which I have expressed, that is, concern about the lack of information and doubt as to the real intentions of the government. He and I do not see eye to eye on all aspects of policy, but we do share some legitimate suspicions and reservations with regard to the future-oriented section of this bill. At least both our parties-and I say this with sincerity-have been consistent in the principles we have expressed on the subject of petroleum. Some supporters of the hon. gentleman's party, like some Canadians who support mine nationally, bear the burden of provincial office. But I know that they, like the supporters of all parties and the supporters of the independent members of this House, are prepared to put the national interest first. I am speaking, now, of men bearing provincial responsibilities. To do this, however, they must know the proposed ground rules and they must be convinced of the underlying sense of fairness which makes national policy work.


Mr. Paproski:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: From the time the government introduced this bill right up to the present moment it has failed to satisfy either of these requirements. There was, therefore, no way in which we could have given even provisional support to the section of the bill related to the on-going export charge. We offered the government every possible kind of compromise so as to expedite the other sections of the bill and defer that section for consideration at the conclusion of the federal-provincial conference. Because

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
the government ended up being the victim of its own tangled web of changing policy, it was faced with a situation in which the unanimous consent of the House was required to amend a clause in the future export charge section. Thus, it was forced to abandon a schedule which would have seen that section dealt with and brought to a conclusion prior to the up-coming conference of first ministers. I know the Minister of Finance cannot be happy about landing in the position he did, but I at least hope he takes some wry comfort from the fact that he ended up in a position of poetic justice. My colleagues and I have always tried to ensure that justice prevails, particularly poetic justice.
In the days ahead we will continue to do our utmost to ensure continuing justice in the development of a national oil policy, a national energy policy worthy of the name. Certainly, I give my consent to the proposals of the minister, and I hope the House gives its unanimous consent. If it does, I intend to support the bill with the changes made by the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks regarding the proposals which have been put before the committee by the Minister of Finance. When this measure was introduced by the minister last Thursday, on behalf of the members of the New Democratic Party I expressed the very serious reservations we had with respect to some features of Bill C-245. As I said then, we were, and we still are, in complete support of the idea of the export tax. We want to see the legislation passed as quickly as possible, and to have it passed before the first ministers' conference so that the federal government and the oil producing provinces will know exactly where they stand in regard to collecting that tax and to distributing the proceeds from it.
With reference to Part I of the legislation, which provides for the imposition of an export charge, I pointed out on Thursday, and I want to underline again today, that we are in favour of the principle of an export charge. In the present world situation, when world prices have become completely unrealistic and are soaring to unheard of heights, certainly the additional money that comes from exports of oil ought not to go to the oil companies but back to the treasures of the federal and provincial governments. Our quarrel has not been with the principle of an export charge. The objection I raised was to the fact that the federal government was asking us to agree to the imposition of a charge without being able to outline the basis upon which that charge would be levied, without being able to tell us the price structure upon which it would be predicated, and without being able to tell us anything about how the proceeds from that charge would be distributed as between the federal and provincial governments.
In answer to some questions I asked him last Friday, the minister said that it was impossible to give that information prior to the meeting of first ministers, and undoubtedly the minister was quite right. This will require a good deal of hard bargaining and negotiation, and we cannot expect the minister to be able to give us that information. But neither should the minister expect us to agree to give

the federal government powers to levy tremendous sums of money without telling us any of the details about how the money will be collected or distributed. Therefore, I think the minister has made a very wise choice and I want to commend him for it.
It is not easy to have to come into this House and say that he is prepared to emasculate a bill that he wanted to have passed and take with him to the first ministers' conference and to the meeting of ministers of finance. I do not agree with his feeling that this weakens his hand. I do not think it weakens his hand at all. If the minister is able to go to that conference having authority from parliament with respect to the export tax, and if he has the assurance of at least the majority of the members of this House who are favourable to the principle of an export charge, then he is in a position to negotiate with the provinces. But it also puts us in the position that when that conference has been completed and agreements have been reached we will be able in good conscience to deal with legislation that is based on definite information, and we will know the terms and conditions on which this money is going to be raised.
The matter that has concerned us most is that the federal government has never clearly stated what its intentions are when the price freeze is lifted at the end of the winter season. Certainly, indications are that the government is going to remove the freeze. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the price would probably double by the middle of summer to $8 or $10 a barrel. The Minister of Finance said last Friday that the domestic price would probably track the international price. I take this to mean that the government proposes to let the price rise to something close to the world price, but we have the right to know. We will want to know, when the minister brings back legislation regarding this matter, by how much he is going to allow the price to rise, and. who is going to get the benefit of this increase in price.
In my opinion, there are only two reasons for allowing the price of domestically produced oil in this country to rise. The first is if the oil companies can demonstrate that the cost of production has risen. Certainly then, of course, they should be allowed to increase the price to meet their increased costs. The second reason is if governments, federally and provincially, are prepared to say that the price shall rise sufficiently to enable the federal and provincial governments to build up a fund for the development of our future oil needs. That, too, makes sense. I believe the Canadian people would accept the idea, and would pay more for their petroleum products, if they were told that the money is to be used to ensure that ten years from now petroleum products will be produced in Canada and will be controlled by Canadian authorities.
However, if this increase in the domestic price is for the purpose of allowing oil companies either to increase their already excessive profits or the increase is given them on the assumption they will use these funds for exploration and development, then I for one would not be agreeable to such an increase. In the first place, I doubt very much whether we would get any guarantee that the increased revenue the oil companies would receive would be used to develop oil resources in Canada. Secondly, I know that the funds used for the development of oil resources would be deductible from their corporation tax, and would increase
January 7, 1974

tremendously the value of their assets. This committee should stop and think for a moment about what has happened to the assets they now have in the ground, ten billion barrels of oil which have increased in value by $6.50 a barrel. If we are to allow them to milk the consumers in order to increase even further the value of their assets and allow them to deduct that amount from their taxes, then what we will be doing will be making the consumers and the taxpayers of Canada pay for the discovery of oil resources which, in the final analysis, will belong to the same multinational corporations which control 91 per cent of the oil resources of this country at the present time.
That, Mr. Chairman, is why we have been very much concerned about this legislation. It is not because we object to the principle of an export charge, but because the government has given no indication of the price structure upon which the charge will be levied. The government has given us no idea what its intentions are, and the minister says he cannot give us any information until after the first ministers' conference. Therefore, I think the minister is taking the wise course in delaying discussion and decision in respect of the export charge until after the first ministers' conference has reached some agreement.
The matter we are discussing, will be discussing further today and will be discussing when the minister brings back legislation for an export charge, is very fundamental to this country. If what has happened in this country, and in other countries in recent months, is any indication of how vital oil supplies are in respect of the survival of a nation, this surely ought to awaken us to the need for a national oil policy which must concern itself with three things. First of all, it must concern itself with supply. As I have said in this House very often, we are one of the few countries in the world which can produce sufficient oil to meet our needs. However, the problem of supply has been difficult because of the policy which my Conservative friends adopted in 1961 by which more than a third of Canada is entirely dependant on imported oil and by which we committed ourselves to export 60 per cent of our oil supplies to the United States. That situation will have to be rectified.
When the Leader of the Opposition and other members talk about making Canada self-sufficient in oil I agree with them, but I hope they realize what that means. This means that increasingly we must phase out our export of oil to the United States, not because we want to but because we have no choice, until such a time as the oil sands are developed or another source of oil is found. We are exporting at the present time about one million barrels of oil a day to the United States and were exporting about one and a quarter million barrels a day. Our requirements in eastern Canada are 800,000 barrels a day. We cannot supply eastern Canada and at the same time export one million to one and a quarter million barrels of oil to the United States. We will have to make this decision consciously, and tell our American friends that if we are to become self-sufficient in respect of oil we will have, over a period of years, to phase out our exports to the United States.
Oil Export Tax
The other thing that policy means is we will have to extend the pipeline not only to Montreal but to the maritime provinces, unless offshore oil should become cheaper than Canadian oil which I do not think anyone in his wildest dream thinks will happen. The OPEC countries are discussing a price of $20 a barrel and Venezuela is discussing a price of $18.04 a barrel. So, if we are to supply eastern Canada with oil and protect the consumers in that part of the country against these exorbitant prices for imported oil, we will have to extend the pipeline. I was dismayed today when I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say, in answer to a question from the leader of our party, that the National Energy Board probably will not be ready to hear applications until the spring of this year. After those applications have been heard and after a permit is granted, the right-of-way will have to be bought and the pipe manufactured, processed and put in place. I say that if that happens the government had better get ready to move its target date to 1976 rather than 1975. This would mean that eastern Canada would go through two more winters of the kind of uncertainty through which it is going at the present time. I do not think there is any excuse for that kind of delay.
The second matter to be considered in a national oil policy is the whole question of price. We have been concerned about price mainly in respect of the area west of the Ottawa Valley. Thought must now be given to the price problem in eastern Canada. East of the Ottawa Valley, consumers have been at the mercy of the importing oil companies. They have had to pay very high prices. I have suggested on behalf of this party repeatedly that we ought to set up a national petroleum company. The government may call it a national marketing board. We do not care what the terminology is. We should set up a national mechanism for the purchase of domestic and imported oil so that it could be pooled and the price equalized across this country. Until the pipeline is built we should be prepared, out of the federal treasury or out of some of the proceeds from the export charge, to subsidize the price in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces because I believe the people of Canada have not only a responsibility but a duty to see that the people in eastern Canada are not made to pay exorbitant prices at this time of crisis. I do not think the people west of the Ottawa Valley line would object to pooling the price if they knew that this would make the situation fair for the people east of the Ottawa Valley line. What they would not take kindly to is a raising of the price merely to increase the profits of the oil companies.
The third thing that is necessary in this national oil policy is that we give some thought, when we are discussing the apportionment of the revenue from the export charge, to the setting up of earmarked funds for the development of future oil supplies. If we are not very careful, the time will slip away and we will find ourselves in a crisis situation when the available supplies of conventional oil are not adequate to meet our needs. When that happens there will be a cry for a crash program. I ask members of the committee to mark my words that the day will come when, no matter what government sits on the treasury benches, it will be saying to Parliament and the Canadian people that our oil supplies are diminishing, that international prices are drastically high and that, therefore, we must have a crash program to develop our oil

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
sands. They will say the only way we can do it quickly is to give to the multinational corporations special tax concessions, the right to export the oil, to tell the American and other international oil companies: if you will come in and do us the great favour of developing our oil sands, we will let you take the oil back home and we will let you control the oil industry in Canada. If we do that, we will have betrayed our trust, not only to this generation but to future generations.


