1974-11-13

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-12, an act to amend the Immigration Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice of the remarks made in yesterday's debate and recorded in Hansard which, in the view of some hon. members, might give rise to a question of privilege. Following that, I received formal notice by some hon. members concerning the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).
On examining the remarks in order to understand the nature of the question of privilege, it appeared to me that they might be open to more than one interpretation. I understand the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has indicated that his remarks have been misinterpreted and he would be pleased at this time to clarify any misinterpretations. If so, he would relieve the Chair of the burden of proceeding with any question relating to those remarks.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, you have caught me breathless. I had hoped to hear the nature of the misinterpretations. I should say for your benefit, sir, and for the benefit of hon. members who were in touch with my office this morning, that according to my understanding most of the races have been cancelled today owing to weather conditions.
Apart from that, sir, I gather from- what I heard in the House last night that one misinterpretation was the following: that somehow or other I had indicated that elevator operators, messengers and guards of this House were accepting bets or acting as bookies. Of course, nowhere did I say anything like that. What I did say was that as I am certainly aware, any hon. member must be naive and out of touch with reality if he does not think organized crime has not reached Parliament Hill. It is a very easy matter
for any member to find out where to place a bet. Certainly, that is the extent of what I said last night and what I repeat today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member has suggested that the incidence of this sort of thing is sufficiently commonplace for one to be able to inform oneself without going outside this building to learn where it is taking place, and as that is the sort of allegation which does not in any way reflect on criminal activity within the building-the interpretation that such activity does take place within the building being a totally different one-I suggest, in view of the clarification contained in the hon. member's remarks, that unless other members propose to give notice that those remarks constitute a question of privilege, I should not perhaps carry the matter any further at this time.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, you did not hear the words as I did from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) when he said that organized crime had reached this House. Is he alleging that organized crime is taking place in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The very purpose of raising this subject, of course, was to invite the hon. member to clarify that remark. I understand from his clarification, and I trust I am supported by other hon. members in it, that the existence of the sort of thing we were discussing in the debate yesterday is sufficiently commonplace. This is the suggestion and tenor of the hon. member's remarks, that one can inform oneself without going beyond the guards, and so on, but there is not an allegation of specific misconduct on their part. I think that is important. I think that is precisely the distinction the hon. member has brought to his clarification of this matter. With that in mind, I submit it is a perfectly proper comment that does not cast aspersions on the staff of this House. That is perfectly clear. If I misunderstand the hon. member, I am sure he will correct me.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Perfectly correct.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it was my hope that I would not feel compelled to rise on the basis of the-


An hon. Member:: Don't feel compelled. Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I say again that it was my hope that I would not feel compelled to rise on the basis of the notice which I sent to Your Honour this morning of an intention to raise a

Privilege
question of privilege on the basis of what was said in the House yesterday. Indeed, I listened with interest and attention to the remarks made just now by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) for I was hoping he would remove completely any cloud such as I think was created yesterday. I may say that some of the employees in this building, having heard reports on the radio this morning, have expressed their concern to me. Apart from that, may I say I would be satisfied not to pursue the matter any further, provided-


Some hon. Members:: Good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a minute. This matter is serious, very serious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Apart from the fact that references were made to employees of this House who have no chance of replying, the hon. member twice yesterday made statements which are practically the same. I will quote both of them. On page 1242 of Hansard for yesterday, in the first column, about two-thirds of the way down, he is quoted as having said:
-ask our messenger service who or where the nearest bookie in this building is.
That is not just an assertion that you can get information from members of the staff of this House. That is an assertion that there is a bookie in this building. As recorded on page 1245 of Hansard, I raised a question of privilege, expressing the hope that the member would clarify the matter. He concluded his statement with these words, which are in the first column of page 1245:
If you ask them, they will tell you where the local bookie is for this floor in this building.
If the hon. member wants to clarify this whole matter, he should withdraw those statements about there being bookies in this building.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no hesitancy in saying that I came into this chamber this afternoon as far from being trigger-happy as I could possibly be, not wanting to raise a question of privilege of which I gave Your Honour notice as a form of protection. However, the hon. member has now said-and he can correct me if I do not get his words right-that organized crime has come to this building. He has not withdrawn the statement he made twice yesterday that there are bookies in this building.
I still think there is a question of privilege here. I do not know these things that he says we all know. Messengers have told me that they are not involved in what he says is available in the case of every messenger, and I accept their word. I submit that, as a member of parliament, my privileges are interfered with if I am operating in a place where things are going on which are illegal and which all of us here are alleged to be condoning. I feel very strongly that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham should clarify the matter more adequately than he has so far. If he will simply say that those two statements about there being bookies in this building are statements made in the
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)-!
enthusiasm of debate, but which he is not able to back up, that, of course, will clear up the matter.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was not present during the debate yesterday, but the words used today by the hon. member do seem objectionable to me, and I support the House leader in this sense. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) said that organized crime had reached Parliament Hill. I am sure each member of the House would want to stand up and assert, as I do, that as far as I am aware it has not reached my office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear laughter, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member opposite wishes to clarify his statement, I would be glad to have information to the contrary because I would want to take strong action if such were the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If all members of the House wish to dissociate themselves from this statement, I imagine we are left in the position mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). But who is going to speak for the messengers and the others who cannot stand in this House and say that they are not the focus of organized crime? The hon. member leaves us with this dilemma, and I believe he should clarify his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand in this House and, for perhaps the first time this session, hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) volunteer to take action about something, because there has been precious little taken so far.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I intervened last evening to suggest at the time the question was initially raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that there was some doubt as to whether the matter involved a question of privilege. Since that time I have had an opportunity to consider some authorities. I refer Your Honour to the seventeenth edition of May's, page 109, where the following appears:
It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
The essence of a question of privilege, as I read that citation and citations 102 to 116 in Beauchesne's, is that privilege is a protection for members of the House and is not intended to limit in any way the things members can say in the House. There is a second point I wish to make. Even if a suggestion of this nature has been made, there is a question whether the persons about whom it was made are, in fact, officers of the House, in parliamentary terms. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect for the
November 13, 1974

good staff which serves us in this place, and for motives about which I can only be suspicious, I think it is stretching things a bit to say that officers of the House, as referred to in the statements yesterday, could ever be implicated. As the right hon. Prime Minister said in his statement today, Your Honour is an officer of the House, just as is the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms.
I think the essence of the matter, first off, is that this is hardly a question of privilege. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised this matter last night in the course of debate, but having examined the authorities I would urge upon Your Honour consideration of those authorities and ask you to rule that this is not a question of privilege for the House, that no member's right is interfered with and that there is nothing here for the Chair to deal with except to turn down this question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I welcome discussion of this subject by hon. members. I have some difficulty with every question of privilege, of course, and this one is no exception. What troubles me about this particular matter is not simply the question of privilege itself. It may, in fact, be possible to decide on the precedents and on the strength of the arguments presented to the Chair that in fact a question of privilege does not exist. Even a prima facie question of privilege may not exist.
However, the problem is more serious than that. The responsibility of the Chair, of course, is the provision of the staff and the supervision and running of the staff that serves the House of Commons. It is the Chair's responsibility to see that the staff performs its functions not only properly but that it is free of any kind of allegation that may be made against it. Therefore, whether or not a prima facie question of privilege exists, the Chair would have the responsibility of seeing, on the basis of an allegation of this sort-if this is the kind of allegation that has been suggested-that the matter be discussed, examined, investigated and reported upon in a very thorough and complete manner.
Accordingly, there seem to me to be two problems here. The first is whether a prima facie question of privilege exists. Then, even if it does not exist, the second and more serious problem is whether the allegations made by the hon. member have any substance to them. Both are very serious and important question and for this reason I was anxious that the hon. member be given the opportunity to clarify the intent of his remarks, so as to determine whether or not there is substance to a specific allegation of any criminal activity in this building.
If there is further discussion to be presented at this time, I propose to reserve my judgment as to whether or not a prima facie question of privilege exists in this matter and inform hon. members of my decision at a later date after further discussion, if such is forthcoming at the moment. In the circumstances, both the House and the Chair might be relieved of this burden if the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham wants to make it perfectly clear, either that he has no specific allegation of criminal activity in this building or, in the alternative, if he does
Privilege
have a specific allegation of criminal activity, that he is prepared to substantiate it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, normally I do not need too much of an invitation to say anything, but certainly an invitation from you is almost like a command. If that is your desire, it is also mine and I would be very pleased to indicate that in no way did I mean-and if someone misinterpreted my words, I apologize right now-to reflect upon the probity or integrity of any of the staff, servants or agents of this House, or on you, sir. For that matter, I did not mean to reflect in any way even upon people in the public service. But apart altogether from this being a tempest in a teapot, I suggest members of the public are frequently in this building. Not all people who are in this building are members of the public service or agents of Your Honour. I think this should at least seep through the skulls of some people, if they are willing to talk about this subject.
I am merely saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you want to find out where criminal activity exists around here, it is not hard to do so. I say that, sir, on the basis of some friendships that I have made around here with the staff.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I mean that. There is absolutely nothing illegal, and there is absolutely nothing immoral involved. I am not attacking anyone's integrity. But I say again that I think it very unrealistic if members believe they cannot ask almost anyone in the corridor where this type of activity exists. That was the whole point of my remarks, to show how easily accessible and available is this type of information. In no way, I hope, am I attacking the integrity or the probity of any one of our servants. If any of them believe that, I apologize to them most sincerely.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, having reaffirmed in the clearest possible terms the interpretation I had put on his words initially, at the invitation of some hon. members, I would submit that the matter has now been laid to rest as clearly as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had one intervention already on this question. I should perhaps indicate again, as I did at the outset, that I will reserve judgment on whether there is a prima facie question of privilege, and give judgment at a later time.
[DOT] * *


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.
[Editors Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
November 13, 1974
Report on Peacekeeping Units

Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this early opportunity since returning to Canada to report to the House on my trip to visit more than 2,000 members of the Canadian armed forces on peacekeeping duty in Cyprus and in the Middle East.
During the past few days I have been in Cyprus, where there are more than 900 Canadian military personnel; in Egypt, where we have more than 1,000 personnel; in Syria, where we have 29, and in Israel where there are approximately 170. In numerous conversations with members of the Canadian armed forces in these four countries, I found that generally speaking morale is high, and it is clearly evident that our personnel are convinced they are engaged in useful and worthwhile work. They are willing to undergo some of the difficult living conditions and the sacrifice of being separated from their families in order to perform the important task of peacekeeping.
In the United Nations Bolivar camp on the Golan Heights, where living and working conditions are the most difficult, I was encouraged to find that substantial progress is being made in the construction of new buildings and in the improvement of sanitation and living conditions.
Throughout the trip I found that, without exception, the political and military leaders in all four countries praised the work being done by the Canadian contingents of the United Nations forces. I do not want to over-state this matter, but I believe all members of the House would have been as pleased, and as proud, as I was to have heard some of the ways in which our Canadian personnel were described. The adjectives that were most frequently used were, that in carrying out their duties the Canadians are known to be impartial, competent and resourceful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: In conversations with President Clae-rides and Vice-President Denktash in Cyprus, with the Deputy Premier and Minister of War of Egypt, Field Marshal Ismail, as well as with the Defence Minister of Syria, General Tlass, and the Defence Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres, I was left with no doubt whatsoever that the contribution Canada is making to peacekeeping is welcomed and is well received in each of these countries. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the presence of our forces is helping to provide the stability, and the relatively peaceful conditions, in which meaningful negotiations can take place.
I am pleased to be able to report, specifically, that within the next few days the United Nations will be recommencing flights between Beirut and Damascus, using Canadian Buffalo aircraft. From conversations with the Defence Minister of Syria and his senior officers, I am satisfied that the tragic loss of the United Nations Buffalo aircraft on this route last August was an accident regret-

ted by all, and was not an aggressive act directed against the United Nations.
Last week our own aircraft flew over this same route to Damascus and I have been assured that all future flights of Canadian or United Nations aircraft will travel in safety as far as the Syrians are concerned. The recommencement of Buffalo aircraft flights from Beirut to Damascus will greatly assist in the adequate supply of the Canadian peacekeeping forces now living in the buffer zone on the Golan Heights.
As a result of several on-the-spot conversations which I had with Canadian servicemen, I now intend to examine the feasibility of establishing a Canadian leave centre where personnel serving in Cyprus, or in the Middle East, can spend their leave. Also, whenever appropriate transportation arrangements can be made, it is our hope that servicemen's wives will be able to travel to this leave centre.
One good location for a leave centre would be near the airfield at Akrotiri in the Greek-Cypriot town of Limassol.


Mr. Nowlan:: Why don't you be the first one to go there?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have just been there. We will have this location, as well as others, under consideration. It should be pointed out that this will not involve any capital expenditure-


Mr. Forrestall:: You spent it all on Winnipeg.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: -but can be achieved by negotiating the use of hotel accommodation as required at a suitable location.
I would also like to report to the House that in our peacekeeping operations we have been particularly fortunate in the quality of leadership that we have had in the Canadian contingents of the United Nations forces. Brigadier-General Clay Beattie in Cyprus, and Brigadier-General Don Holmes in Egypt, each in his own way, have brought credit to themselves and to Canada by the resourceful and competent leadership that they are providing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should not fail to mention that in each of the countries visited the expression of friendship for Canada went far beyond admiration for our peacekeeping forces. The political and military leaders in these countries, without exception, expressed a desire to have closer relations with our country in trade and travel, and in other ways. These matters belong, to a large extent, to other departments, but I would be remiss if I did not report the genuine friendship for Canada that was clearly and frequently expressed by the leaders and the people of each country We visited.
As is the case with almost every Canadian who travels overseas, I found that there is a great reservoir of goodwill for Canada and for Canadians, and I have come home convinced that this measure of goodwill is being enlarged by the members of the Canadian armed forc.es who are
November 13, 1974

serving Canada, and the world community, on peacekeeping duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* [DOT] *


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF GENERAL ANDREW GOODPASTER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Following the minister's remarks, and before recognizing opposition spokesmen, this might be an appropriate moment to call attention to the presence in the gallery of a very distinguished visitor, General Andrew Goodpaster, retiring Supreme Allied Commander of our forces in Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: General Goodpaster is accompanied by the Chief of Canadian Defence Forces, General James Dex-traze. General Goodpaster's excellent record in commanding the armed forces in Europe is well known and certainly I am sure members of this House will want me, on their behalf, to convey their very best wishes on his retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want to express the usual thanks to the minister for having made available at an early point a copy of his statement so that it might be reviewed by us before we make our comments in reply thereto. I appreciate these courtesies which make our work a little easier. Members of the House have just heard, and I trust with some alarm, the amazing statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). One could not help but believe that all is well and rosy within the Canadian armed forces. We welcome the minister's statement to the effect that our forces are doing well and are well received in the Middle East in respect of the two particular assignments with the United Nations. Indeed, there is not a member of this House who does not appreciate the ability of the Canadian forces under such conditions, and their ability to come through very strong and do their job very well.
The minimum statement that was expected by this House, and I think by the Canadian people, had nothing to do with whether or not we are loved over there, but rather with whether or not we are able to fulfil the mandate given us and the responsibility we have over there, or whether or not we will withdraw troops from Cyprus. Why did the minister not bother to tell us more about the progress of negotiations on that torn island so that we might better understand the commitment we are asking ihe Canadian people and the Canadian forces to make in that area. This is what we expected as a minimum. The
Report on Peacekeeping Units
minister mentioned-and there was reference to this in the Canadian Press and the minister referred to it today- that he was there to see whether or not we should pull back troops. We expected him to say today either that he is satisfied with the work being done there and will leave them there or that he will bring some of these forces home.
Why could we not have had a response to questions such as these? These questions concern not only us but also our allies and partners within this joint venture in peacekeeping. It is very meaningful and very serious work. The House is no better informed now than it was the day before the minister went to the Middle East. I am sure we all welcome the fact that he did make this visit. I had hoped that he would have had the courtesy to invite some members from other sectors of this House to make this visit, then we might have had a balanced view and a little bit of hard news about the facts.
There are just one or two other brief comments I should like to make, Mr. Speaker. Our concern, of course, arises out of financing restrictions, lowering force levels, and the fact that it takes five or six men to keep one man in an operational situation. Our concern also is that we do not have the money to logistically support these people and to adequately support rotation. In other words, we cannot perform the multiple tasks assigned in the 1970 White Paper, so it is unrealistic for the minister to stand in this House and make out that all is well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the armed forces are getting damned sick of the situation. There are very real problems in peacekeeping and we thought that the minister might have dealt with some of them today. We wanted to know what the hopes are for a settlement in these areas but we did not hear anything about that.
I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might take an early opportunity to meet with the minister and insist on the production of a White Paper which would clearly set out our requirements for national sovereignty, our international responsibilities and the priorities of our peacekeeping role, as well as the multiple taskings that cause difficulties in meeting commitments at home.
With respect to national sovereignty, I hope that the Prime Minister would urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to prepare a statement at the earliest possible moment with respect to the armed forces which would reflect the very desperate situation in which the Canadian armed forces find themselves today.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party I should like to welcome the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) back to this House. I should like to congratulate him on his initiative in travelling to the Middle East to encourage our troops and foster what looks like pretty good morale.
I can understand the minister's reluctance to invite an all-party contingent to accompany him. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) indicated some disappointment about this, but members may recall that the last time the minister offered to make it an all-party trip the visit was to Viet Nam. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East did not see fit to take advan-

November 13, 1974
Report on Peacekeeping Units
tage of that invitation, so I can understand the minister being a little reluctant to make the offer this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) on a question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I was not invited to Viet Nam.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I do want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East however, by saying that what we had today was a motherhood statement. It brings very little information to this House about the real problem we are facing in the Middle East. Canada, with justice, has been very proud of the role our peacekeeping forces have played. We are not a major power, not a power with territorial ambition. Our role is very important and is one which this party has supported for a very long time and will continue to support.
I think it is time, however, that we reassessed the peacekeeping role that our forces are playing. The ad hoc financing of Canadian forces is simply not satisfactory. It is time that we had decent backup from the United Nations for our forces.


Mr. Fraser:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is high time that this government raised this issue in a vigorous manner in the councils of the world and particularly in the United Nations. When our forces are in positions of high risk there is a lack of international support. I can only refer the House to the actions of Gamal Abdal Nasser when our forces were unilaterally ordered out of the Middle East, which action contributed to that war, and the Turkish attitude toward our forces in Cyprus which leaves a lot to be desired and to some extent is disgraceful. We must keep in mind that an attack on Canadian forces in the Middle East is an attack on the United Nations and on the world forces of order. Mr. Speaker, we are just not getting the kind of backup support from the United Nations that we should be getting.
I think we should look again at our basic role, Mr. Speaker, and ask if we are really peacekeepers or merely observers? It is time that we moved to the next stage in peacekeeping, a stage that would give some muscle to peacekeeping. It is time the world imposed sanctions on those nations that see fit to attack peacekeeping forces, and that is the kind of support we must have if the United Nations, indeed the world, is to survive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, before making my remarks, I would like to tell the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) that I am unfortunately unable to pay him the same compliments as the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)

since the French translation of his statement reached us only at 2.35 p.m. I would to point out that we should like to have the French version of his statements at the same time as all other members.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the minister is in great shape after such a hard trip, both physically and morally.
Moreover, I am happy to hear him say that the morale of our soldiers seems very good, but I would rather see them back among us.
Mr. Speaker, we have always provided help for foreign countries and we have also tried to further peace and goodwill through pacific negotiations.
The Canadian participation in the peacekeeping force does not have for its only objective successful negotiations between the conflicting parties. Mr. Speaker, it must ensure that a stable peace is enforced between all the nations of the world.
We shall continue to assert our availability and our wish to serve peace wherever we shall be asked to do so and wherever we may be useful.
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the wives of our soldiers will be able to visit their husbands. I am certain that this will be very helpful to our Canadian forces.
I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that a young soldier from my constituency died recently in Cyprus in the defence of peace. It is sad that such things can happen, but the role played by Canada in protecting the peace is essential.
Mr. Speaker, our most sincere desire is that the conflicts between Cyprus and Turkey come to an end as soon as possible.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before leaving this stage may I ask if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) intends to make a report on his visit to Israel which was described in this House yesterday as an official visit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Motions. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).