Mr. Bawden:: What did you do in Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can tell the hon. member what they have done in Saskatchewan. They had the courage to do something that no Tory government has ever had the courage to do. They have set up a provincial petroleum company. They have told the oil companies: You will get $3.38 a barrel providing you spend 30 cents a barrel on development, and the rest will go into the treasury of the province of Saskatchewan to help develop oil resources for the future. When any Tory government in Canada is prepared to do that, in my opinion they will have justified themselves. But I do not see any indication of their doing that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I close by saying that if I understand the minister correctly, he is suggesting that the export tax that is set out in Part II of the bill be extended to cover the months of February and March, and that the amount of the tax will be $6.40 a barrel. He is suggesting that Part I of the bill dealing with the export charge will be withdrawn. He is suggesting that the division of the export tax, namely, 50 per cent to the oil producing provinces, will be continued. The only proviso he is making is that in the months of February and March the federal government make no commitment as to what disposition will be made of its 50 per cent. That is understandable in view of the fact that the minister is going into a conference with first ministers, and I take it this is a matter for negotiation and discussion.
I think that is an eminently sensible proposal. I think it does the things which we advocated last Thursday, namely that we approve the export tax, that we make that export tax effective until the end of March, and that in the meantime we defer the export charge until after the first minister's conference at which time the Minister of Finance, if he so desires, can bring that legislation back to the House. At that time, we will be in a better position to discuss it because the minister will be able to give us the information which he is not able to give us at present. My colleagues and I would be prepared to follow the course which the minister has outlined.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to repeat the remarks I made when this bill was introduced. However it remains that a bill dealing with provincial interests obviously requires the agreement of the provinces.
In view of the fact that oil production is concentrated in one or two provinces and that we have a problem to settle urgently there is some danger, as I said last Thursday, that a crisis situation is exploited to create precedents which

we might regret later on. If next year or in two or three years oil wells were operated in the province of Quebec for instance I wonder what would happen if such a bill were adopted. This could very well happen since it seems that if we are short of oil today this is simply due to the negligence of oil companies which have not made the required efforts to develop oil operations in Quebec. Some day we might find ourselves in a situation where not only one or two provinces would have oil but several provinces. Then will all the provinces behave similarly as regards this bill? It was therefore absolutely normal to have the provincial agreement and to negotiate with the provinces a true agreement free from any problem.
Naturally we understand the intent of this bill which however, is not auite explicit and we deplore that we have to admit a certain price uniformity for oil throughout the country. Of course, that is a goal that should be reached. Are we going to reach it through this exercise? Some have doubts about it but once again it is worth repeating that if we are faced with such a situation it is because the government lacked wisdom, foresight, to say the least, since it is quite paradoxal to have an oil shortage in a country such as ours which is itself an oil producing country. We are still wondering how can such a situation arise.
We realize that it is now urgent to try to remedy that but it is also worth pointing out that a lot more foresight should always be present since that is the role of a government. That is why too great haste implementing such a bill could subsequently result in a lack of wisdom and foresight.
Mr. Chairman, everyone understands that in all parts of this country, whether it be the west or the east, it is extremely important that all Canadians have the same facilities, the same possibilities and, as the hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), said, it is entirely unacceptable to have different prices in the eastern and western parts of this country. But this government seems to accept that situation, and it does so not only in this field since it exists in others as well. For example, I have here an editorial published in the December release of the magazine Le meunier quebecois where Mr. Rene Blanchard relate those differences in prices in the fields of oil and feed grains. Apparently this government likes to foster inequality within our country, which is clearly detrimental to understanding and unity among Canadians. In order to spare the House's time, I shall give a summary of the editorial. The author points out that the two price policy is causing ever more dissatisfaction among Canadians. They will not accept this policy any longer. That is why, as the author states in his conclusion, if we make the necessary efforts to come up with a single price for oil, we could certainly do the same for feed grains, for instance, and wherever necessary resources are readily available. This way we could favour an adequate distribution of goods throughout our country, and not at the expense of such and such regions.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, we hesitated considerably about the bill, and we will be satisfied with the policies put forth on the matter only to the extent where the opinions of the provinces have been considered, in order
January 7, 1974

that the bill that is passed can co-ordinate the field of oil, although this too might create a precedent from which other difficulties might arise.
That is why I pointed out again last Thursday that we are now up against the problem in the field of energy: today we are dealing with oil, tomorrow we may deal with electricity. And I can foresee the dreadful dilemma we could face if a federal tax were to be levied on exports of electricity. Quebec produces an abundance of electricity; it has to export some and it does so. Again we see the type of conflict that could crop up.
So, before creating a precedent, before taking a step in that field, it is imperative that there be previous agreement with the provinces.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Is it agreed that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Your Honour, the purpose of seeking consent to return to this situation with the Speaker in the Chair is to seek concurrence in a ways and means motion that would have the effect of further amending the excise tax. The wording of the ways and means motion is as follows:
That the Excise Tax Act be further amended to provide among other things that in respect of the export of crude oil from Canada during the period commencing on February 1, 1974 and ending on April 1, 1974, a tax be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of crude oil so exported, at the rate of $6.40 per barrel, to be paid by the person holding a licence under Part VI of the National Energy Board Act for the exportation of oil from Canada and under whose licence the crude oil is purported to be exported.
With consent, Mr. Speaker, the motion might be put, and if put we could go back to the committee of the whole and be in a position then to deal with amendments that would be made possible by the acceptance of the ways and means motion.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept this amendment, as agreed upon earlier in our negotiations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is in accordance with the discussions that have taken place. We are prepared to give the necessary unanimous consent to deal with this motion.


René Matte: We also agree, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I move the amendment previously outlined.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. MacEachen) agreed to.
House in committee on Bill C-245, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, to impose an oil
Oil Export Tax
export tax under the Excise Tax Act and to allocate certain of the revenues derived from the oil export tax-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.


Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose to report progress it was considering clause 2.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause 2 agreed to.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I would now submit to the committee that clauses 3 to 10 inclusive should stand until we deal with the subsequent clauses.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that clauses 3 to 10 inclusive be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 3 to 10 inclusive stand.
On clause 11

Definitions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to propose to clause 11. I move: that Clause II of Bill C-245 be amended
(a)	by striking out the word "and" at the end of line 31 on page 6;
and
(b)	by striking out line 35 on page 6 and substituting therefor the
following:
"of two dollars and twenty cents; and
(d) in the period commencing on the 1st day of February, 1974 and ending on the 1st day of April, 1974, a tax of six dollars and forty cents."


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. In accordance with the provisions of the amended ways and means motion the President of the Privy Council has moved the said amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to participate in these deliberations I want, first of all, to say that I am pleased, as are all members of this party, that we have been able to reach this accommodation with the Minister of Finance in respect of this bill. We can only hope that this is the first of a series of steps that are necessary to clear up a chaotic energy situation in Canada.
At a time when Canada, of all countries in the western world, should be in a position to take advantage of being the only country that is self-sufficient in crude oil, we have bickering, arguing, uncertainty and flip-flops by various government spokesmen announcing changes of policy from day to day. There is apparently a constitutional confrontation between the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the federal government. This commodity is, supposedly, within the jurisdiction of the provinces, yet the initiative has been taken by the federal government; this has caused dissension and uncertainty and instead of looking forward to tremendous opportunities, we find ourselves trying to sort out this chaotic situation.

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
In his remarks on Thursday, the Minister of Finance dealt with the question posed by the premiers of both Alberta and Saskatchewan as to why he singled out oil for special treatment in this supposed fight against inflation. His reasons are reported at pages 9013 and 9014 of Hansard as follows:
In the first place, oil plays a unique and almost unparalleled role in our national life.
There is no argument about that, Mr. Chairman; the statement was as true a year ago as it is today, and it has been true for many years. There is no particular reason that answer should cause the government to jump in at this time with various policy statements and bills such as C-245 and C-236 which were brought forward in a most haphazard fashion. Then, he said:
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.
That was the second reason for the government taking the initiatives it has, and the third reason he gave was:
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.
There is no question but that is an important consideration as well. However, it is well to consider the political situation existing in Canada. The situation with regard to energy basically stems from a statement made by the Prime Minister on September 4, 1973 when he called for a freeze on the price of domestically produced oil. That freeze was imposed before the Middle East conflict and before any Arab embargo or any steep rise in the price of oil. In other words, it was imposed before any of three reasons given by the Minister of Finance were valid. We are in this chaotic situation today as a result of a short sighted political move made by the Prime Minister on September 4 when he announced unilaterally, and without the consultation that had been promised by the government in its energy analysis of July, 1973, that the price would be frozen until the end of January. I do not bring this up now in order to say "I told you so" nor to remind the government of its blunders, but you cannot appreciate where you are going if you do not know where you have been.
I think it is very important that we examine the history of the energy situation in Canada before the first ministers conference. I believe that many of the difficulties we now face have less to do with the government's attempt to formulate a new oil policy than with its attempt to assume control of energy resources in Canada. In my short time in this parliament it has become obvious to me that in many ways the motivations of the government, of ministers and senior executives in departments are similar to the motivations encountered in big business, namely growth. What they seek is power and control. In order to carry out our responsibility as members of parliament, it is incumbent upon each of us to examine these power plays very carefully. As many hon. members have pointed out, big business can tread on the toes of small people and this is also true of big government. A power play, such as that which the government is apparently engaging in now, is not likely to serve the interests of the people of Canada.
[Mr. Andre.l
The government has no reason to assume that the provinces have mismanaged the resource industry. Canada is the only country that is self-sufficient in oil; we produce more than we can consume. This condition was brought about through the progressive administration of the resource industries by the producing provinces. I do not state this from any partisan point of view, since the oil industry in Alberta grew under the direction of a Social Credit government; so, the federal government has no reason to assume that the provinces have mismanaged the oil industry.
The Oil and Gas Conservation Board of Alberta has rules and regulations to deal with leases and production and these have been copied by many legislatures throughout the world. In comparison, we might look at the federal government's management of areas like the far north and our offshore resources where we are still waiting for Land Use Regulations after three years, and apparently will have to wait much longer. One has to ask why the federal government is being so aggressive in seeking to take control of the resource industries from the provinces. Why is the Minister of Justice threatening the provinces with legal action if they insist on enacting the sort of legislation that has been brought before the respective legislatures of Saskatchewan and Alberta? It has been suggested to me privately by senior officials of the government, and publicly as well, that as a federal member of parliament it is my duty to side with the federal government in this power play with the provinces. Sir, that is totally unacceptable. It is my view that members of parliament in this House ought to be concerned about the interests of Canadians in all parts of the country. I submit that the interests of Canadians are not being served by the present actions of the federal government; nor have they been so served in the past.
Why do I say that? In view of the fluid world energy situation, with prices changing almost daily, with the supply situation changing almost daily, this is the very worst moment in time for the federal and provincial governments to engage in constitutional confrontation. It appears that the federal government has introduced this bill because it wants a cudgel, some sort of weapon it can take to the first ministers conference, for beating the provinces into submission. This is a most improper view of the purpose of that first ministers conference. Apparently the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources view that conference as an adversary forum in which they will be fighting with the first ministers of the provinces and the most powerful group will emerge victorious. I suggest that view is completely inappropriate.
The forum in which the final decision will be made is the forum in which I am now speaking. The purpose of the first ministers conference is that it will enable provincial and federal representatives to work out, in a spirit of co-operation, matters concerning all Canadians. They should not adopt irrevocable, non-negotiable positions but, rather, work from positions of common interest which are of concern to Canadians in all parts of this country. Further, any decisions, agreements or accommodations reached at that conference must be brought back to this House for approval. The fight between the federal govern-
January 7, 1974

ment and the provinces, which has resulted in the Prime Minister calling the Premier of Alberta insulting names and in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources making certain public commitments which he has reversed, or which the Prime Minister has reversed for him, is damaging to Canadians in all parts of this country.
Confidence in the oil industry today is at an all-time low. I repeat, in expressing concern about the industry, I am not concerned about owners or shareholders. As I said on another occasion, there are probably more shareholders in those companies living in the constituencies of Mount Royal, Rosemount or even Ottawa-Carleton, than in Calgary Centre. I am concerned about the thousands of ordinary Canadians who are making their living in this industry. As a result of this lack of confidence, many are finding that their jobs are in jeopardy. Indeed, some have lost their jobs. This is of concern to me, because many of these people live in my constituency; I am expressing their views. Moreover, sir, the question of lack of confidence is of concern to all Canadians, even to those who are not even remotely connected with the energy industry. We must all be concerned about the future of the industry, and the degree of exploration which is taking place. The degree of exploration is being reduced and will be reduced to an alarming degree unless industry confidence is restored.
During the Christmas recess I made it my business to consult with a number of spokesmen for the industry. I talked to industrial associations and tried to assess what was happening. Many expressed the view to me that next year there will be a 40 per cent reduction in exploration by oil companies in western Canada. I am referring to the area south of the sixtieth parallel but north of the North American border. If they are right, the implications for the future are tremendously important. Production from conventional sources can be expected to decrease over the next few years. Unless we find new, conventional sources of energy, we shall become net importers of crude oil and suffer from all the problems which are plaguing Britain, the United States, the Netherlands and other countries.
We cannot rely entirely on the tar sands to overcome this problem. At the very best, under optimum conditions, a tar sands plant can only be brought on stream every two years. Even in these circumstances, even if a new plant were brought on stream every two years, each plant to produce 100,000 barrels per day-and this would require major effort and cost and would bring great stress and dislocation to the economy-we should be lucky if we could keep up with the growth in Canadian consumption. We could not produce the increased supplies of tar sands oil that would be necessary to make up for the decrease in production from conventional sources. That being so, I submit that it is exceedingly important, in considering pricing and supply, for government attitudes to be made clear at the earliest opportunity. Industry must know what the rules will be, so that it can plan and make an increased exploration effort, and so that Canadians will not be in a vulnerable position in the future. In that way we shall remain self-sufficient in energy and look forward to the future with certainty.
More important even than questions involving the oil industry and future supplies is the fact that economic
Oil Export Tax
opportunities are being lost. Canada, relative to the rest of the world, is in the position to enjoy economic advantages the like of which we have not seen in the postwar period. We have a potential economic advantage because, as the minister and so many others have said recently, energy is fundamentally important to a modern economy, and we are the only country in the western world which is selfsufficient in energy. This fact alone is tremendously important, for here we have a tremendous opportunity to cure so many of the problems we have faced for many years, problems involving regional economic disparities, unemployment, economic disparities, the diversification of industry throughout the economy, our balance of payments, the sale of our raw materials at less than their true value, etc. All these problems could be cured if we made it our business to take advantage of the tremendous opportunity being offered to us.
We need a national development policy that recognizes our position. What we do not need is bickering between the provinces and the federal government about control of resources. We all have the same goals in mind. I am certain that every provincial premier, whether from a producing province or consuming province, will agree. There is now an opportunity not merely for the producing provinces but for every province in this country. In recent years two large scale refineries have been constructed in the Atlantic provinces and two or three more are on the verge of construction. A great many petrochemical plants are to be built to process raw materials which will be available from these refineries. These can and should be established in the Atlantic area. There is the possibility of altering the economic face of these regions of Canada dramatically; but this will not happen if we continue the present chaotic situation. Sometimes there is a two-price system in Canada, sometimes not. Sometimes the world price is to apply, sometimes less than the world price. Sometimes there is a freeze in part of the country, sometimes not.
All that uncertainty of opportunities will cause us to lose this advantage. We will not have this economic advantage in perpetuity. The United States will make a supreme effort to become self-sufficient in energy. They have the potential in coal, shale, new technological developments relating to solar power and so on. Therefore, we cannot look to Canada retaining this economic advantage for a large number of years in the future. It is a finite time in which we have this opportunity. I ask the minister to use his good offices to plead with his colleagues. I ask every member of this House to help us eliminate this question of fighting between the provinces, of fighting over the spoils, who shall get so much of this or that tax. Let us deal with the real opportunity facing Canada. Let us take advantage of the position in which Canada finds itself so that all Canadians can look forward to the future they deserve.
I will not repeat the remarks made by my leader earlier this day. He outlined 10 points of a national oil policy which, if adopted by the government of Canada, could lead us to the kind of future I have tried to outline briefly. I just wish to comment on one point relative to the question

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
of increased Canadian participation in this future growth-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take only two or three minutes. As my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and I have already indicated, the terms of the amendment to clause 11 which we are now discussing are in accordance with negotiations that took place during the past day or two, so we support this amendment. In fact, it is clear that the tax on crude oil exported will become $6.40 a barrel in the month of February and remain at that level until the end of March, leaving to a later decision what may be done after April 1. We congratulate the government, even though there was some pressure from events and circumstances that forced the government to see things in this very wise way. In any case, we congratulate the government on having come through with this resolution in a difficult situation.
My main purpose in rising is to draw attention to a structural oddity which I think we are creating by the procedure we are now following. Before it was amended, Bill C-245 had in the main two parts, one part establishing a new piece of legislation to be known as the oil export charge act, the other part amending the Excise Tax Act. Once we cut out, as we propose to do, clauses 3 to 10, both inclusive, all that will remain of the oil export charge act will be two sections, one giving it a title, the other setting out definitions. There will not be anything in the oil export charge act that has any operative effect. There is nothing wrong with that. We can put all the acts we want on the statute books that say nothing. Of course, it is being kept there because there is a reference in clause 11 to the fact that all the words and expressions used in that part, in other words that part of the Excise Tax Act, shall have the same meaning as are assigned to them by the oil export charge act.
I realize this is a technical point to raise, but it seems it would have been less structurally odd if the definitions that are now going to be off by themselves in a piece of legislation called the oil export charge act could have been put in the part of the Excise Tax Act which we are amending by increasing the taxes provided by this legislation. It may be the minister has the notion that later in the year he will put some substance into the oil export charge act. However, I think it not out of place to point out we have produced a structural oddity. Nevertheless, as far as the substance of what we are doing is concerned, it has our support.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on the clause before us. First, I am pleased there has been an accommodation with regard to extending the export tax for a few more months. Coming from the province of Saskatchewan as I do, there are couple of things I want to urge on the minister with regard to the federal government's position over the oil industry in this country. I am not trying to be particularly parochial or provincial when I remind the minister that the resources of this country are under provincial jurisdiction and, as much as possible,

the benefit of those resources should accrue to the various provinces in which they are found.
I would not be so tempted to raise this point if the policies that are followed by this government applied to other resources as well as oil. As the premier of my province asked the federal government, why just oil? I want to ask why other natural and mineral resources have increased drastically in price in the past year. Just this past weekend International Nickel announced that the price of nickel would increase by 6 per cent in this country. Iron and steel prices have increased in Canada. Many economists, particularly in the United States, indicated recently that other commodities such as iron, steel, aluminum, copper and so on might rise very drastically in price in the next few months.
I am in favour of a domestic price for oil. However, I suggest we should also have a domestic price for other commodities such as iron, steel, copper, aluminum, nickel and so on which are found right across this country. The time has come when we can put domestic price controls on commodities which we produce in this country, even though they are now controlled by multinational corporations. For example, why should we in Saskatchewan have to pay world prices for the steel and aluminum that go into our farm machinery when many items our farmers produce are being sold in Canada at domestic prices. When considering oil, I urge the government to think about all resources. There should be a domestic price for all natural resources in this country and an export tax should be imposed on them as well as on oil. If that were done, the oil producing provinces would not feel as though they were being discriminated against. There would be a greater sense of fairness.
Another point I wish to make is that it is time Ottawa took some of the prairie problems more seriously. If we are to make certain sacrifices in the area of gas and oil, it is about time there was a quid pro quo and Ottawa listened to the grievances we have concerning the freight rate structure, the stabilization of farm income, the development of secondary industry, and so on. If some of these things were done, if the federal government were to act rather than simply make promises, there might be a better atmosphere at the conference to be held in this city later this month.
The previous speaker said there was a lack of confidence among those engaged in the gas and oil industry and that unless we were careful, exploration and development would cease. I do not believe this. In any case, I do not really care, because I think exploration in this field should be carried out under public ownership. This is what the New Democratic Party and the government in my own province would like to see done. Practical steps toward this end were taken in the legislature of my province during the month of December. There is no reason why we cannot move in this direction. Revenues from the export tax could be used to develop the tar sands and to improve transportation facilities. A quick calculation shows that at the rate of $6.50 a barrel revenue from the tax will represent some $180 million. There is no reason why this sum should not be used as equity capital for the development of the frontier areas of this country under joint federal-
January 7, 1974

provincial public ownership. After all, these resources belong to the people of Canada, not to multinational corporations. As I say, this is a fine opportunity to get started because funds are now available for the purpose, and, besides, if we develop our own gas and oil industry we could subsequently develop a petrochemical industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where it belongs, thus providing many more jobs for Canadians.
Another point we should consider when talking about a national oil policy is that the presence of energy supplies in the tar sands and elsewhere will enable us to begin processing some of our own raw materials on the assumption that an increasing number of countries are likely to import commodities which are heavy in energy content since they themselves will be suffering from a shortage of gas and oil. For example, Japan and western European countries may be more ready to purchase our manufactured goods because of a necessity on their part to conserve the energy supplies available to them.
In conclusion, I urge the government to consider bringing all Canadian national resources under public ownership and control for the benefit of Canadians, and not limit their thinking to one particular resource in one or two provinces.
Some hort. Members: Question!


Mr. Symes:: I just wish to say how pleased I am the Minister of Finance has withdrawn the section on the export charge until after the first ministers' conference. It is interesting to note that if the government had maintained the principle of the export tax for the whole year this country would have derived revenue amounting to between $2 billion and $3 billion. That is not chicken feed. It is enough to supply the wherewithal to begin the public development of our oil industry, an important concept in my view, and we shall look with interest on the kind of arrangement which comes out of the conference of first ministers on the export charge.
I listened to the Minister of Finance last Friday begin to construct an argument which has been echoed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, namely, that the oil companies need higher prices in order to commit themselves to further exploration and resource development. This is complete fantasy. From 1957 to 1972 oil company profits increased by some 400 per cent, but the percentage increase in exploration amounted to only 10 per cent. There is no guarantee, none whatsoever, that higher profits for the oil companies will automatically mean more exploration, and I hope the Canadian public will see through the hollowness of the arguments of the Minister of Finance, arguments which are identical with those of the oil companies. Imperial Oil, if one follows its accounting procedure, put up only 3 per cent of the total funds used for exploration, that is, out of $201 million set aside for exploration and development the company itself only put up $7 million. The rest of it came from the public, either in the form of deferred taxes or by way of debentures and the sale of assets. It is important to remember that increased prices will not automatically mean increased exploration.
A further point arises. Where will the exploration be carried out? The companies are trying to tell us there are
Oil Export Tax
vast oil resources in the Arctic. But when we look at the geological surveys we realize that this is not the case. Only in the Prudhoe Bay area is there any likelihood of sufficient reserves to justify development. The oil which this country will need in the future will have to come from the Athabasca oil sands and we know where they are; no exploration is needed. It will cost about a billion dollars to construct each extraction plant, and one new plant each year will be needed for the next ten years, since it is estimated that conventional supplies will run out in about ten years time. Obviously, we could use some of the revenue from the export tax to develop the oil sands under public control. If we fail to do so we shall only repeat the sell-out, the rip-off, of Canada's oil resources we have witnessed to date.
The oil companies say they need subsidies because of the high cost of Middle East and Venezuelan oil. I should like to remind the committee that Exxon, of which Imperial Oil is a subsidiary, was purchasing oil from Venezuela at $1.45 a barrel through its subsidiary called Creole Oil. Creole Oil, in turn, was selling that same oil at $3 a barrel when the oil was landed at Montreal. It is very interesting, indeed, to note that all of a sudden cheaper foreign oil was jacked up in price to equate with the cost of western oil.
We now have the reverse situation. Imported oil has gone up to $8, $10, $18 a barrel and now the oil companies are arguing that western Canadian oil should also go up to that level. The multinationals are following the same procedure in the United States as they are in Canada. I commend hon. members to read a recent article in Harpers magazine by Mr. Rand, who pointed out that during the 1960's American oil companies were buying oil from Kuwait at seven cents a barrel. That was the cost of getting the oil out of the ground and into the tanker. By the time the oil reached the shores of the United States, it was selling for the same amount per barrel as Texas oil, which was then in the $2 a barrel range. That process has continued for decades and the consumer has suffered. Now, the oil companies are saying the consumer must suffer some more because domestic prices must reach the inflated world price. If we did not have an export tax, a tax which, by the way, was instigated as a result of pressure from the New Democratic Party, we would have lost millions and millions of dollars in windfall profits to the oil companies. The consumer has lost millions in the past, but I can see no valid reason for the Canadian government allowing this to continue.
When you average out what the oil companies have been doing over the past decade, you see they have had all kinds of tax breaks while soaking the consumer through higher prices for oil products. How strange it is that oil companies pay only 3 per cent of their book profits in the form of corporation income tax. How strange it is that 86 per cent of dividends and retained earnings pass from the oil companies into foreign hands. And the Canadian consumer ends up paying a 41 per cent price increase.
If we permit crude oil to increase in price in Canada, there will be no net gain to the economy of the country in view of the low tax rate and the fact that dividends are paid to people outside the country. Higher prices that Canadians pay will more than offset any kind of royalties,