EQUIPPING OF VEHICLES WITH PROPER TIRES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity involving the armed forces of our country: It has been brought to my attention that the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, while proceeding to Camp Aldershot, Nova Scotia from Camp Gage-town, New Brunswick, on October 22, to participate in a training exercise, was delayed for a day en route because the four-wheel drive military vehicles carrying the troops were not equipped with proper tires for snow conditions.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
November 13, 1974

That the Minister of National Defence take immediate steps to equip all our military motor vehicles with modern radial steel-belted tires with all-weather treads, so that, as obsolete as some of our armed forces vehicles may be, at least they will have proper tires to assure their mobility during varying highway and weather conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


MANPOWER
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I wish to ask unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, particularly in view of charges in the press made yesterday and attributed to senior public servants. I would therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration be requested to make a detailed statement to the House disclosing whether or not political considerations on behalf of the Liberal party have been involved in the awarding of Local Initiatives Program grants in recent years and if so that the minister include in his report full details of such political considerations and that the minister advise the House what steps the government will take to prevent recurrence in the future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF TARIFFS ON TELEVISION SETS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the announcement this week that RCA Limited in Prescott will lay off close to 120 hourly rated employees this week-end, with perhaps more to follow, by reason of the increased volume
Canadian Armed Forces
of imports of foreign colour television sets into Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the matter of lay-offs at RCA Limited in Prescott and other manufacturers and the question of tariffs on imported television sets be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for examination and review.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put at this time. [Translation]


SUGGESTION CANADA BUY SUGAR FROM EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a most important and urgent motion.
In view of the constant rise in the consumer price of sugar, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House discuss immediately the possibility for the Canadian government of obtaining its sugar supplies from the European Economic Community instead of on world markets, as it now does, and that it look into the possibility of signing long term agreements with a producing country so that Canadians might be offered sugar at reasonable price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.
 * *


NATIONAL DEFENCE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, for the second time in nine years I wish to bring before the House a matter of urgent and pressing necessity dealing with the now near absolute inability of the Canadian Armed Forces to function within the financial and manpower restrictions laid upon them by this government. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):

November 13, 1974
Canada Elections Act
That this House call upon the Prime Minister of Canada to instruct the Minister of National Defence to produce a White Paper on national defence setting forth the priorities and roles within these priorities, setting forth the clear intention of this government with respect to capital equipment renewal programs, projected manpower levels, and clearly setting forth Canada's determinations with respect to national sovereignty, NATO, NORAD, other Canadian/U.S. arrangements, and all other matters that have been rendered uncertain due to the current financial restraints.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, it cannot be debated at this time.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-362, to amend the Canada Elections Act (use of contributions).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act, to restrict expenditures from funds obtained under it to the activities of a party in its federal capacity. In my view, such a limitation was already clearly parliament's intention in the recent legislation on election expenses, but the New Democratic Party has chosen to take advantage of the letter rather than the spirit and clear intention of the law. This bill would prevent such an abuse of the act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stanfield:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I seriously think that members should consider that a statement made on the first reading of a bill is permitted as a courtesy. The bill is not debatable at this stage and I seriously question whether it is in order, let alone in good taste, for a member in this context to attack another party in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many complaints in writing, or by phone, has the government, or any of its agencies, received regarding noise at the Vancouver International Airport?
2.	Has the government a special phone to receive complaints regarding the Vancouver International Airport and, if so, what is the phone number, what are the hours of operation and how long has it been in service?
3.	Have any extensions to leases been granted to Sea Island on expropriated land past July 31, 1974 and, if so, to whom and for how long?
4.	Can the Minister advise why his two key advisers, Mr. Inglis and Mr. Wolfe, were absent from the Greater Vancouver Regional District Community meeting regarding the Airport expansion held on March 18 at 8.00 p.m. at the Richmond Inn in Richmond, British Columbia?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Since September 1970, 1,279 telephone complaints have been received on noise at Vancouver and Abbotsford Airports, Vancouver Harbour and flights over Vancouver City.
2.	Yes. Telephone number 666-3477, a recorded line, is available 24 hours per day, seven days per week. This recording system was put into service on April 18, 1974.
3.	No.
4.	Messrs. Inglis and Wolfe did not attend the March 28 meeting as they have no direct involvement in airport planning. The Ministry was represented by planning officials.
Note: There was no meeting on March 18.


Mr. Francis: Since June 25, 1972, of all appointments made under the Public Service Employment Act, delegated and non-delegated, to all positions identified as bilingual, how many of the successful candidates were qualified as bilingual at the time of appointment and how many were unilingual?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Employment Act does not provide for the appointment of unilingual persons to bilingual positions. However, following the Parliamentary Resolution on Official Languages through an Order-in-Council and related regulations (Order-in-Council P.C. 1973-1949) pursuant to the exclusion provisions of the Public Service Employment Act (section 39), the Commission was empowered to make appointments of unilinguals to bilingual positions under certain prescribed circumstances. Since the issuing of the Order-in-Council in question, (July 6, 1973) 869 (12 per cent) appointments of unilingual persons to bilingual positions were made by departments under delegation of the Commission's authority, and 847 (20.5 per cent) appointments of unilingual persons were made by the Commission itself. For the same period, 6:968 appointments of bilingual persons to bilingual positions were made by departments under delegation, and 4,113 were made by the Commission itself.
November 13, 1974


Mr. Marshall: 1.	As of September 30, 1974, how many claims for disability pensions were on hand and, of these, how many were (a) over three years old (b) two years old (c) a year old (d) nine months old (e) six months old?
2.	As of September 30, 1974, how many claims were outstanding for First World War Veterans?
3.	What was the number of First World War Veterans residing (a) in Canada (b) outside of Canada as of September 30, 1974?
4.	What was the death rate of veterans during each year 1970 to 1974 to date?
5.	How many applications were received by the Canadian Pension Commission from September 1973 to September 1974?
6.	(a) Of the number adjudicated upon, how many were resolved (i) in favour of (ii) against the veteran (b) as of September 1974, how many applications were still on hand?
7.	Of the 8,708 applications for pensions on hand in September 1973, how many of these were still on hand in September 1974?
8.	What is the average cost to process an application for pension from date of application to final adjudication?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Five thousand nine hundred twenty (disability claims): (a) None, (b) 3; (c) 1,211; (d) No statistics are kept at the nine month period however 1,929 were ten months old or more; (e) No statistics are kept at the six month period however 3,887 were five months old or more.
2.	Statistics of outstanding claims are not kept by periods of service.
3.	Estimated from the 1971 Census and disability pension statistics: (a) 91,800; (b) 5,300.
4.	Estimated death rate: 1970, 1.7 per cent; 1971, 1.8 per cent; 1972, 1.9 per cent; 1973, 2.0 per cent; 1974, 2.1 per cent.
5.	From August 24, 1973 to August 23, 1974, 8,175 (disability and death claims).
6.	(a) Of the 10,499 applications (disability and death claims) adjudicated upon from August 24, 1973 to September 23, 1974: (i) 42.5 per cent; (ii) 57.5 per cent, (b) 6,068.
7.	There were 8,708 applications (disability and death claims) on hand as of September 24, 1973. A further 7,859 applications were received in the year ending September 24, 1974. Of this total of 16,567, 1,216 which were more than one year old were still on hand.
8.	Statistics are not kept in a form that would enable the provision of an accurate answer to this question.


Mr. Herbert: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by extending official invitations, give recognition to the valuable contribution made by a spouse accompanying a Member of Parliament who represents his or her country as a member of an official delegation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs recognizes the value, on appropriate occasions, of Members of Parliament being accompanied by their spouses when representing Canada on an official delegation. The appropriateness of issuing invitations to spouses would depend on the nature of the delegation's objectives
Order Paper Questions
and activities and on the wishes of the host country, institution or international organization.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of External Affairs received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) 212; (b) 73; (c) One.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of the Secretary of State received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


James Hugh Faulkner: (a) 112; (b) Eight; (c) One.


DEPARTMENT OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: (a) 31; (b) Four; (c) nil.


DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: (a) 97; (b) 14; (c) One.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Justice received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: (a) 328; (b) 269; (c) 34.

November 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF REMUNERATION IN EXCESS OF $20,000
Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Transport received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a)$20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Jean Marchand: (a) 732;
(b)	27; (c) Three.


MONEY SPENT BY INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	How much money was spent by Information Canada during (a) 1971 (b) 1972 (c) 1973 (d) the first six months of 1974?
2.	How much money is to be allotted to Information Canada for the years (a) 1975 (b) 1976?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: In so far as
Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows; 1. (a) 1971-72, $8,101,568.58; (b) 1972-73, $9,058,875.72;
(c)	1973-74, $10,966,153.46; (d) 1974-75, $2,875,872.74.
2.	(a) 1975-76, Main Estimates not yet approved; (b) 1976-77, Unknown.


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-MANITOBA, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Manitoba for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Manitoba (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Manitoba for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Manitoba have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Manitoba for 1972-73?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. Eighteen.
2.	$12,616.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	Two thousand one hundred sixty-two.
5.	One thousand one hundred fifty-seven.
6.	$43,630.
Notes; 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-SASKATCHEWAN, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Saskatchewan for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?

3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Saskatchewan (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Saskatchewan for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan for 1972-73?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Eleven.
2.	$14,139.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	One thousand one hundred fifteen.
5.	Six hundred seventy-eight.
6.	$27,365.
Notes: 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-ALBERTA, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Alberta for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Alberta (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Alberta for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Alberta have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Alberta for 1972-73?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Nineteen.
2.	$13,393.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	Two thousand five hundred seventy-one.
5.	One thousand fifty-four.
6.	$48,625.
Notes: 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures Shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.
November 13, 1974


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in British Columbia for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in British Columbia (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in British Columbia for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of British Columbia have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of British Columbia for 1972-73?


William Warren Allmand: 1.
Thirty-three.
2.	$13,980.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	Two thousand five hundred seventy-one.
5.	Four hundred ninety-two.
6.	John Howard Society of British Columbia, $37,490; John Howard Society of Vancouver Island, $5,555.
Notes: 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 1(c) Part 5, Combined figure of both the John Howard Society of British Columbia and the John Howard Society of Vancouver Island. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for service basis.


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-QUEBEC, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Quebec for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Quebec (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Quebec for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Quebec have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Quebec for 1972-73?


William Warren Allmand: 1.
Fifty-five.
2.	$13,741.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	Nine thousand eight hundred forty-one.
5.	Two thousand fifty-four.
6.	$70,270.
Notes: 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year
Order Paper Questions
basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-NOVA SCOTIA, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Nova Scotia for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Nova Scotia (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Nova Scotia for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Nova Scotia have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Nova Scotia for 1972-73?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Eleven.
2.	$14,166.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	Eight hundred twenty-five.
5.	One thousand nine hundred seventy-two.
6.	$56,060.
Notes: 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6, The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.


PAROLE STAFF POSITIONS-ONTARIO, 1972-73
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many parole staff (positions) were there in Ontario for the year 1972-73?
2.	How much did it cost to maintain each position on the average?
3.	How much was the total annual budget of the two National Parole Service Offices in Ontario (including staffing) for 1972-73?
4.	How many cases did the parole staff have under their supervision in Ontario for 1972-73?
5.	How many cases did the John Howard Society of Ontario have under its supervision in 1972-73?
6.	What was the parole grant to the John Howard Society of Ontario for 1972-73?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Sixty-one.
2.	$13,085.
3.	Budgeting for Parole Board offices is centralized and therefore figures on a provincial basis are not available.
4.	Twelve thousand three hundred seventy-six.
5.	Four thousand four hundred nine.
6.	$189,870.

November 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions
Notes: 1(a) Parts 4 and 5, System in the process of amendment and past records give figures on a calendar year basis. 1(b) Parts 4 and 5, Figures shown represent man-months of supervision, not individual cases. 2. Part 6-The National Parole Board does not make grants to aftercare agencies. The amount shown was paid on a fee for services rendered basis.


NUMBER OF INDIAN STUDENTS IN HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In each province, how many Indian young people entered (a) grade nine in 1970 (b) grade ten in 1971 (c) grade eleven in 1972 (d) grade twelve in 1973?
2.	Of those Indian students attending high school from 1970 to 1973, how many were enrolled in the two-year course and how many in the four-year course?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)Nova Scotia	52	46	35	22New Brunswick	54	44	30	22Prince Edward Island	1	-	-	-Quebec	339	305	248	110Ontario	1021	733	504	407Manitoba	597	422	210	111Saskatchewan	403	262	145	96Alberta	409	409	223	176*British Columbia	815	631	374	241
Note: The above figures may include some Inuit and other students, 'includes Yukon regional students in British Columbia.
2.	This information is not available.


CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL REPORTS
Mr. Herbert: Has the Construction Industry Development Council submitted to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce any reports on construction industry exports and, if not, does it intend to do so?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, the Construction Industry Development Council has reported on construction industry exports to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


MORTGAGE INSURANCE FUND, 1972
Mr. Herbert: Of the amount of the claims paid out of the Mortgage Insurance Fund in 1972, how much has been recovered from sales of property acquired and what is the approximate market value of any property retained from these acquisitions?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Claims paid by the Mortgage Insurance Fund on properties acquired in 1972 totalled $26.7 million. Recoveries from the sale of properties acquired in 1972 amounted

to $17.8 million, with the remaining properties having an approximate market value of $7.6 million.


MERITS OF ESTABLISHING GRAIN ELEVATORS IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Howie: Will the government consider the merits of establishing grain elevators at or near seaports in New Brunswick to try and store a year's supply of early grain to be resold at a constant price to New Brunswick farmers thus stabilizing this aspect of farm production cost?


Otto Emil Lang: As indicated in the Government's announcement of the new feed grains policy a storage program at an annual cost of $40 million will be instituted. It is anticipated that this will lead to additional grain storage at various locations in Canada, including the Maritimes, and the Government will consider proposals for such storage on their merits. Pricing of feed grains in Canada under the new policy is now determined on an open market basis with users throughout Canada, including the Maritimes, having direct access to western grains. No consideration is being given to holding grain in storage for sale at constant prices in any part of the country.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN COVERAGE
Mr. Herbert: Does the Canada Assistance Plan cover tools, equipment, licences or permits essential to obtaining employment for a person in need and do the federal payments reimburse up to 50 percent of the costs of such special needs and, if so, is the government aware that persons completing federally financed adult training programs are unable to obtain employment in the trade for which they have been trained because of their inability to (a) purchase tools or obtain financing for such a purchase (b) obtain a work permit in their trade?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government shares in 50 per cent of the costs to the provinces of providing to persons in need items such as tools, equipment, licences or permits which are considered essential for obtaining employment. Persons who have completed federally financed adult training programs and are recognized by the province as persons in need may be eligible for such assistance.


PROPELLANT GASES FROM AEROSOL SPRAYS
Mr. Howie: Have there been recent expressions of scientific concern over diminution of the atmosphere's vital ozone layer by propellant gases used in aerosol sprays and, if so, does the government contemplate regulation of the use of such gases?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes, there have been expressions of scientific concern and studies are going on. Scientists responsible for these studies are unanimous in stressing that the studies do not provide a final answer and that more research is required. If and when regulatory action becomes appropriate, it will be possible under the provisions of the Environmental Contaminants Act, now before Parliament.


SALARIES OF PERSONNEL IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many members of the staff in the Office of the Prime Minister are expected to receive, in the fiscal year 1974-1975 a salary of
(a)	$35,000 or more (b) $30,000 to $34,999 (c) $25,000 to $29,999 (d) $20,000 to $24,999?
2.	How many members of the staff in the Prime Minister's Office received salaries of $20,000 or more in each fiscal year 1969-70 and 1964-65?
3.	How much was spent for travelling expenses of staff members in the Prime Minister's Office in the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. (a) four;
(b)	None; (c) six; (d) ten.
2.	1969-70, four; 1964-65, one.
3.	$64,054.14.


CELEBRATION OF DOLLARD DES ORMEAUX DAY
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What date has been designated for the celebration of the Dollard des Ormeaux Day?
2.	Does Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recognize this holiday?
3.	Does the government approve of the advertising made by CBC for the celebration of this holiday?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. No
date has been designated for the celebration of the Dollard des Ormeaux Day by the Parliament of Canada.
2.	I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the CBC does not recognize at any of its locations in the case of either its unionized personnel or non-unionized personnel, a holiday commemorating Dollard des Ormeaux. No publicity campaign has been broadcast in this connection. As for CBC programs themselves,
Order Paper Questions
while references to the anniversary of Dollard des Ormeaux may have been made, no programs or portions of programs have been devoted to this subject.
3.	Not applicable.


QUEBEC LIVING PLACES SEMINAR
Mr. Herbert: Has a date been finalized for a Quebec living places seminar and how will the existence of this seminar be communicated to interested parties?


Barnett Jerome Danson: While there have been numerous contacts with groups and organizations in Quebec having an interest in the NHA amendments approved in June 1973, arrangements for a Living Places Seminar have not been finalized. An invitation to these seminars is extended to all interested parties.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION-RECLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many positions were reclassified by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 to date?
2.	What were the entertainment expenses of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, broken down by headquarters and regions, for the years 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974 to date?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1.	1971, 683; 1972, 1,196; 1973,
147; 1974, 184.
Atlantic	Quebec	Ontario	Prairie	Pacific	Headquarters	Total$	$	$	*	$	$	$1971	1,180	372	1,543	880	1,018	5,635	10,629*1972	1,707	278	1,741	691	663	5,338	10,4181973	1,577	582	4,677	544	534	3,792	11,7061974	157	1,376	4,499	-	473	6,262	12,697"
*from April 1 to Decembre 31, 1971 "as of September 30, 1974


OFY ALLOCATIONS IN OKANAGAN BOUNDARY CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money given out in the OFY Program in 1973 and to date in 1974 (a) what was the total given out in the program in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1973 and to date in 1974 and what percentage is this of the total distribution made in 1973 and to date in 1974 (b) what projects in the Okanagan Boundary, by name and amount, were given in grants (c) how many were given grants in previous years and what amounts were given to them at that time (d) how many permanent jobs were created (e) what was the total amount of applications received from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1974?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Amount given out in form of contributions to projects: 1973, $35,402,908; 1974, $25,630,218 (as at October 4, 1974); (a) (b) (c) and (e) This information is not available as the OFY program does not maintain a record of projects or the allocation of funds by constituency, (d) N/A OFY, as a component of the Student Summer Employment and Activities Program, responds to the summer employment needs of students and is not designed to create permanent jobs.

November 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions


LOCAL EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ALLOCATIONS TO OKANAGAN BOUNDARY
Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money given out in the LEAP Program in 1974 (a) what was the total given out in the program in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1974 and what percentage is this of the total distribution made in 1974 (b) what projects in the Okanagan Boundary, by name and amount, were given in grants (c) how many were given grants in previous years and what amounts were given to them at that time (d) how many permanent jobs were created (e) what was the total amount of applications received from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1974?


Robert Knight Andras: The total allocation to LEAP for the fiscal year 1974-75 is $12,000,000: (a) 1974-75-$61,200, .5% of total allocation; (b) One project the "Inkaneep Wrecking Yard" was funded in the amount of $72,000; (c) The same project was funded in 1973-74 in the amount of $10,800; (d) 8 on-going jobs; (e) 15.


UIC-CRITERIA USED IN DETERMINING DISTANCE WITHIN WHICH AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON CANNOT REFUSE EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Herbert: 1.	What criteria are used to determine the distance within which an unemployed person, wishing to continue to draw benefit, cannot refuse suitable employment when that person does not possess an automobile and there is no convenient form of public transportation?
2.	Would the same criteria apply to a person whose spouse possesses an automobile?
3.	Does such a judgment on distance vary with the length of unemployment and does it vary by region if all other circumstances are similar?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. There is no rigid rule to determine the distance beyond which a claimant can refuse suitable employment because of lack of personal transportation or public transportation at convenient times, and remain eligible for benefits. Although distance and transportation facilities are factors considered in determining a claimant's eligibility, they can be offset by other factors such as the normal practice in the area for workers required to commute to and from work daily. Lack of transportation is generally not a good cause in itself for refusing suitable work.
2.	If the claimant could use the spouse's automobile, the commuting distance would then be determined primarily on the distance workers of the area normally travel to work daily.
3.	Neither the length of the period of unemployment nor the geographical location have any bearing on the lack of transportaton factor if the employment offered is suitable. An additional consideration in cases of this nature is that a claimant who has no means of transportation to work generally fails to prove for all practical purposes that he or she is available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment and is not entitled to benefit.


FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY POLICE AND SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP
Mr. Cossitt: What have been all the specific functions performed by the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General since January 1, 1973?


William Warren Allmand: Since January 1, 1973, the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Branch has performed five specific functions: (a) Analysis of internal security information and the dessemination of that information to the Solicitor General, Deputy Solicitor General and other departments and agencies when appropriate; (b) Formulation of security policy recommendations to the Deputy Solicitor General; (c) Review and analysis of crime prevention and law enforcement activities with particular emphasis on current trends in crime, police co-operation throughout Canada, police community relationships and proposed government legislation in this field; (d) Contingency planning on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General for emergency situations, including crisis handling; (e) Assistance in interdepartmental co-ordination of activities related to government security policies.


TRANSFER OF OLD AGE SECURITY PENSION TO SURVIVING SPOUSE
Mr. Herbert: Will the government give consideration to the transfer of the Old Age Security Pension at the time of the death of a pensioner to the surviving spouse age sixty or over, the total Old Age Security Pension payment to the survivor not to exceed the maximum payable to a single person?