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
corporation taxes and retained earnings gleaned by the Canadian government and Canadian shareholders. Indeed, economists have now shown that any such price increases will mean a net loss to the Canadian economy of 7.73 per cent of any price increment. Canadian manufacturing needs to get off the ground. We need to promote job intensive industries in this country. Yet if we listen to the government and the oil industry, we are going to pull the rug from under these manufacturing concerns. If they have to pay higher fuel costs, then we will lose any competitive advantage we might have gained in world markets from having lower fuel costs in Canada. This means we will continue to export our resources at the expense of creating jobs in Canada.
This is why I say it is so important that the concept of the export tax be maintained, that revenues from the windfall profits of the oil companies should go to the federal government, and in turn to the provincial governments, so we can have a joint federal and provincial development of the oil sands, which will be our future supply of oil in this country. It is time we got the national petroleum company off the ground, not only to develop the oil sands but also to act as an agent in the purchase of foreign and domestic oil, thereby being able to pool prices and have one price for Canadian consumers, a price which hopefully will be much lower than the price that would result if the Minister of Finance and the oil corporation executives had their way. Unless it can be proven beyond doubt that price increases are justified on the basis of increased cost of production, this party, and indeed the Canadian consumer, will not tolerate any further rip-offs in the form of higher oil prices.
The bill before us is an important one. There is an important concept to maintain, and I can assure the committee that this party will see that that concept is not eroded.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 12-Payments authorized.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, clause 12 deals with payments to provinces. I agreed in principle with the imposition of an export tax as it related to obtaining funds that might otherwise have gone to the multinational corporations, but I should like to ask the minister a question about the wording of clause 12 and perhaps propose to him a wording that would spell out more clearly that 50 per cent of the revenue will in fact go to the producing provinces. Subclause (1) reads as follows:
The Minister may cause to be paid to a province, for a prescribed period, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, at such time or times as he may determine, an amount calculated by him in accordance with subsection (2) in respect of that period.
I wonder whether the minister would suggest to me the reason for use of what I would call the hesitant words, such as "at such time or times as he may determine", instead of using, for example, the words "shall pay" or "shall determine". Why the hesitancy as exemplified by the use of the word "may"?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, the expression "may" is the expression that is traditionally used to authorize a payment to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is parliament's way, as I

understand it, of conferring statutory authority upon the minister to make a payment, and it is the expression traditionally and generally used in authorizing payment to the provinces. I should refer the committee to the fact that the authority to make equalization payments, stabilization payments, tax revenue guarantee payments and postsecondary education adjustment payments, all of which are statutory in form, is granted by a provision using the expression "may". In those circumstances, the courts probably construe "may" as being imperative since it imposes a public duty upon the minister. There is nothing unusual in using that word, and I think I can assure the committee that it has a mandatory, imperative effect.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a hassle with the minister, but since he is a former minister of justice he must agree that under the Interpretation Act "may" is classified as being a word of permissiveness, whereas "shall" is mandatory. However, I accept the statement the minister made beforehand, though as a former minister of justice I think he was getting into the muskeg when he made the statement he just made. In light of his statement that the word "may" is the word always used in the statute, why is it that His Excellency was persuaded in the recommendation to use the word "shall"?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will charge that one off to the draftsman.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, the minister says he will assure the committee that 50 per cent will go to the producing provinces. We do not have to worry about the word "may"; I will leave that to Her Majesty and her ministers.
In a general way, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words relating to the allocation of funds obtained from the export tax. From the inception of the export tax I believe the federal government has been meeting a situation which neither producing province was prepared to meet at that time when the Chicago price was mounting at an extremely rapid pace. I believe, therefore, that when this party recommended an export tax it was justifiable. I think some of the debate arises from the allocation of the export tax as it relates to our two oil producing provinces.
It is very easy for a member of this House, particularly if he is from the province of Ontario, to suggest that there should be a cheap supply of energy for the provinces manufacturing industries. Hon. members might take that position, regardless of their party, because manufacturing is labour-intensive. There is some merit in that position, but I suggest to those hon. members that in terms of a national policy in this country as enunciated by successive federal governments, the policy that now speaks of a cheap supply of energy, in terms of energy being supplied by other provinces, is the same policy that talked about high tariffs to protect their manufacturing industries and providing a closed market to those industries in the western provinces, particularly the prairie provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Regardless of one's political ideology, there is a great deal of regional resentment in the suggestion that since, suddenly, one of our commodities has gone up in price in the international market-and
January 7, 1974

I am aware of the problems concerning multinational corporations-we now, also suddenly, need a cheap energy policy. We have a cheap food policy, and we have had high tariffs and the unfair kind of freight rate structure which might concern hon. members, regardless of party. Some of them have made speeches on this subject. I mention the late Jimmy Gardiner and give the Grits some credit for this.
I suggest, however, that the national policy in this connection, as developed by the federal state, is outmoded, outdated and must be revised if we are to continue this discussion in a fair and equitable manner. That is why the divvying up of the pie related to the export tax is extremely important to the two provinces I have mentioned. I can imagine what the Ontario members would say if we took all the proceeds from the manufacturing industry and set a domestic price across the country to ensure that the domestic price remained at a certain level, so that when farmers of western Canada buy steel they would pay $1.50 or $2. a ton for it because it is produced in Canada and they would not have to pay the difference between the domestic market price and the international market price.
If an export tax were established I can imagine the hue and cry from Ontario members in any party about having 100 per cent of that export tax channelled for development in the province. So western members express their concern relating to the allocation of this oil export tax fund. This is a fundamental concern related to one of our resources, regardless of province. Therefore, I have been pleased, to be quite frank, with the Minister of Finance and the manner in which the funds have been allocated. I believe 50 per cent is to go back to the producing provinces. The province of Saskatchewan undoubtedly will use it for resource development. Alberta may well do the same, but I do not know the situation in that province as well as I know it in my own province.
I think that 50 per cent to be invested by the federal government in the producing provinces for research and development in the oil industry is a fair and equitable way of doing things. The two producing provinces are being assured that they will not be run over roughshod in terms of a resource with which they happen to have been blessed. I think this will be of value to the international market and will ensure further development in those two provinces.
What is of concern to me is that in the province of Saskatchewan we have set up a method of public control and public ownership of the oil industry, to turn it into a public utility in order to conserve the supply and production necessary to meet the needs of the people, and we want to see come out of the conference a change in policy by the national government so that our energy supplies, whether in the area of uranium, oil, natural gas or any other resource, will be treated as a public utility for all Canadians.
Mark my words, the legislation enunciated by the province of Saskatchewan and passed by its legislature will be a guiding light in the winter blizzard relating to an oil and energy policy, and will be a guideline for turning the oil industry into a public utility to serve the general public. I predict that federal governments of whatever political stripe, will have to move in the general direction of treat-
Oil Export Tax
ing oil resources as a public utility even if they have to do it with the oil companies kicking and squealing all the way. Federal governments will have to move in that direction because it will be demanded by the public for the protection of the people of Canada.
I am glad to hear a clear statement from the minister that 50 per cent of this export tax will in fact go to the producing provinces. I do not believe any further comment is needed. I did a little work over the weekend; I am sure the Minister of Finance also spent his weekend doing quite a bit of work. I commend him for his action on this Ukrainian Christmas Day which is celebrated in my area.
I appreciate the way in which he handles bills of this kind which he presents to the House. I like the procedure of dealing with these bills in committee of the whole and I hope this practice will continue. In this way we dealt with the capital gains tax in respect of farmers and found we could reach an accommodation. We have reached today a certain amount of accommodation.
Therefore, the minister's commitment in respect of the 50 per cent is appreciated. I had worked out an amendment which would have changed the "may" to "shall" and would have said that the minister "shall" pay to a province, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, an amount calculated by him in accordance with subclause (2), but I accept his word and I shall forgo moving such an amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 12 carry?
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about clauses 3 to 10 inclusive?


John Napier Turner: I would ask the unanimous consent of the committee to withdraw part I of the bill, including clauses 3 to 10 inclusive, which would mean to the drafter that part II would become part I and part III would become part II.


Gérald Laniel: Do I gather there is unanimous consent to what the minister proposes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?
Clause 1 agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I propose that the title to Bill C-245 be amended by striking out the words "to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada". I propose that those words be eliminated. Perhaps this amendment should be moved by my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. I agree with the point that was made by the hon. member for Peace River

January 7, 1974
Oil Export Tax
and unilaterally withdraw as a minister of the Crown, the words from the recommendation "to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada".


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister if he has considered taking the word "charge" out of the short title and calling it the Oil Export Tax Act?


John Napier Turner: I have no objection to that, if the committee would take it as a drafting instruction to amend clause 11, section 22.1(1), where the same words appear on page 6. If we can take that as being agreed unanimously, we should change the title to read the Oil Export Tax Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to bother with this-and I will not rehash the matter I raised a few moments ago-why not settle for the Oil Export Act?


John Napier Turner: You can call it anything you want-


Gerald William Baldwin: It smells the same!


John Napier Turner: What is wrong with the Oil Export Tax Act?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no tax in it; that is what is wrong with it.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: That the long title of Bill C-245 be amended by striking out the words "to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada".


Gérald Laniel: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Stanbury) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the title as amended carry?
Title as amended agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill carry?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about the recommendation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I gather that clause I has been amended by consent and that this piece of legislation will be called the Oil Export Tax Act.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: Then with regard to the point made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, no amendment is needed to the recommendation because the recommendation is a unilateral act by the Crown. On behalf of the government I can withdraw the words "to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.


John Napier Turner: that the bill as amended be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House and the committee for the courtesy shown me in disposing of this bill.
I understand the House leader has stated that the next item of business will be the CNR financing bill. Perhaps it would be in order at this stage to call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair should call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is now almost six o'clock, I leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.47 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-164, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, In dealing with the report stage of Bill C-164, it is suggested by the Chair that there be one debate and one vote on motions Nos. 1 and 2, that there be one debate and one vote on motions Nos. 3 and 5, that motions Nos. 4 and 6 be considered separately and, if votes arise, that the votes be taken separately. It should also be noted that with regard to motion No. 6 the reference should be to line 6, not to line 10, on page 9 of the bill. This correction has been authorized by the Chair to make the motion meaningful. We will now proceed to the discussion of motions Nos. 1 and 2.
January 7, 1974


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No. 1.
That Bill C-164, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be amended in paragraph 3(1) (a) by (a) deleting the figure "$225,500,000" in lines 3 and 17 on page 2 and substituting therefor the figure "211,021,000" and (b) deleting lines 13 and 14.
No. 2.
That Bill C-164, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be amended in paragraph 3(1) (b) by deleting line 22 on page 2 and substituting therefore the following:
"lines but excluding any amount in respect of hotels or C.N. Tower
Limited) in the calendar year 1974, prior to"


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, motions Nos. 1 and 2 deal with the proposal by Canadian National Railways under clause 3 of this bill to invest a further $5,679,000 in hotels and $8,800,000 in the period before us in the company called CN Tower Limited, and to proceed with further investments as are required during 1974. It is to these issues that the attention of the House should be directed.
First I want to deal with the way this national company has been handling the funds of the people of Canada, particularly with reference to its hotel operations. In 1971, with respect to the six hotels operated by Canadian National Railways, having a value of some $46 million to $47 million, the railways returned a profit of $430,000, not even 1 per cent on investment. In 1972 they did not do quite as well; they got only $416,000. But by that time they had invested pretty close to another $400,000 so that their investment had gone up to $47,187,393.
This national company has demonstrated that it has no management capacity in the operation of the hotel business. After much pressure in committee, the corporation produced statements on its management return on a specific hotel-handling during 1971 and 1972. I think it is fair for me to acquaint the House tonight with some of the results of that management to show how this corporation has taken the money of the people of Canada and literally thrown it down the sewer.
They sold the Bessborough Hotel for a little more than $1,600,000 this year. I want to talk about that hotel because I understand the buyer is making a profit on it. Let us consider what they lost on this hotel during 1971; they lost $400,000, and in 1972 they lost another $400,000. During 1971 and 1972 they ploughed only $214,000 into the Bessborough Hotel. In round figures, what's a million? Having lost or spent $1 million of our money in two years, this hotel was sold for $1.6 million to a private investor. The private investor made a profit because he knew how to operate it.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
This corporation now has the gall to come to this House of Commons for money. I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is not even proud enough to be here, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is, to ask the approval of this House for an advance to this railroad of over $5 million of Canadian funds earned from the hard work of Canadians. This is to be ploughed into the corporation.
The Fort Garry Hotel sits in a lovely spot in the city of Winnipeg where the land has great value. It only lost $186,000 in 1971 and $265,000 in 1972, and the company added another $109,000 of investment in the hotel. There you have another half million dollars down the sewer in two years, yet they come to us and say they need more money for hotels. They say, "This is a national company and it is important in serving the people of Canada".
If you look at schedule H on page 20:100 in the committee report you will find reference to the Jasper Park Lodge. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) says, that is a pretty fine lodge. They even advertise it on Air Canada; they are going to give a free two weeks' holiday in the Rockies. They invested $125,000 in a two-year period in that hotel over and above regular depreciation. In other words, the book value had gone up $125,000 even though in the period they took the ordinary capital cost allowance applicable. In 1971 they made $123,000, and in 1972 they made $160,000. Of course, it is only worth $8,700,000, so that is a return on investment of about 2 per cent. I will talk about return on investment in a moment or two when I get into the cost of money.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do you realize that the only way you can get to Jasper is by train?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You can get there by Tilden car. You fly to Edmonton and take a free Tilden.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have never had a free Tilden.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You ought to fill in this form and find out how to get there. Then we have the McDonald Hotel in the oil capital, Edmonton. It made $15,000 in 1971 and $31,000 in 1972. Of course, we only have $8.3 million invested in the McDonald Hotel. That is the kind of return the people of Canada are expected to accept on their money- $31,000 on $8.3 million. We have some good hotels. In 1972 the Newfoundland Hotel had a return of $107,000, giving us 6.9 per cent on investment. Then we have the Nova Scotian Hotel, the best apple of the whole group, which managed to return 8.1 per cent on investment.


An hon. Member:: Good management!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When we asked the CNR how they are going to finance the $200 million worth of bonds coming due in February this year, they told us that their money is going to cost 8 per cent or so. The finest hotel in their whole chain will merely earn enough money to pay the interest on the money they are borrowing. That is the kind of situation we have, Mr. Speaker. We have this national company using the money of the people of Canada in a way that cannot be countenanced by members of this

January 7, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
House. They pay no attention to the cost of operating and no attention to regular overhead factors.
When they run into a problem like the Chateau Laurier down the street, they apologize in their financial statement and say that some new hotels were opened in Ottawa. They made 7.4 per cent on $12 million. But look at the property that the Chateau sits on. You could not buy it for $12 million today. It is certainly worth more than that; but they wanted the book value at the time they bought the property for next to zip. That is the kind of book value we are talking about in railroad figures. They are not realistic values at all but values they paid away back when. We are not talking about return on today's dollars; we are talking about return on book dollars. Book dollars do not mean anything when you talk about the real estate this company has. It could not care less about real values. It has a board of directors that does not give a damn about the people of Canada, about the taxpayer, about hard-earned money; it wants to use the money of the people of Canada in any way it can to build up its empire. They come to this House and ask for money.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the CPR.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: At least I will put my tax money into the CPR. The CNR has 4 per cent preferred stock, noncumulative. The last time it paid a dividend was in the early fifties, yet we are supposed to invest the money of the people of Canada in a system called a railroad. It is not a railroad; it is a tower builder or a hotel builder. It wants to build monstrous things for its own ego. It does not care about moving grain or providing a commuter service; it does not care about moving lumber or potatoes-it cares only about hotels and fancy restaurants high in the air.
If you go through that statement, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the only hotels which make a profit for the CNR are those managed by Hilton. That is an international, American organization. This government does not even care about Canadian ownership and has to find an American company to manage its properties. That is how it has to make a profit, by turning these hotels over to Hilton. It is about time we turned them all over to Hilton, or sold them or something, because there is no reason why the people of Canada should pour the money earned by their sweat into this management in order to run hotels. They do not know how to run them. About the only hotel they can run is the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, which made 9.9 per cent last year and 10 per cent the year before-only because they got Hilton to run it for them.
These facts constitute the greatest condemnation of this railroad. The only hotel investment that is showing the sort of realistic return that private enterprise would expect is the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal, run by the Hilton hotel chain. The truth is that incompetent and incapable managers are overseeing the investments of the people of Canada. That is a pretty serious thing to say, but it bears repeating: that management is incompetent and incapable. Can we, in justice, vote to this corporation, which is run by the kind of management appointed by this government, money that has come out of the pockets of

the taxpayers of this country so that that management can run up one loss after another?
When the president of Canadian National Railways was asked about hotels, he said something like this, "Well, it looks as if we have a pretty good hotel, the Beausejour, in Moncton." Although every one of these hotels is a loser except the one in Montreal run by Hilton, he had the audacity to suggest that he could make 12 per cent on the hotel in Moncton. That is the first time he thought he could make 12 per cent on anything, and he had the audacity to suggest the railway could make 12 per cent on that hotel.
I suggest that the management of this railroad has no business in the field of hotels and I say this for several reasons. At one time when transporting people it may have been necessary for the railroads to maintain a stopover place for its passengers. These days the railroads are not interested in carrying passengers; they are only interested in moving freight, and not too interested in that unless it is high-priced freight. They do not want to move grain; that is not their business and they do not feel concerned about that. They should not be in the hotel business. They do not need hotels. Private enterprise in this country has developed hotel after hotel, as one can see in this city for example, which make a gross profit of between 15 and 18 per cent and which after taxes, after expenses, after interest and after all the rest of the "afters" make at least 10 per cent on invested money.
When the railroad talks about a 10 per cent profit, what does that mean? I do not think interest is calculated. On reading the statement you will find that after interest the railroad only lost about $17 million! Every business, sir, must pay interest on borrowed money. This railroad must take into account interest on borrowed money. After taking into account interest on money borrowed in the hotel operation, the railroad, instead of making, say 1.5 per cent on its hotels, has lost 10 per cent. If interest on borrowed money were taken into account in the case of the Montreal hotel run by Hilton, it would be found that that hotel made a little money but not that much. These people do not really care about the people of Canada; they do not care about the taxpayer. They just want more money to build bigger buildings and say they have a bigger operation going for them. They do not really care about us. Yet they have the audacity to come to parliament and ask for money for hotels.
Private corporations pay corporate taxes. They pay the same wages, at least, as these hotels. I will not attempt to argue whether the wages of hotel workers are adequate. But this railroad does not care. It still pays the lowest possible minimum wage. This railroad does not care about bettering the conditions of its employees. It does not care about poor people who need rooms. It does not supply any gratuitous service to the poor traveller. This railroad operates hotels just the same as anybody else, except that it cannot make a profit.
Why is this railroad in the hotel business at all? Clearly, it got into that business because it inherited the hotels and has kept operating them. It has kept losing money, but has come to parliament for more simply because there is a parliament of Canada willing to pay and because there are
January 7, 1974

suckers for taxpayers. The railroad keeps getting new money to pay for its losses, and it is time this stopped.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The taxpayer is forced to be a sucker. He is not one willingly.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Quite so, Mr. Speaker, and it is time this stopped. This bill is to provide $43 million for this year at least. There will be another pile of money next year. Who knows how much of the money of the people of Canada will go into this railroad? This money is being granted virtually for nothing, although it is supposed to apply to the capital stock of the railroad. The figures with regard to the 4 per cent non-cumulative capital stock mean nothing. Dividends do not amount to anything, so this money represents an interest-free loan.
Look at it this way, sir. If you look at the bill you will find that the railroad wants money for hotels, telecommunications, the C.N. Tower and affiliated investments. If one looks at the bill one can see that the railroad wants $43 million from the people of Canada, interest free, so it can carry on with these games and lose more money or make a negligible return on money. According to their figures, they have made 1.4 per cent on investment. Well, a return of $416,000 on hotel investment of $47 million looks to me like a return of about 0.8 per cent, which is not even worth spitting about.
I now want to speak about the CN Tower being built in Toronto. That tower will rise 1,800 feet or so in the air. That will be a pretty impressive monument for Toronto. Certainly it will stand out on the skyline. I am happy to see that tower in Toronto because we in Mississauga will be able to see it. The question is not why it is being built, but why the people of Canada should pour money into the tower; not whether it is a good investment for the railroad that is supposed to provide service for people, but whether that is the way the money of the people of Canada should be spent.
Should we be spending the money of Canadians on tourist attractions, on a hurdy-gurdy in the air, or should we be spending this money on some of the social needs of this country, on the important communication and transportation devices that are required to knit this nation together? Should we be spending it on hurdy-gurdies in the air when that field of activity is perhaps best left to those in the private sector?
Dealing with the matter of finance, the bill is a bit misleading. It says $8.8 million this year. My second amendment tries to stop them from throwing in more next year. Really what they want to do is spend $29.5 million to build a tower in Toronto. They do not want to bother figuring in the cost of the land. After all, they already own the land. Why capitalize the cost of the land? They could rent or sell the land for some other purpose. They do not want to bother taking in the cost of the land. The land is worth $7 million, but they don't worry about that.