Coline M. Campbell: Consideration is not being given to the proposal at this time. Assistance is now available to all persons in need, regardless of their age, under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan through which the Federal government shares with the provinces the amount of assistance paid. The speech from the Throne announced the government's intention to provide for the payment of allowances on an income tested basis, to spouses aged 60 to 65 of recipients of OAS/GIS, effective October 1975. The Working Paper on Social Security in Canada proposed a Guaranteed Income for those persons who are not expected to work. This proposal is still being reviewed in the joint Federal-Provincial Social Security Review which is due to be completed in April 1975.


APPOINTMENT OF MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Cossitt: Was the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint a new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the last set of cabinet changes based in any way on information, recommendations or comments of any kind, verbal or written, received by the Prime Minister from Mr. Michael Pitfield, Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the time and, if so, what was the specific nature and detail of such recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.
November 13, 1974


NORTH AMERICAN INDIAN BORDER CROSSING
Mr. Firth: 1.	Have any directives been issued in recent months by the Department of Manpower and Immigration prohibiting free passage for Indians across the Canada-US border?
2.	Have the terms of the Jay Treaty been violated and, if so, for what reason?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. No. Recently issued directives were intended to, and have been successful in, simplifying and expediting border crossing immigration procedures for many North American Indians.
2. In 1956 the Supreme Court of Canada found that the Jay Treaty has no application in Canada since it has not been implemented or sanctioned by Canadian legislation and consequently there could not have been any violation of it.


FINES IMPOSED UNDER COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the government satisfied that fines imposed on companies convicted under the Combines Investigation Act are adequate (a) as a punishment (b) as a deterrent?
2.	Is it recognized that the profits obtained from illegal price fixing practices are many times the amount of the fines imposed?


André Ouellet: 1. No. The Combines Investigation Act is designed to improve the performance of enterprises operating in the private sector and to this end fines are more important in their role as a deterrent than as a punishment. For the serious offences like price fixing, there is no limit on the amount of the fine which the courts may impose. Evidence that the government is not satisfied with the fines usually imposed, is contained in Bill C-2 where provision is made in section 31.1 that any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct that is contrary to any of the criminal provisions of the Act or of the failure of any person to comply with an order of the Commission or a court under the Act may sue for civil damages. This is viewed not only as a matter of social justice, but as an important additional deterrent.
2. Yes. See the answer to question 1.


TRANSFER OF OLD AGE SECURITY PENSION TO SURVIVING SPOUSE
Mr. Herbert: Will the government consider transferring an old age security pension at the time of death of the pensioner to a surviving spouse who has attained the age of 60 years?


Coline M. Campbell: See Question No. 356 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


PROPOSED OFFICERS QUARTERS BRIDGE, RIDEAU CANAL, LEEDS COUNTY
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. J. T. Nicol, Director General of Parks Canada, writh Mr. C. T. Birtch, Clerk, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, Brockville dated July 16, 1973, advising that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was prepared "to seek authority from the Government of Canada for a contribution of $250,000 or the entire cost of the bridge portion" of a proposed Officers Quarters Bridge over the Rideau Canal in Leeds County?
2.	Did Mr. L. S. C. Willett, Canals Division, Parks Canada, write Mr. G. D. Dougall, County Engineer, United Counties of Leeds and Grenville, Brockville dated October 16, 1973, granting permission to proceed with construction of Officers Quarters Bridge until such time as formal agreement was executed and on the understanding that the customary agreement covering permission would be executed "when presented for signature and providing that all work is done to the satisfaction of the Government"?
3.	Did the Director, Canals Division, Parks Canada, receive a letter dated October 17, 1973 from Mr. G. D. Dougall acknowledging Mr. Willett's letter of October 16, 1973 and agreeing to proceed with construction on conditions stipulated by Mr. Willett?
4.	Was $265,100 the amount of contribution to be made by the government for construction and did the government promise to, and subsequently fail to, draft the necessary agreement last winter?
5.	(a) Have frequent representations been received by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from Mr. Dougall during the summer and fall of 1974 advising work on the Bridge was well under way and requesting the agreement to be forwarded as soon as possible and, if so, were many assurances given to Mr. Dougall that the agreement was being prepared and that it would soon be in his hands (b) has this agreement been prepared and, if so (i) on what date (ii) has it been sent out and on what date and, if it has not been sent out, what is the reason for such delay and when will this matter be attended to?
6.	(a) Is the government aware the Bridge will be completed by October 18, 1974, that the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville are carrying the burden of the amount of $265,100 payable to it by the government and that no progress payments have been received (b) will this matter be cleared up by the next meeting of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Council on October 28, 1974?


Iona Campagnolo: 1.	Yes
2.	Yes
3.	Yes
4.	(a) Yes; (b) No.
5.	(a) Mr. Dougall requested progress payments but was advised payments could only be made at; (1) 50 per cent payment at 50 per cent completion of Officers Quarters Bridge. (2) 25 per cent payment at 75 per cent completion of Officers Quarters Bridge. (3) 25 per cent payment at 100 per cent completion of Officers Quarter's Bridge. An inspection of the project in June estimated the project would by 50 per cent complete by July 31, 1974. A submission was made to Treasury Board on August 7, 1974, to enter into the proposed agreement, Treasury Board approval was received September 27, 1974. (b) The proposed agreement is now being prepared for signature by the County.
6.	(a) Yes; (b) The draft agreement will be in the hands of the County Clerk for signature before October 28.

November 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions BRUCELLOSIS VACCINATION


Mr. Cossitt: As of the date this question is answered, what is the government's exact policy in detail in regard to vaccinating or not vaccinating cattle against brucellosis?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The
Department continues to de-emphasize the use of a brucellosis vaccination for the following reasons: (1) the low incidence of the disease across Canada. (2) the vaccine does not provide immunity in all animals. (3) some vaccinates react to the brucellosis test thus causing confusion in the interpretation of the test due to the fact that it is not possible to distinguish between a vaccination reaction and a reaction from infection. Brucellosis vaccine is available to livestock owners through veterinary practitioners. The official vaccination age is not earlier than three months and not later than nine months. If an owner decides to have his calves vaccinated, the department recommends they be done as soon as possible after three months in order to lessen vaccination reactions on the blood test.


CANADA'S COASTAL AND ARCTIC TRADE TO CANADIAN REGISTERED VESSELS
Mr. Forrestall: 1 With reference to the news conference on transportation policy given by the Minister of Transport June 19, 1974, does the government intend to live up to commitments made at that conference to reserve "Canada's coastal and arctic trade to Canadian registered vessels"?
2.	On what date will this policy be put into effect with respect specifically, to the extractive-based shipping in the Arctic Archipelago?
3.	Will such policies be implemented in sufficient time to accommodate shippers' plans for the summer of 1975 with respect to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
government has given notice of withdrawal from certain articles of the British Commonwealth Shipping Agreement in order to reserve coastal shipping to Canadian registered vessels.
2.	Withdrawal becomes effective April 26, 1975 for all coastal trade with the exception of a five year continuance for British vessels previously engaged.
3.	Yes.


ICE-STRENGTHENED CARGO CARRIERS AND ICEBREAKERS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the news conference on transportation policy given by the Minister of Transport, June 19, 1974, how specifically does the government intend to "encourage the design and manufacturing in Canada of ice-strengthened cargo carriers and icebreakers which will fly the Canadian flag and operate in Canadian arctic waters"?
2.	What steps have been taken since June 19, 1974 to bring about these ends?
3.	At what date does the government foresee the actual use in the Canadian Arctic of the proposed special ice-strengthened cargo carriers?
4.	At what date does the government foresee the actual use in the Canadian Arctic of the proposed icebreakers mentioned in that news conference?

5.	(a) Does the government view the continued practice of allowing into Canada duty-free foreign designs and plans for ships of all types as conducive to and in harmony with its intention to "encourage the design and manufacturing in Canada" of ice-strengthened vessels (b) will the government consider reviewing thoroughly this practice to determine whether or not it is in accordance with government policy as outlined on June 19, 1974 by the Minister of Transport and, if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: 1 and 2.
Consultations with industry regarding design and construction of ice class vessels are proceeding and specific encouragement will be determined when a firm proposal has been received. The recently signed agreement with Mineral Resources International Ltd., for the Strathcona Sound project requires the use of Canadian Flag Carriers, unless otherwise authorized by Order-in-Council.
3.	Depending upon availability of shipyard space and construction materials, the proposed vessels would be completed approximately three years after commitment to build.
4.	The R. Class icebreakers are expected to go into service in the 1979-80 season.
5.	(a) No. However, where foreign technology is available, it will be utilized when it is seen to be to advantage; (b) Yes.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Mr. Forrestall: In what proportion of accidents investigated by the Air Accident Investigation Division of the Department of Transport has the investigation or any party thereof been partially or otherwise concerned with any feature, aspect or facet of air transportation in Canada, including certification of air worthiness, pilot licensing, instrument accuracy, flight procedures and pilot notification, that is governed, regulated or in any other way whatsoever directed by any other agency of the Department or any other branch, agency or division of the government?


Jean Marchand: All accident investigations conducted by the Aviation Accident Investigation Division of the Ministry of Transport are concerned with certification of airworthiness, pilot licensing, instrument accuracy, flight procedures, and pilot notification that are regulated and controlled by the relevant branches and divisions of the Canadian Air Transportation Administration of the Ministry of Transport. However, the accident investigation division does not assess whether or not an infraction of regulations has occurred because the investigators may not be qualified in regulatory matters; they establish causal factors only. The question of the adequacy of regulations and controls is subject to accident investigation scrutiny as are the technical and operational factors, and a significant number of regulations and control procedures have been adopted as a result of findings of accident investigations. In summary, it should be noted that the Ministry of Transport system of air accident investigation is based upon the determination of cause, not blame, and witnesses, be they public servants or private citizens, are offered privilege. The courts have upheld the privilege of the witness statements on two recent occasions. Also there has never been a single instance of litigation against the Crown related to inadequate regulations, or suppression and alteration of accident data, but there have been cases related to improper
November 13, 1974

procedures by the Crown and which were revealed in accident investigation reports.


EXTRACTIVE BASED SHIPPING IN CANADIAN ARCTIC ARCHIPELAGO
Mr. Forrestall: Is it the intention of the government to reserve to Canadian corporations and vessels the extractive based shipping in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and, if not, what is the basis for the continuation of this policy?