Mr. Benjamin:: The CPR don't either.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We will come to the CPR. They are a shrewd cookie; they knew what they were getting into.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada The CPR looked at the statement and said yes, we have our projections. This says you may make 7.8 per cent on your money. If they are really lucky with this tower, and people are willing to pay $3 to go to the top of it year after year, at least one million every year for 40 years, they might make 12.8 per cent on their money. However, after the first year or two they may run out of people who want to pay $3 to go up into the sky.
A great investment? The CPR looked at it and said "nuts". They own half the land but they would not spend their money on a tower. They would rather have the people of Canada build the tower. It would be like a fountain in the park. The CPR can build around the tower and make profits from the office buildings, convention centre and other high-rent deals. The Metro Centre will be visible from these other buildings. The CNR will build the tower. When I asked Mr. MacMillan what he was getting out of CPR for the whole matter, he said:
CP was eventually reluctant to be involved in the tower. ... CP agreed, in return for non-involvement on their part in the tower, to make substantial concessions to CN.
When we asked what the substantial concessions were, there was no answer. I suggest this is because there were no substantial concessions, certainly not concessions you would talk about. If they were substantial, I am sure Mr. MacMillan would have talked about them. Instead, he sat back and said, "You know how important confidentiality is in the corporate board room". Members of parliament are not to be treated to that confidentiality. We will find out that there are no concessions.
The truth of the matter is they wanted to build a tower with a 400-seat restaurant in the sky to show they are a wonderful bunch of people. They want the CBC at the top. The truth is that this railroad does not care about the people of Canada. It does not care about the investors who pay through taxes that are dragged out of their pockets in income tax, sales tax and taxes on all and sundry. They are only interested in building 400-seat restaurants in the air. Even CPR, that shrewd organization-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are they ever.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are from Regina; you know they are shrewd. They know what the balance-sheet looks like. They know where their money is well placed. They would not put it there under any circumstances.
We now have the wonderful example of a tower being built. When you ask the reasons for the tower, you are given four reasons. They say the growing feeling of the Toronto centre region was a myth. If Toronto was ever a myth, you had better come to Toronto and look at this myth, because it is growing pretty fast. It did not need a Metro Centre on 180 acres of prime downtown land. It did not need a tower as a spectacular focal point. If that is what is needed, why did the owner of the rest of the land not pay half the cost? There is no explanation for that. CN said they had to consolidate CBC and metro. CBC does not need any more consolidation. I did not know CN was running the CBC, but apparently it is.
The CN said they got financial concessions from CP but they would not tell us what they were. The truth of the matter is there were no financial concessions and this parliament is now being asked to vote $8.8 million and an

January 7, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada unnamed sum during 1974, and so on. If this is such a good deal, let them go on the market and borrow the money at conventional rates, or sell the tower to someone who can complete it and run it properly. Let us not have any more of the people of Canada being dragged in by the ear to pay for somebody else's grandiose schemes to make themselves important and to build themselves a new empire. The national railway was not set up for a new empire; it was set up to handle freight and to serve the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is about time we had commuter trains. It is time our grain was moved, our potatoes from New Brunswick, lumber from British Columbia, and oil. It is time we had a railway that was interested in using the money we supply to move the goods and the people. This railroad is supposed to move people. They do everything they can to avoid moving people. They really do not care. They want to get involved in another venture. They like the situation where they can become real estate developers. That is a great business; there are a lot of real estate developers. These fellows are not very good at real estate development. They like to be in a situation where they have liquor licences and run fancy-dancy hotels with restaurants in the sky. They are not even good at moving people and freight, but at least that is their job. If they spent their time moving people and freight, maybe they would do a better job.
It is about time this House of Commons said to them in no uncertain terms that they are not getting any money for their hotels and tower, and they had better get the money for these things somewhere else and do the job they are supposed to do. It is about time this nation had a railroad that cares about its people.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I assure the House that my remarks on these two amendments will be brief. However, as chairman of the committee there are some things I should say with regard to the bill and the amendments. First, the basic purpose and meaning of the amendment is that the railroad's main concentration of interest and expenditure of dollars should be in the transportation industry. This is where they began, particularly the Canadian National, and this is where their main interest should lie.
We who come from western Canada have from time to time expressed annoyance with Canadian Pacific because of the company's attempts to divert its interests from railroading to various investments, or from railroading to airlines. Basically the amendments suggest there should be a return to the transportation concept. As chairman of the committee I can say that, while I appreciate the support of members of all parties, I have been a little disappointed in the scope of the committee's work. I would much like to have seen the annual reports of the CN and Air Canada referred to the committee for study in depth; it would have been much easier for me then to have ruled on the question whether various amendments were in order, whether in fact they fell within the ambit of Bill

C-164. Bill C-164 deals with the expenditure of moneys, and the amendments which were presented have to do with clauses involving expenditures; they represent an attempt to delete $5.5 million to be spent on hotels and $8.8 million to be spent on a communications tower.
There are other questions which I feel should have been more fully dealt with by the transport committee over the past years, particularly those directly involving the movement of goods across Canada and the security of those goods. Very recently the transport commission published its third report on railway safety. Three years ago the transport committee touched upon the safety aspect in the course of its work; I clearly remember a Mr. Jones appearing before the committee to answer a number of questions on this subject. The report recently tabled suggests that more money ought to be spent on railway safety. The standard reply by the railroads was along these lines, "These reports are old hat, because we have already dealt with many of the recommendations which have been made."
Nevertheless, I should point out that a number of specific conclusions have been drawn. The report says that the number of derailments caused by track conditions on CN and CP lines in 1972 was three times as great as in 1959 and nearly double what it was in 1969. That is clear enough. One can conclude that the railways have curtailed expenditure on the inspection of railway trackage or that they have built huge boxcars and hopper cars far too heavy for the capacity of the tracks to bear.
The report goes on to say that the training of signals staff and others has deteriorated in recent years. One might conclude that there has been a failure to spend money in the right direction, since it is obvious that a decline in the training standards of signals staff and others could well result in a greater number of accidents. The report goes on to infer that the problems caused by hot-boxes and journal burn-outs-those are terms commonly used among railwaymen-have not yet been solved.
Mr. Speaker, three years ago I asked in the transport committee what percentage of the rolling-stock was still using the old hot-boxes, the old type of bearing system, that is to say, a system which made no use of roller bearings-Timken or similar bearings. The officials replied that only 19 per cent of the rolling-stock was equipped with roller bearings or Timken bearings. Again, this would suggest that the finances available to the railways have not been used in the right direction. At about the same time, three very serious accidents occurred in the interior of British Columbia, making the movement of grain that winter extremely difficult. It became obvious to railway personnel and others that the snowslide detector fences were completely beyond repair, that they were not being kept up at all. This was pointed out to the CTC by the transport committee, particularly to one of the commissioners, Mr. Jones. He undertook to look into the situation and examine the position. However, the report which has lately come to hand devotes six pages to this whole question, explaining how the snowslide detector fences in the region are in fact not being kept up at all.
Another point of interest arose during the committee proceedings when officials of the CN were before us. One of them, Mr. Hunt, stated categorically that the weight of
January 7, 1974

some of the huge new hopper cars and boxcars was so great as to exert a spreading effect upon the tracks: the company had only lately begun to realize this and were now faced with the necessity of using heavier track and better methods of laying it. Another consequence of the heavy equipment was a marked increase in the number of broken rails, another subject dealt with extensively in the report.
What I am saying is this: although I am not entirely or wholeheartedly in support of the two amendments-I realize that the railroads have been in the hotel business for a number of years and perhaps they are bound to upgrade or modernize their establishments-I nevertheless accord them a moderate measure of support because I wish to emphasize my view that the railroads have paid insufficient attention to the need to direct capital expenditure in the construction of better trackage and improved safety facilities. Some of these things were obvious to many of us as long as three or four years ago.
In opening my remarks I said I was slightly disappointed with the work of the transportation committee, since I felt the committee during the past year should have investigated many of the problem areas that were obvious to anyone interested in transportation long before this safety report was published. The training of signals personnel and new engineers, the operations of the Vancouver port: the problems there are obvious.
Last year we had a railway strike. It is not a question whether or not these are urgent matters, whether we were aware of them or whether they were brought to our attention. They were brought to our attention and we were very much aware of them. We had a railway strike last fall. The railway workers went on strike for better working conditions and higher wages. Were higher wages required? This House deliberated over that far longer than I thought it should. It was all well and good for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to make a very moving speech about pressure, blackmail, the powers of the unions, and so on; but at that time I thought the problems were very obvious. The workers did need a pay raise to keep up with the rate of inflation that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has allowed to exist in this country.
The Vancouver yard through which most of our grain moves is owned by the Burlington Northern Railroad of the United States. There are many workers in the Burlington Northern yard in Vancouver because they are paid American rates which are far higher than the rates paid by Canadian National. Canadian National is having difficulty hiring men in the Vancouver area even today. The British Columbia Railroad pays higher wages than Canadian National and they, too, are drawing men away from CN. As a result, CN is not able to serve the Prairies to the full extent that it should in order to move those goods that mean so much to the general economy of Canada. Canadian Pacific railroad pays higher wages than does Canadian National. So we find Canadian National pretty nearly going begging for as many as 150 yardmen to move boxcars at the port of Vancouver.
There are two things that make a good port so far as the trading of goods between countries is concerned: first, the
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada accessibility of the boats to the land and, secondly, the accessibility of the commodities from that land to the boats. We have had some difficulty as far as the boats are concerned, but that is not the subject of the debate tonight. We are discussing the movement of goods to the ports, a problem to which we have not really addressed ourselves.
As the unbiased chairman of the transportation committee that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says I should be, I was a little disappointed during the past year, as I say, that the transportation committee did not visit Vancouver to see whether its members could not lend some wisdom-lend some attention is more likely, since they probably could not lend any wisdom over and above that which had already been lent-to encourage civil servants, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to redirect their capital expenditures to things other than new television sets for hotels; because this is what the $5.5 million provided for in Bill C-164 is to be used for-the buying of new television sets for Canadian National hotels. At least, that is what the transportation committee was told.
I know it is much nicer to watch television in colour rather than black and white, but what we as legislators and as members of the transportation committee must address ourselves to is the question of priorities. Just where has this word "priorities" disappeared to? In the 1968 election campaign it was first and foremost in the mind of every politician. Everyone was talking about Canada's needs. Then during the 1972 election it was still fairly prominent in the eyes of most voters. They wanted to know what were our priorities. Yet this financing bill is placing the supply of new television sets for CN hotels over and above the movement of goods for export.
Today during the question period somebody pointed out that, compared with a year ago, we are today falling behind in the movement of wheat to export markets by some 125 million bushels. I do not deny that figure since the Canadian Wheat Board officials appeared before the committee that I have the honour to chair and admitted a month ago that we were 75 million bushels behind, so we might well be behind by 125 million bushels today. Why is there not some kind of priority list, or list of things waiting to be done ranked in terms of importance?
Another great question arising on the Prairies today is the supply of boxcars. The Wheat Board declared that we need 4,000 additional boxcars. It is interesting to go back through Hansard and check one's remarks to see whether one was on target a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, or whether one was not. If you find you were on target, it sometimes gives you a little more confidence when you come to make a speech. On March 8, 1972, long before the 1972 election, even before the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board announced the building of 2,000 boxcars for the Canadian Wheat Board, I happened to say that we ought to build some hopper cars for the Canadian Wheat Board to operate.
On the same day I also said we should build a branch line from Ashcroft to Lillooet, and I understand surveys are now being made in that regard. On that date I also said that before the summer rock slides and the winter snow flies, the slide detector fences, which had become completely unsafe between Kamloops and Boston Bar, should

January 7, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
be repaired. It is interesting to note that on two of these three matters the government and the Wheat Board are already taking action. As for the third matter, the Canadian Transportation Commission has finally announced it will overhaul the slide detector fences.
Since that date I have said we should build more boxcars for the Canadian Wheat Board to move our grain, but it became vividly clear in the transportation committee that the government's priorities were entirely out of whack. The number of boxcars to move grain had fallen from something like 88,000 to 42,000. This caused the Canadian farmers and Canadian voters to think what a great government this was which in the fall of 1972 was going to build 2,000 more boxcars. We were told that the western farmers should throw out their chests and vote for this fellow in charge of the Wheat Board because he was going to build 2,000 additional boxcars, which would mean that grain would move smoothly and there would be no trouble.
Today, a year or so after these cars have come into operation, we learn that we are running 125 million bushels behind last year in our grain movements. Let us scratch our heads and ask why. The facts are out: the railroads have completely discarded the issue of building more cars. Canadian National officials admitted to the committee that in the year 1972 they were building 3,400 additional cars-though it might have been 3,450; I do not have the proceedings of the committee with me. These cars would be delivered during the year 1972.
Then some young, interested member, I think the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), asked how many of these cars would be available to move grain. Well, they pondered, shook their heads and said that, really, without a great deal of renovation none of them could move grain. So here again we ask, where are the priorities in respect of the capitalization expenditures of Canadian National Railways?
It is interesting to note that in a Free Press item of December 22, 1973-not too long ago-it was reported that Canadian National Railways ordered 94 gondola cars, weighing 100 tons apiece, for the movement of Alberta coal to British Columbia. So they are building cars. It has been said by some people that the railway does not build cars for the movement of grain because of the cursed Crows-nest Pass rates. They are supposed to be the root and evil of it all. Well, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to give the House a brief rundown concerning the Crowsnest Pass rates, why they were arrived at and why westerners generally stick pretty tight on the issue that they should be maintained. Briefly, however, they are the Magna Carta, the saviour of western Canada and the railways have not really proved that they lose money moving grain under them.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are becoming slightly anxious, so I shall conclude my remarks. I know other members are desirous of taking part in this debate. If the Crowsnest Pass rates are the cause of the shortage of boxcars, why is there a shortage of boxcars for the movement of lumber on the railway in British Columbia? Lumber does not come under such a rate; the going rate is

applicable in that case. Grain is the bread and butter issue of the CNR and the CPR. I said once to the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway that if they did not have grain to move across the Prairies, they would have to roll up the tracks-and he said that would be the case. The bread and butter movement on the Prairies for the railways is the movement of grain. They could not have survived without this movement. In no way do the railways lose money through the movement of grain.
I should like to take another 20 minutes to document fully what I am saying. However, I shall merely say at this time that I hope, no matter who is elected chairman of the transport and communications committee, it will delve deeper into the problems of transportation and the movement of goods all across Canada so that we can really assess what are the priorities for the expenditure of capital by the Canadian railways, both CNR and CPR.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in this debate, particularly after waiting many months for this bill to return to the chamber. I am particularly delighted because of the amendments with which we are dealing. I have never before heard such irrelevancy in a debate as I heard this evening from the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn). He spent his time dealing with hotels and needles. He did not spend very much time on the matter of transportation and the CNR financing bill. He could have spoken about national transportation and some of the items mentioned by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who spoke of the transportation needs of this country. He might even have tried to bring in an amendment in order to accomplish something.
The type of amendments which require consideration are the type that would be moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) or myself; but they would probably be ruled out of order. If we were really dealing with the situation in respect of the railways and airlines of Canada, the government would have before us a bill which would place these systems under public ownership so they could be integrated and provide a national transportation service which would meet the transportation needs of this country.
I am not particularly interested in the foibles of the CNR or the CPR in terms of a national transportation act which is designed only to make sure that the railways and the airlines place operating profit first and service second. We should reverse that situation. The CNR financing bill and many other related matters are mostly irrelevant. It would have been much better had the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) seen to it that in some of this capitalization there was an expenditure of money for rolling-stock, track maintenance, signal systems and all those things mentioned by the hon. member for Crowfoot. However, he did not see fit to do that. He did not see fit to meet with the officials of the CNR and the CPR and have the Board of Transport Commissioners require the CNR or the CPR to make some moves now.
In an all-encompassing transportation system it seems logical that there should be some hotels; they are nothing more than an adjunct to the transportation operation and the movement of people. The hon. member for Mississauga mentioned the sale of the Bessborough Hotel. I hope I am
January 7, 1974

correct in this, but I understand that one of the major participants in the purchase of that hotel is the present leader of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party. I and the rest of the people of Saskatchewan, particularly in Saskatoon, would like to know from the Minister of Transport what compelled or motivated the CNR to sell the Bessborough Hotel, particularly in such a wild hurry after spending several hundred thousand dollars in long overdue renovations. All of a sudden the CNR decided to sell the Bessborough. I say to my colleagues who are helping me in my speech that I understand that some of the cohorts of the president of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party happen to be Liberals in the city of Saskatoon, all of whom got together and bought the Bessborough. It has been sold now, after it has been fixed up and is a decent place in which to stay.
I hope the CNR recovered the money that was invested in the renovations. I suspect this was not the case. I hope that my good friend from Mississauga will consult with the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Saskatchewan in order to protect his investment. If he does not need to protect it, then I would hope my hon. friend would get up and condemn his colleague from Saskatchewan for bilking the taxpayers of Canada out of a hotel for a cheap price, because the hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways.
The hon. gentleman also said that the Board of Directors of the CNR is incompetent. That is conceivable. I will even agree with him to some extent. However, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, one thing the Board of Directors cares about: it cares about operating the Canadian National Railways' system according to the terms of reference laid down by the parliament of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Why would they do that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They do do it. They run a very efficient railway operation, not in terms of providing service for the people of Canada, but they are providing a very efficient railway operation in terms of operating profits and surpluses.


An hon. Member:: They lose money.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member has been a member of the transport committee for the first time in his life. I wish he would consult the hon. member for Crowfoot who has been on the committee for many more years than perhaps either the hon. gentleman or I have been around here. If he took a look at the annual reports of the CNR he would find that three years out of the last 25 the CN Railways' system showed a deficit and in the other 22 years they showed substantial surpluses. One of their best years was 1956, when they had an operating profit of $44 million and a total surplus of $57,860,000. That is not bad. In fact, for that particular year it was an operating profit of several million more dollars than the CPR was able to show. In the same year the interest on the debt ate up all the operating profits of the CNR.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Now you are talking.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Parliament had to vote an additional $20 million or $22 million. The hon. gentleman conveniently forgets that if he also took a look at the bonded indebtedness of the CNR system, he would find a total of $4 billion in debt, half of which is in the hands of the people of Canada in the form of shares which may or may not bring a 3 per cent return and the other half of which is owed publicly. Of that $1,894 million of debt that is called a long-term debt, we have as yet not been able to find out, in the 5'/2 years that I have been in parliament, how much is still attributable to the bankrupt railways bought up in 1923 for which the taxpayers of Canada are still paying, and paying on mortgage indebtedness, the bond holders having been paid and repaid two or three times over in the last 50 years.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) last September or October agreed with me, in an answer to a question during the question period, that parliament is long overdue in taking another hard look at the financial structure and bonded indebtedness of the CNR. But my friends in the Tory Party always conveniently forget that the only reason we have a so-called publicly-owned national railway system is not because the government of that day or any other government since wanted to have a publicly-owned and operated railway system, but because their private enterprise system did not know how to operate an efficient railway system and the people of Canada had to bail them out in 1923 and have been bailing them out ever since.
When my good friends in the Conservative Party and those across the way in the Social Credit party talk about how the CPR makes a profit and the CNR suffers losses, I ask them whether it would not have been nice if the CNR had been set up on the basis of the same deal as the one under which the CPR was set up, namely, 25 million acres of land including mineral rights and $25 million in cash, plus guaranteed loans. Even the hon. member for Mississauga could run a business with a deal like that. I am not sure he could run any other kind of business, but even he could succeed with a deal like that. It did not take any geniuses on the board of directors of CPR since 1885 until now to make a profit with a deal like that. I want to hear no more nonsense about operating efficiency.


An hon. Member:: We don't want to hear any more nonsense, either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The National Transportation Act of Canada is not designed to allow our railroads or airlines to provide the kind of transportation system that would meet the transportation needs of the people; rather, it is designed to try to provide the railways with an opportunity to make a profit and nothing else. Until that is changed, until there is that fundamental change in the direction and purpose of our transportation policy, we will go through this exercise every year, as my hon. friend will find out from bitter experience. I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot would be able to confirm that to him behind the curtain. Railways and airlines are no different from our streets, our sidewalks, our electrical systems, our sewer systems: all those are essential public services and utilities, and until we start treating our transportation system in that way and setting them up in that way we will be faced with the kind of messes we have had all

January 7, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
these years such as the ones mentioned by the hon. member for Crowfoot.
Every year, chronically, there has been insufficient rolling-stock to move potatoes from P.E.I. and New Brunswick, insufficient stock cars to move stock out of western to eastern Canada, and insufficient cars to move lumber out of B.C. to anywhere in Canada or to meet our export commitments to the United States. They can build fancy specialty cars for esoteric commodities such as compartmentalized refrigerator cars to move dressed beef, dressed pheasants, or whatever else; they can make fancy equipment of that nature, but there is insufficient equipment to move most of our agricultural produce. This has been the case since 1947. This is also the case with regard to the moving of hogs and cattle.
The same is true with regard to the moving of people. We can spend billions of dollars in this country on divided highways and expensive real estate which makes real estate developers, land speculators and friends of my colleagues to my right very happy; we can spend money on that, and yet we can starve our rail and air transportation systems. I suppose the CNR wants to build a tower in order to get even with the CPR. They have one in Calgary, and I have not heard the hon. gentlemen complaining about the CPR building a tower in Calgary but not building enough boxcars. In fact, they used our money for it.
This is the other thing that my friends to the right do not choose to remember. Every dollar of that investment is paid for by the users of Canadian Pacific Railway's transportation system, and many of those investments are unnecessary and unneeded. They do nothing for the transportation requirements of this country. I say to the hon. gentlemen that until our rail and air transportation, as well as our pipelines and communications systems, are operated as a public utility and fully integrated, we will continue to have the problems which the hon. member for Crowfoot mentioned and even the odd one or two problems that the hon. member who led off this debate mentioned. That must be the intent and purpose of the debate on transportation of any kind in this House, whether or not the CNR made money or lost money. In that context, the debate is relevant, but it does not surprise me that we could get an irrelevant speech from the lead-off speaker in the opposition. I wish the hon. member for Crowfoot or the hon. member for Vegreville had started off the debate, because they know these things as well, or better, than I do.
I have also mentioned the movement of grain and bulk commodities in this country. You don't have to believe me, Mr. Speaker, but the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, which you could hardly call a small outfit, has spoken repeatedly about the inadequacies of our transportation system. On October 26 it noted that Mr. Esdale, an official of the Canadian Wheat Board who used to be in the Department of Transport under the minister's former colleague, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, said that "supplies in the country elevators were more than adequate for this year's export markets, but there was a serious shortage of box cars because cars had been sitting around loaded with other goods. The difficulty with rail transport meant that the board was well below the export target set for that time of year".