Jean Marchand: As
announced by the Ministry of Transport on September 24, it is intended to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry on the Coasting Trade of Canada and Related Marine activity, restricting coasting trade activities to Canadian flag vessels. This restriction will include vessels operating in the Arctic Archipelago. It is not, however, the present intention to limit international shipping in the Arctic Archipelago to Canadian corporations and vessels, but individual development agreements, such as that for Strathcona Sound, may provide specifically for it. Canada has pursued a general policy of utilizing the most economical bottoms available for all international shipping and this policy applies in the Arctic, as in all of Canada. This policy is under continual review and may be changed to meet altered economic or national circumstances.


APPOINTMENT OF MR. MICHAEL PITFIELD TO CABINET
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to press reports to the effect that the Hon. Herb Gray stated on CTV program "Question Period" that the promotion of Mr. Michael Pitfield from Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet only added to the "air of mystery" surrounding Mr. Gray's demotion from the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister issue a statement giving all details connected with both the appointment of Mr. Pitfield and the dropping of Mr. Gray from the Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


PURCHASE BY PARKS CANADA OF PROPERTY BELONGING TO CLARENCE AND HELEN MARSHALL, BROCKVILLE, ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. J. R. Malfair of Parks Canada on behalf of the government write a letter dated July 22, 1974, to Clarence and Helen Marshall of Brockville, Ontario, offering to purchase from them a dwelling located on lot 3, plan 266, Brockville, for the sum of $50,000 subject to Governor in Council approval?
2.	Was a closing date of September 2, 1974, agreed on, subject to extension at government request to October 15, 1974, at a per diem increase in purchase price of $20 per day?
3.	Were the Marshalls or their real estate agent, O. R. Davis and Co. Ltd., verbally informed on various occasions that in this case Treasury Board approval was a formality?
4.	Did Mr. G. B. MacDonald of Parks Canada advise solicitors for the Marshalls in a letter dated August 30, 1974, that Treasury Board would not approve the purchase?
5.	Is it a fact that this matter was never referred to Treasury Board and, if so, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
6.	Will the government proceed with purchase of the property and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
7.	Is the government prepared to compensate Mr. and Mrs. Marshall for any financial loss suffered as a result of government failure to follow through with the original offer?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Department's position has always been that the Offer to Purchase was subject to Treasury Board approval. Our officers have indicated that while there was normally no problem in receiving such authority, there was always the possibility of the submission being refused.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. While the Offer to Purchase was entered into in good faith by the employees of Parks Canada on the basis of their interpretation of the Parks Canada staff housing policy, it was done so without realizing that it was in conflict with an existing Treasury Board Directive. The fact that it conflicted with the policy of the Government of Canada and the Board's instruction was not discovered until an attempt was made to process the Treasury Board submission.
6.	(a) The Government will not proceed with the purchase of the property; (b) The Government will not proceed with the pruchase as it is not the policy of the Government of Canada to provide staff accommodation in urban centres where it can reasonably expect its employees to provide their own accommodation.
7.	The Department has informed the Marshalls that if they have suffered a demonstrable hardship or financial loss it is prepared to review any claim they wish to make.


ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	How many families have taken advantage of the provisions of the Assisted Home Ownership Program to date and to what value?
2.	What percentage is allowed for subsidy?
3.	Are persons allowed to work out their down payments and, if so, to what percentage?
4.	Is consideration being given to extending this program to cover unmarried persons?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. Since inception of the program in July 1973, 24,157 families have taken advantage of the Assisted Home Ownership Program totalling $543 million. Loans currently in process will be made available to approximately 1,250 additional families this year.
2.	The subsidy varied from zero to the maximum of $1,446 depending on the circumstances of each applicant.
3.	A minimum down-payment of 5 p. 100 of the value of the house is required, and this may consist of cash, land and owner-labour.
4.	Because the funds available under this most successful program are not unlimited, consideration was not given to include unmarried persons.

November 13, 1974
Order Paper Questions


CLERK OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND SECRETARY TO THE CABINET
Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, the present and previous positions in the Public Service along with dates of same, of all persons who were considered for the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet prior to the announcement of the appointment of Mr. Michael Pitfield and, in each case, for what reason was the individual found unacceptable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Appointments to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, like appointments to other deputy ministerial positions, are made by the Governor in Council. Advice tendered to the Governor in Council is regarded as confidential. It would be at variance with this principle to disclose anything relating to the advice tendered for the appointment in question.


ISSUANCE OF PILOT LICENCES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For each year since 1969, how many licences has the Department of Transport issued to pilots, by classification?
2.	How many have been issued to date this year?


Jean Marchand: 1. Pilot licences issued for each year since 1969 by classification are as follows: (a) Private Pilot Licences-1969, 4,922, 1970, 4,397, 1971, 4,262, 1972, 4,252, 1973, 4,753; (b) Commercial Pilot Licences-1969, 931, 1970, 845, 1971, 780, 1972, 959, 1973, 1,197; (c) Senior Commercial Pilot Licences-1969, 356, 1970, 265, 1971, 190, 1972, 251, 1973, 363; (d) Airline Transport Pilot Licences-1969, 330, 1970, 295, 1971, 220, 1972, 310, 1973, 559; (e) Glider Pilot Licences-1969, 159, 1970, 173, 1971, 147, 1972, 203, 1973, 366.
2. Pilot licences issued this year to September 30, 1974 are as follows: (a) Private Pilot Licences, 4,018; (b) Commercial Pilot Licences, 1,149; (c) Senior Commercial Pilot Licences, 273; (d) Airline Transport Pilot Licences, 368; (e) Glider Pilot Licences, 350.


CONSUMER LEGISLATION OFFENCES
Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs state (a) that he would do everything in his power to ensure that fines and penalties resulting from court actions for consumer fraud, product safety and weights and measures offences are in proportion to the gravity of the offences (b) that the amount of the penalties are decided by the courts?
2.	(a) Does the Minister believe that the total fine for each of the 28 convictions between April and June is proportionate to the gravity of the offence (b) what action is in his power to ensure the adequacy of fines and penalties, if these penalties are decided by the courts?


André Ouellet: 1. (a) Yes; (b) Yes.
2. (a) No; (b) The Minister attempts to ensure that all facts relevant to sentencing are brought to Crown counsel's attention, and that Departmental officials discuss with Crown counsel the possibility of appealing sentences in those cases where the fine is considered to be too low. In addition, the Minister ensures, in those instances where inspection activities indicate that the Department should

prosecute individuals or companies for infractions of the legislation, that the matter be brought before the courts as quickly as possible to impress upon the courts the gravity of the offences, and to prevent a continuation of the illegal practices. The Minister also hopes that increased publicity given to prosecutions will have the beneficial effect of ensuring that the fines and penalties, as determined by the courts, are adequate.


OFY-PROMOTION OF POLITICAL CANDIDATES
Mr. Herbert: During the last federal campaign, were Opportunities for Youth grants used to promote candidates and, if so (a) did the government have knowledge of such usage (b) what action was taken to stop this practice?


Robert Knight Andras: No. (a) Not applicable; (b) not applicable;


TRANS-NEWFOUNDLAND CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mr. Marshall: With reference to the findings of the recent Trans-Newfoundland Corridor Transportation Study, what are the government's intention with regard to (a) improvements for the purpose of making more effective use of existing facilities (b) determining for what reason the Trans-Canada Highway falls short of the established design standards (c) improving the Newfoundland rail line (d) overcoming costly transfer operations for inter-provincial rail freight?


Jean Marchand: The
Trans-Newfoundland Corridor Transportation Study has been given wide circulation, not only to the provincial government but to interested organizations and public libraries. Comments on the Study have been invited by January 31, 1975 and in the light of these comments, a decision will be made on the next step. Improvements have already been made on rail freight transfer operations by the provision of increased rail cars in each direction.


TRANSPORTATION-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: Has there been consultation between the government and the Government of Newfoundland with regard to implementing a transportation program for the construction and improvement of facilities in the Province, particularly for the purpose of improving access to remote communities and areas with proven resource potential and of strengthening and upgrading the Trans-Canada Highway and, if so, what progress has been made to date?


Jean Marchand: Preliminary consultations have been held with the provincial government and will be ongoing. Reference was made to remote access during the election campaign and a meeting with the Atlantic Province Ministers has been suggested to them for the near future. The reply to Question No. 572 applies to the rest of the hon. member's question.
November 13, 1974


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): In 1972 and 1973, did the government contribute to the construction of roads, bridges and viaducts in Canada and, if so (a) in which province (b) what was the amount of the contribution by province (c) under which agreement of program was the grant made (d) did this involve public works carried out by the provincial or municipal governments (e) how many bridges and viaducts were built in Quebec with federal assistance (f) how many miles of roads were constructed in Quebec with federal assistance (g) in which municipalities and cities were such bridges, viaducts and miles of roads constructed?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-LAWYERS RETAINED IN NEW BRUNSWICK, 1973-74
Mr. Howie: What lawyers in the Province of New Brunswick were employed by the Department of Justice from January 1, 1973 to September 30, 1974 and how much money was paid to each of them?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-LAWYERS RETAINED IN SASKATCHEWAN, 1973-74
Mr. Nystrom: What were the names and addresses of lawyers practicing in Saskatchewan retained by the Department of Justice to handle legal matters affecting the government between October 1, 1973 and July 30, 1974?
Return tabled.


ACQUISITION OF PAPERS BY PUBLIC ARCHIVES
Mr. Symes: 1.	Since 1957 (a) what papers of persons whose careers have been chiefly centred in Northern Ontario (b) what papers of businesses or organizations whose activities have been chiefly centred in Northern Ontario have been acquired by the Public Archives?
2.	What publications or finding aids for holdings specifically relating to Northern Ontario have been published by the Public Archives?
3.	What exhibits of the Public Archives have been circulated in Northern Ontario since 1968 and in what places?
Return tabled.


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM IN OKANAGAN BOUNDARY, 1973-74
Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money given out in the New Horizons Program in 1973 and to date in 1974 (a) what was the total given out in the program in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary and what percentage is this of the total distribution (b) what projects in the Okanagan Boundary, by name and amount were given in grants (c) how many were given grants in previous years and what amounts were given to them at that time (d) how many permanent jobs were created (e) what was the total amount of applications received from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1973 and in 1974?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions


LIP PROGRAM ASSISTANCE IN OKANAGAN BOUNDARY, 1973-74
Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money given out in the LIP Program in 1973 and to date in 1974 (a) what was the total given out in the program in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1973 and to date in 1974 and what percentage is this of the total distribution made in 1973 and to date in 1974 (b) what projects in the Okanagan Boundary, by name and amount were given in grants (c) how many were given grants in previous years and what amounts were given to them at that time (d) how many permanent jobs were created (e) what was the total amount of applications received from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary in 1974?
Return tabled.


MEMBERS OF FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING COUNCIL
Mr. McGrath: 1.	Who are the members of the Farm Products Marketing Council?
2.	How much is each member paid?
3.	What is the council's role in relation to CEMA?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-POLICE AND SECURITY PLANNING AND ANALYSIS GROUP PERSONNEL
Mr. Cossitt: What are the names, job designations, annual salaries and previous government employment, if any, of all persons employed by, attached to, on loan to or in any way associated with the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group in the Department of the Solicitor General and, in the case of each individual, what were all the specific qualifications he possessed which led to this employment?
Return tabled.

Question No. 344-Mr. Cossitt:
Were any aircraft purchased by the government from any source whatsoever, other than new aircraft from a manufacturer, since January 1, 1968 and if so (a) what is the exact description of any such aircraft (b) what was the purchase price (c) on what date and from whom was it purchased (d) for what exact purpose?
Return tabled.


Mr. McKenzie:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on October 9 I placed starred question 362 on the order paper. It deals with the overhaul of obsolete aircraft at Winnipeg. I feel that Air Canada and the government have had more than ample time to answer my question. I should appreciate an answer by next Wednesday from the parliamentary secretary.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I refer the parliamentary secretary to questions Nos. 53 to 61 inclusive which remain unanswered. These questions request full details of the allocation of local initiatives grants in the ridings of nine members of cabinet, and specifically details of projects, the names of those applying for grants and the names of those who recommended the grants. I placed these questions on the order paper on the first day of the present session, which means they have remained unanswered for about one month and a half. Let me remind the parliamentary secretary that exactly the same questions were placed on the order paper


PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT BY GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
November 13, 1974
Oral Questions
in the second session of the twenty-ninth parliament, beginning on March 28, 1974. This means that these questions have remained unanswered for approximately eight months.
I wish to refer to question 20 on the order paper which remains unanswered and ask the parliamentary secretary if this could be investigated as well. The question asks for the allocation of LIP funds in 1973-74 to constituencies represented by cabinet ministers. The fact that release of this information-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member has made his grievance and his point abundantly clear. It may be a point that is well taken. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member, but with respect, his point has been well made.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to notice of motion for production of papers No. 13 which I placed on the order paper in the last session. It has to do with meetings and operational plans of a management team under the Veterans Land Act. I wonder why the government refuses to table those documents. They refused to table them in the last session and again this session. This is very important because the Veterans Land Act will be phased out in five months. I feel I am entitled to have these documents tabled.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on whether to refuse or accept the hon. member's motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the minister's quite recent statement that the armed forces are now overtasked and reduction in numbers inevitably means some reduction in tasks, is the minister prepared to give some assurance today that in the 
course of the budget debate next week he will make a precise statement as to what tasks are going to be reduced and, more important, how priority tasks are going to be fulfilled?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite right that our manpower must be balanced with the tasks which the manpower is required to do. We are now in the process of re-examining the tasks of the armed forces. When changes are decided by cabinet, they will, of course, be announced. I doubt whether that will be in time for the budget debate referred to by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long we are to be kept in suspense. I wish to ask a very specific question relating to the minister's statement that our first task and our central responsibility are nothing less than to defend Canadian independence and sovereignty. In view of the increasing allegations that that task, particularly with regard to coastal surveillance, is not now being met, has the government decided to reduce responsibilities in that priority area? If not, is the minister's budget being reshaped to provide adequate funds to permit the job to be done?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I believe very sincerely that that job is being done at the present time. There has been a lot of talk about some of our old equipment. I wish others would point out that we have four of the most modern and most efficient destroyers in the world. We are operating a large fleet of Argus aircraft. We are operating tracker aircraft. We have plans underway for a new long-range patrol aircraft. This task is being performed not only on our coasts, but across Canada.


EFFECT OF EXPENDITURE ON FACILITIES IN WINNIPEG ON TASKS ASSIGNED TO FORCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the minister's statement that the armed forces are overtasked and despite his announced austerity program in general terms, is it the intention of his department or the government to spend $40 million to $50 million on defence facilities in Winnipeg? If so, will the minister tell the House what priority tasks will be reduced to permit that expenditure?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition gets his facts from the newspaper. If he would read other pages of the same newspaper, he would find that I have already stated that that article is completely inaccurate. No sums of that kind are being spent in Manitoba. I do not know how that figure was arrived at.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with defence, but it is not supplementary.
November 13, 1974


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that profits for the three major steel companies, Stelco, Algoma and Dofasco, are up 31 per cent, 121 per cent and 29 per cent respectively, and considering the Prime Minister appointed a one-man inquiry to investigate steel price increases last June, can he inform the House of the progress of this inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am informed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the report should be available in a matter of days.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce assure the House that this report will be made available to members as well as the people of Canada in general?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


STUDY OF STEEL PRICES-ASSURANCE OF ROLL-BACK IF INCREASES UNWARRANTED
John Edward Broadbent: Will the Prime Minister or the minister responsible for implementing price roll-back legislation assure the House that if the report shows that unjustified price increases are found to have occurred, the government will act quickly to take steps to bring about roll-backs in those price increases?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to the Speech from the Throne, he will see the government's intentions in these regards. I can only regret that the New Democratic Party chose to defeat the government before the legislation was passed.


John Edward Broadbent: Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's crack, will he assure the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a final supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's crack, will he assure parliament that this will be acted upon within a matter of weeks and not within a matter of four years as he indicated to the House the last time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member it was not meant as a crack. I was recalling to him an historical fact. As to the intentions of the government, the Speech from the Throne is written for a session, not for four years.
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Did he receive this morning a telegram from British Columbia informing him of a sugar shortage in that province; if so, is he taking any steps to correct this situation?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive this telegram. I shall inquire of my staff if it has not arrived yet.


SUGAR-POLICY ON PRICING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PURCHASING BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the minister made any recommendations to his colleagues with regard to the present pricing situation of sugar in Canada or proposed setting up a national sugar purchasing board in this country?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I publicly expressed my views on this matter. I made some recommendations, and the whole matter is under review by my colleagues.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to move repair and overhaul facilities for 707 transport planes from Trenton to Winnipeg? If so, would the minister explain how he justifies spending many millions of dollars on making such a move when first class facilities and trained personnel are presently located at the Canadian Forces Base, Trenton, where an outstanding job is being done?


James Armstrong Richardson: I must point out to the hon. member that we are not moving any facilities for repairing 707s because there aren't any in Canada at the present time. These are new aircraft and this is the first time they have undergone major repair and overhaul. We are establishing new facilities; we are not moving facilities from anywhere else.


George Harris Hees: As the minister knows, it would be far easier to carry on at Trenton because this work has been done very well at that base for a number of years now. Will the
1286

Oral Questions
hon. gentleman, in the interest of saving many millions of dollars, and helping to arrest the rapid decline in morale in the armed forces, set this plan aside and desist from carrying out one of the worst examples of pork barrelling which has ever come to the surface in this country?


James Armstrong Richardson: References to low morale in the armed forces always seem to come from the Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


George Harris Hees: They come from us because we talk to the people in the armed forces and you don't.


James Armstrong Richardson: As far as the overhaul capability in Winnipeg is concerned, what we are doing is carrying out a long-standing-


George Harris Hees: -election promise made to try to get votes!


James Armstrong Richardson: -commitment at the time the Air Canada base was moved to Montreal; a commitment to use our best efforts to establish a viable base in that city. It is natural and logical that our aircraft should be repaired there in order to keep a viable base and to keep a promise which was made five years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: It is simply a pork barrel.


SUGGESTED VISIT BY MINISTER TO VARIOUS COMMANDS TO STUDY MORALE OF FORCES
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Minister of National Defence. A few moments ago, the minister referred to morale in the armed forces. Since he has just returned from a trip to the Middle East and to other parts of the world-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The question is coming. In order that the minister may obtain at first hand an impression of the real state of morale in our forces, does the minister intend to visit Transport Command, Mobile Command and Maritime Command where the bulk of our troops are stationed? If so, when does he intend to visit these commands, something he has not done since he became Minister of National Defence?


James Armstrong Richardson: I am sure the hon. member knows that I have visited practically every command. I have not been to Maritime Command, but I have been to Mobile Command, Training Command and most of the others. I hope to visit Maritime Command in the near future.


POSSIBLE EXTENSION TO NINE MONTHS OF TOUR OF DUTY
Jack Marshall: Still on this subject of morale, in the course of his interviews with members of the Armed Forces, to which the minister has referred, were any grievances brought to his

attention with regard to the fact that the six-month tour of duty is being extended to nine months, particularly since the accommodation available is virtually nil-troops have to sleep in their clothing and in sleeping bags out in the open?


James Armstrong Richardson: There has been no decision to extend the tour of duty to nine months. It is six months. The living accommodation, as I Indicated, was satisfactory; where there was any difficulty there was real progress in making improvements.


REPORT ON RESERVES-DATE OF PUBLICATION-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE OF CONTENTS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Could he assure the House and the country that the long-awaited report of the National Energy Board with regard to the extent of our reserves of oil and gas will be made public before November 18 when the Minister of Finance brings down his budget, one which might have repercussions affecting exploration for further reserves in Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I have made the report available on a confidential basis to the producing governments, namely, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and have asked them to let me have their views before the government takes a final decision on the matter. This is part of our consultative arrangements with those two provinces. As yet, I have not received a response from the Government of Alberta, so I cannot give the hon. member the assurance he is seeking.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Can the minister assure us that the Minister of Finance has read the report so that he might have an opportunity of adjusting his thinking along the lines the report suggests-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -or that many people believe it suggests- that we shall be running out of oil by 1983 and that the minister should encourage exploration rather than put a thumbs down on further exploration in his budget of November 18.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have been keeping my colleague informed of the current situation both with regard to oil and natural gas and with regard to other non-renewable natural resources.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for
November 13, 1974

External Affairs of which I have given him notice. Have the officials of his department made positive identification of the remains of a partially decomposed body found in a shallow grave in the jungle near the border between Guyana and Brazil purported to be the body of Donald Krestel, a young university graduate from Port Rowan, Ontario?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The department is aware of the situation to which the hon. member refers but because of the inaccessibility of the area our information to date is rather vague. Our officers are seeking full information and as soon as it is available I shall advise the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
A. Daniel McKenzie: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister consider dropping his CAE plans to overhaul five Boeings and use his influence to persuade the government and Air Canada to establish a proper second overhaul and maintenance base in Winnipeg, since Air Canada has a fleet large enough to make a second air base viable there?