On November 2 the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool again said that shipments of grain, just from Saskatchewan, from August 1 to October 17 were down 68 million bushels compared with the same period last year. It said shipments were just able to keep pace with deliveries to the elevators, that stocks in the elevators had not gone down at all since September 15, and that there was still more than 50 per cent of the elevator system plugged. I hope that the Minister of Transport is paying attention to this, Mr. Speaker, because certainly the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has not been paying attention.
On December 19 the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool said that transportation problems had probably blocked international grain sales totalling 75 million bushels this year, according to information given by Mr. Charley Gibbings, Canadian Wheat Board commissioner. Mr. Gibbings said he doubted that grain movement targets would be met this year unless more rail cars were channelled to the trade. He added that the board had deferred shipment of 15 V2 million bushels to foreign customers so that western feed grain could be hauled to Thunder Bay. Commenting on the shortage of rolling stock, he said that the only way the rail car crisis could be solved was to provide 4,000 hopper cars and to consign worn-out stock to the scrapyards.
Here I want to pay a compliment to the CNR. In the past few months they at least have been rehabilitating or rebuilding 900 cars and returning them to grain movement. We have yet to hear of anything the Canadian Pacific are doing, even though most of the grain shipping points are on Canadian Pacific lines. At least our publicly-owned corporation is making some kind of effort.
Listening to the hon. member for Mississauga and the hon. member for Crowfoot, I gather that they would make provision for the expenditure of a few more tens of millions of dollars in order that the Canadian National Railways' system could purchase rolling-stock and additional locomotive power. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that a little over a year ago the minister in charge of the Wheat Board announced the purchase of 2,000 hopper cars to be used for the movement of grain. Everybody applauded that announcement, I as well as everyone else, but not for the same reasons.
I applauded it because there was a need to get more cars into the movement of grain. But all we were really doing was bailing the railways out of a responsibility that was legitimately and legally theirs, the responsibility to supply sufficient rolling-stock, trackage and everything else required to meet the transportation needs of the country. We have still to find out how those cars are being financed, who is paying for their upkeep and who is collecting the freight.
It is not just good enough for us to buy some boxcars. Sooner or later parliament will have to move in, take over and operate on behalf of all Canadians all our rail and air transportation systems, including telecommunications, the hotels they own, their mineral rights, real estate developments and everything else that goes with them. Only then will we be able to provide the kind of transportation which Canadians need and should have.
January 7, 1974


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: January 7, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada have the equipment and the expertise to discharge their responsibility for moving commodities and passengers from one end of Canada to the other.
There was a great deal of discussion in the committee on the question of the shortage of boxcars and rolling-stock. Being a westerner, I am naturally interested in this matter from the standpoint of the movement of grain. It is interesting to note that since 1950 no general purpose boxcars have been built for either of our railways. The hon. member for Crowfoot indicated that in 1963 there were about 88,200 general purpose boxcars which could be used and were suitable for the movement of grain. This number had declined to 70,600 by 1968, and by 1973 it had slumped to 48,200. During the examination of this bill it was indicated that 3,465 boxcars had been ordered by CNR in 1973, of which some 3,000 had been received. I asked officials of the CNR how many of these were suitable for the movement of grain, and the answer was "none".
But there is more to this situation, Mr. Speaker. It seems that about 2,500 boxcars were retired from the system and of these 1,500 were suitable for the movement of grain. In effect, in 1973 CNR alone had a decrease in the number of available units to move grain of something in the order of 1,500.
In the issue of the Western Producer for January 3, 1974, there is an annual forecast by farm leaders for 1974. They give their views and projections for 1974 and say what they think the future might hold. There is a very interesting article concerning the boxcar shortage by Mr. A. M. Runciman of United Grain Growers. He indicates that the rail boxcar shortage will be a major farm problem in 1974. I should like to quote from the article because I think it is significant. He said:
But I want to deal with boxcar shortages because I think it's the worst single problem facing farm people in the near future. I don't mean the current shortage encountered by the Canadian Wheat Board, largely due to this past summer's strike. I mean the disastrous situation lying ahead-say three years from now-when we simply won't have enough grain cars to move the grain we want to move.
All through the committee hearings we were given excuses and reasons by the CNR for not providing sufficient rolling-stock. In their opinion it was not a good investment. But I want to remind you again, Mr. Speaker, that it was for this purpose that the CNR was created and asked to discharge a responsibility in this country; that is, the movement of goods and people from point A to point B. Mr. Runciman later in the article said:
The trouble is, there seems to be very little being done, and there is the risk that the whole situation could fall around our ears while we're still scrambling to find out what the problem is.
He continued:
What are the reasons for the shortage? Why aren't the railroads building cars for moving grain?
Everybody is familiar with the complaints of the railroads. They say they don't make enough money moving grain compared to other products, and so they're building cars to move all products but grain. They claim if branch lines are abandoned, losses from moving grain will continue because there will be no subsidies to defray costs if the grain moves on the main lines.
Are the railroads telling the truth? I don't know. But I'll bet even if they were, we wouldn't believe them.

The claim of the railroads about not being able to make money hauling grain reminds me of the person who applied for a licence to sell liquor in his dining lounge so that people could be served drinks with their food. As you know, sir, there is always more profit in selling liquor than in selling food. In this case, after a time the man would prefer to drop the food operation and simply sell liquor because liquor is a better paying proposition than food. In some ways the railways are in the same position. They are obligated to move all commodities, not merely those bringing high profits. They are responsible for moving all items, items of low value to them as well as items that bring a high return.
Mr. Runciman went on to say:
The first step then is to find out the reasons. It can be done. There is a government agency called the Canadian Transport Commission which operates under the National Transportation Act.
The transportation act empowers the Minister of Transport, to whom the CTC responds, to enquire into costs of transportation. So what do you think of farm organizations requesting the Minister to instruct the CTC to put the railroads' financial facts on the table? In other words, get an independent analysis of costs by a government agency-not the railroads' side of it. If a cost analysis isn't publicly disclosed by the CTC, I can see all kinds of haywire tinkering with solutions to the boxcar shortage-including attempts to change the Crowsnest rates.
That suggestion ought to be considered. The minister and the government ought to remind the CNR that its major responsibilities include the movement of grain and of all commodities.
I am sure we were all disturbed to learn facts contained in the third report of the commission looking into railway safety, which was tabled. This document is a damning indictment of the railways. They have not maintained their lines as well as they should have done, and those lines cannot accommodate heavy loads and heavily loaded boxcars. Apparently accidents and derailments have just about tripled since 1959, and nearly doubled since 1969. Because of deteriorating track conditions and the safety shortcomings alluded to in the report, the Canadian Transport Commission has instructed the railways to reduce the maximum net weight of its cars to 70 tons from 80 tons per car, to reduce the height of loads and speeds and to take necessary steps to reduce excessive strains which now are greater than the present track structure can bear adequately.
What will be the effect of these instructions? There will be a reduction in efficiency and capacity on the part of the railways. The railway companies will not be able to discharge their responsibilities as well as they ought to, and therefore there will be a growing backlog with regard to commodities needed on the Prairies, B.C., the Atlantic provinces and other parts of the country. It behooves the government to bring the railways immediately to task. They should take action immediately to upgrade their track facilities in order that they can operate at maximum efficiency and capacity. It is time the government reminded the railways of their duties and obligations in this country. It should instruct them to do the job they were intended to do.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the speeches made tonight have interested me, particularly those made by Conservative members. I only wish we were considering the Canadian Pacific Railway as well, to
January 7, 1974

see whether some of the same arguments would be applied to that company. A number of people in Canada think that anything run by the government must be run badly, and that public ownership is bad.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


William Arnold Peters: An hon. member says that is right. Certainly, some officials of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada went a long way to proving the arguments of some of my colleagues, namely, that Canadian National and Air Canada are less than efficient and are doing less than the job they are supposed to do. I was interested in the remarks of the previous speaker. When he was a member of the transport committee I found, when we were discussing the financing of CN, that he was more tolerant of public ownership and more interested than some others in arriving at solutions to problems involving the railways.
When Canadian National Railways was first formed it was necessary to put it under public ownership. I am of the opinion that such ownership is still necessary. I am also of the opinion that Canadian Pacific Railway should also be brought under public ownership. I suggest it is not correct to say that public ownership leads to inefficiency. I suggest the fault can more properly be laid at the feet of members of parliament who take little or no interest in the operations of Crown corporations.
When, in the committee to which I referred, we were talking about jobs, salaries and certain individuals who were vice-presidents of Air Canada, I was interested to note that the chairman refused to divulge exactly what were the duties of those vice-presidents. He would only say that they were on the upper board, or that there were certain people who were not on the upper board. He would not say how much money they made. He left the fairly clear impression that not all vice-presidents are paid the same money. He suggested that if he told us how much each man got, some people would be mad and morale would disappear.
What he said could be applied to the operations of both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. They have reached the stage in their bureaucracies in which apparently one person does not know what the other is doing. They are more concerned about their little bureaucratic empires than about the over-all railway operation. They think more of the bureaucracy than of running the organization.
In those committee hearings we called a representative of the Wheat Board. I remember we were discussing the question of boxcars and the more efficient handling of grain. We had been discussing the new hopper cars, and I was interested to learn that the Wheat Board was operating the hopper cars. Apparently the board controls the cars although ownership remained in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It was very difficult to find out whether the Department of Transport, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Canadian Wheat Board or one or both of the railways were servicing those cars, although it was indicated that a contract for service had been in effect for some time. It was impossible for the committee to find out the terms of the contract, whether the service was being provided and, if so, who was doing it and, more important, who was paying for it.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
When the vice-chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board appeared before us, he indicated they did not anticipate that both CNR and CPR would be able to supply the transportation needs of the grain industry in western Canada this year. He said they were running approximately 75 per cent of the quota of last year, the quota that was agreed to by all parties concerned. This would not meet the requirements of the grain trade this year and they anticipated a shortfall in transportation. He went on to say parliament would have to authorize the purchase of another 4,000 hopper cars this year. These cars are worth $20,000 each. This means they will be asking for another $80 million for hopper cars this year. He also indicated that at the end of a five-year period, in order to handle the grain produced in western Canada the Canadian public would have to provide 20,000 cars at an amount well in excess of $400 million.
When the western conference was held last summer, the transportation problems were so bad that one of the requests of the western premiers was that the federal government build a roadbed for upgrading railway services. They said they would supply the rails and the federal government, through the Department of Transport, would operate the roadbed and the rails. We are developing at least two more forms of railway transportation in Canada, one of them owning the rails and the roadbed, with the Canadian Wheat Board controlling the hopper cars for the handling of grain. At the same time, the CNR is operating inefficiently, scrapping boxcars used for the delivery of grain while boxcars are being built that cannot be used for the handling of grain. Members of this House should look very carefully at its operations, for two reasons. First, it is damned inefficient in the handling of most of our major commodities. Second, it will be necessary for us to take over all the trackage in Canada and bring both railways under the control of one head so that the Canadian public will be served in a way where service is more important than profit.
I have no problem supporting the first two amendments. They would remove the CNR from the hotel business and the building of towers in Toronto. According to the president of CNR, the reason for the tower is simply prestige; it will be higher than the bank towers or any other building in Canada. When pressed as to why they would want to do that, he said they would be putting an antenna on the top to serve our communications system. In my opinion, someone else could have built a tower and the antenna could have been on top of that. It would have been much less bother for those who should normally be running a railroad. They are not running a railroad, they are running a business; and they are doing a damned poor job of it. You cannot put political hacks into that kind of operation and expect them to run a railroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Very shortly we will have a chance to do something about this. For many years Mr. MacMillan has been in control of the operations of CNR. I dare say that after 35 or 40 years he has learned a great deal about operating railroads in Canada. He certainly does not know too much about the hotel operation. He does not know why
26695-65),

January 7, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada they sold the Bessborough Hotel for $1,600,000 after spending half a million dollars putting in a tunnel to the parking lot. He was not able to explain that. He was not able to explain the reason for the tower. However, he will be retiring. I suggest this government should then appoint an expert to run the railroad. It should appoint someone who will bring new life to the operations of that company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not Edgar Benson.


William Arnold Peters: My colleague says, not the former minister of finance. I can tell my colleague that the Hon. Edgar Benson would be a great improvement over many of the present vice-presidents of the CNR. He might not do a bad job of running it.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At ten o'clock, the House adjourned.

Tuesday, January 8, 1974