James Armstrong Richardson: We are building a viable base on the former Air Canada base under the management of CAE. We are also building, as the hon. member knows, a new Air Canada facility in Winnipeg.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As it is not feasible or practical to build a jet air base to overhaul only five planes, has the minister received any firm commitment from other airlines to overhaul their jet fleets in Winnipeg?


James Armstrong Richardson: There are no firm contracts yet. A number of companies, however, such as regional airlines, including Transair, the local regional airline, have shown an interest in using these overhaul facilities when they are in operation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs following a question I put to him about anti-freeze about a month ago. In view of the fact that manufacturers of anti-freeze have told the minister that the retail price of a gallon of anti-freeze should be in the $6 to $9 range but evidence now shows that some manufacturers are charging retailers as much as $9.75 a gallon, causing the retail
Oral Questions
price to be as high as $12 a gallon, has the hon. gentleman now found any evidence of profiteering?


André Ouellet: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member has any proof he would like to give to me, I would be very glad to know it.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the fact that ethylene glycol supplies have recently been imported at a cost of little over $3 a gallon can the minister explain why in 1972 the markup was only $1.52 over the import price while now it is anywhere from $4 to $6 higher than the import price, despite the fact that there are no shortages?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have already told the House, that there is no shortage presently, and every indication I get every week on the subject confirms that there is no shortage in Canada, and the prices are high especially because there is a worldwide shortage in one of the components of this product, that is ethylene. Antifreeze itself is not scarce, but ethylene is, and since it is, there are fluctuations in the price of the end product which is antifreeze.
[DOT] * *


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Communications.
Telephone communications within the region served by the Quebec Telephone Company being increasingly more difficult because of the labour disputes of the past several months, the economy of the region is deteriorating. Although I am satisfied that this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction, and considering that this is a multinational corporation would the minister instruct his officials to investigate this matter to find out, hopefully to settle this dispute, whether the firm is violating some federal legislation in the area of communications?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we have already looked into this matter and examined the causes of the dispute. Fortunately or not, any way the hon. member will have it, we have failed to find any violation of a federal statute, and therefore cannot find reason to intervene.
28543-13Vi

November 13, 1974
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fair-weather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question based on the statement of the Minister of National Defence, but I see he has left the House so may I put the question to his parliamentary secretary. Further to that part of the minister's statement about the loss of the Buffalo aircraft, will the minister now make public the national defence department's own report and the report of the United Nations on the loss of this aircraft, so that we do not have to rely on the report or allegations of the minister of defence of Syria, however honourable they may be? We would like to see the government's own report and the UN report.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has had to leave the House to meet with General Goodpaster and the Prime Minister, and that is the reason for his absence. I will take the question as notice and bring it to the minister's attention.
*
*


INCREASING COST OF MEDICAL CARE-GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS TO PROVINCES TO CONTROL
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the latest reports showing that medical and health care services in Canada are being crippled by soaring costs, is the federal government now preparing new proposals to put before the provinces to bring these soaring costs under control, and if not, why not?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the hon. member's question, rising costs in the health field corresponds in general to rising costs in the overall economy, resulting from the inflation which we are now experiencing. As for the various methods of financing health care, my colleagues from the provinces should consider some alternatives. I for one am examining whether there is a possibility of developing new methods which would be more appropriate. But, if I may repeat myself, this will take time, and I unfortunately cannot promise the hon. member to give any specific information on that matter before several months.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Without entering into a debate, the rate of inflation in health services is much greater than the general average. Since it was the federal authority in the first place which, in my view properly, initiated medicare in Canada, does the minister not feel that it is the federal authority's
responsibility to initiate these proposals with the provinces immediately?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the federal authorities have already made in the past a specific proposal to introduce more flexibility in the financing of health care which would have indirectly led to better control over costs. For their own reasons, the provinces have deemed proper not to support that proposal and it was then agreed that the provinces would consider if they had any alternate suggestion to make. I have not yet received other provincial proposals. As I indicated in my first answer to the hon. member, I am considering the situation with my officials, but I repeat once again, I will be unable to suggest a formula in the immediate future.


USE OF SODIUM NITRITE IN CURED MEAT PRODUCTS- POSSIBILITY OF BAN
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of which I have given him notice. In view of the fact that sodium nitrite, a chemical used by the meat packing industry in the processing of cured meat products, has been found to cause cancer when these products are consumed as the result of reaction in the stomach with other substances, I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of this and whether any action is contemplated by him or his department to ban use of this chemical for this purpose?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice. I received the notice yesterday but I do not have the information readily at hand. However, I might advise the hon. member that my department is informed of this situation and is looking into it. I should like to give the hon. member a more detailed answer later on.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General, but in his absence I direct it to his parliamentary secretary or to his representative.
In view of the fact that an article in the Financial Post of November 4 last, headlined "Kickbacks flourish-New Brunswick Shrugs", alleges that cover-ups, obstruction of justice and political contributions appear to have been going on in New Brunswick both under Liberal and Progressive Conservative administrations, and that the RCMP is tightly controlled by the New Brunswick department of justice and is apparently acquiescing in the allegations, and in view of the fact that by adopting a hands off approach to political kickbacks and patronage RCMP

November 13, 1974

officers achieve the very opposite of what they set out to do, making the force politically biased instead of nonpolitical, I should like to ask the minister these two questions.
Firstly, does the Solicitor General and his department intend to cause an investigation to be made into the allegations to prevent further disrespect for law and order; and secondly, will the Solicitor General endeavour to see to it that the necessary investigations are conducted and action taken under section 110 of the Criminal Code in an effort to deter the practice of political patronage and kickbacks, which are a sure example of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to draw the attention of the Solicitor General to the various allegations to which the hon. member refers. A good number of them seem to me at first hearing to involve the administration of justice within the province and the responsibility of the attorney general there. However, to the extent that the RCMP is involved, even though they would be acting under contract provincially, I am sure the Solicitor General would be glad to take notice of these representations.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Owing to the nature of information concerning the labour conflict at the United Aircraft, is the minister ready to reconsider the request made by the Quebec government which would like to know exactly what were the grants paid by the federal government to that company?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I asked for, received and reviewed this morning the statement made by a representative of UACL to La Commission Permanente du Travail, la Main-d'oeuvre et lTmmigration de l'Assemblee Nationale. I have subsequently discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, since it is this department that is the contracting party on behalf of the government of Canada, and we have agreed that the contracts themselves should be made public.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In
Oral Questions
view of the commitment of food aid, especially by Canada and the United States, at the conference, and in view of the fact that our ability to supply this food is heavily dependent on oil and oil based fertilizer, did Canada urge the oil rich nations either to make materials available or to underwrite part of the cost of this food?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understand the full significance of the question. We did underwrite the cost of the food which we committed over the next three year period. As the hon. gentleman knows, the Canadian statement is, of course, a general statement of the Canadian view, but we did not single out in that statement any particular group of countries for special attention. I understand there is some indication at present at the World Food Conference that oil producing nations are interested in the establishment of an agricultural fund, and that in fact a resolution may be coming forward on that subject, although up to the present no money has been laid on the table. Hopefully that step will be taken before the end of the week.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a reply the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made last week to a question I asked about a test case concerning waters off the B.C. coastline. In speaking of inshore and offshore waters, he said in reply "It would be in our interest to work out with the provinces the exact demarcation of the two." I should like to ask whether this would be done in the interests of determining legal jurisdiction per se as between inland and offshore waters, or would it be with a view to staking out claims for future revenue from resources that may in the course of time be found in these waters?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall that in the 1967 reference it specifically dealt with those waters which were outside the boundaries of the colony, as it then was when it came into confederation with Canada. The reference to inland waters in that case is rather obscure and it will depend on the historic reference in respect of the waters as they existed at that time. In a practical sense, in administering the offshore mineral rights, we have not been renewing leases or issuing permits in respect of what we regard as the inland waters. We think it would be desirable to start by agreeing on respective areas of responsibility. Of course, if hydrocarbons should be discovered seaward of these waters they would, of course, fall to the national account.

November 13, 1974
Oral Questions HEALTH


MEDIC-ALERT BRACELETS-SUGGESTED PROHIBITION OF SALE OF FAKE BRACELETS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary. It relates to the misuse of medic-alert bracelets. Is the minister aware that fake medic-alert bracelets have been sold in drugstores across the country for the past two years and that these bracelets are not based on a physician's advice and are not registered as are the real medic-alert bracelets? If that is the case, is the minister planning to take some immediate steps to prohibit the sale of these bracelets to the general public?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of this question. I can say that my information is that the sale of these bracelets is not illegal at the present time. I will inquire as to why they are allowed and why there are no regulations controlling their sale.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
A few days ago the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs stated that the Fullerton report clearly aired views that are contrary to those of Quebec. In the circumstances, could the minister assure the House that none of the proposals contained in the report will be implemented before an agreement is reached with the province of Quebec?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the Fullerton report was made to the Prime Minister and will be the basis of discussion at all levels of government, and especially by the joint committee of both Houses of parliament dealing with the national capital and future plans in that regard. Therefore, the Fullerton report itself will be the subject of ample and full consideration. No one is going to make any unilateral decision. I believe Mr. Fullerton has presented some options, to some of which he gives higher priority, but the matter is for parliament to determine in consultation with all levels of government.


POSSIBLE ABOLITION OF CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that he stated in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago that the Crowsnest pass agreement rates might be abolished, and over the weekend in Winnipeg said we should start considering the establishment of a Crowsnest pass fund, I would ask him to indicate to the House what government policy is regarding this Crowsnest pass agreement, and whether it is the government's intention to establish a fund in substitution for that agreement, and if in fact the minister wants to abolish it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to let the hon. member have a copy of my Edmonton speech in which he will note an indication of my belief in the preservation for the prairie farmer of the benefits of the Crowsnest pass arrangement. I suggested it may well be in the interest of the prairie farmers if the benefits were conferred upon them in a different way, specifically through the vehicle of a Crowsnest pass rate fund.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is it the minister's intention to make a statement in this House outlining government policy in this area; for example, the basis on which payments will be made to the farmers, and whether we can expect legislation in this regard?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that may well come, but at the present time, as my speech in Edmonton indicated, I put before the Canadian Grains Council the suggestion that this approach might be worthy of examination. I made it quite clear I was doing that in advance of consideration of this kind of a solution by the government. Therefore, no statement of positive policy and no prediction as to legislation is possible at this time.


INDUSTRY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that RCA Limited in Prescott, which is the largest producer of coloured televisions in Canada, has just laid off 120 employees, and there is expectation that more will be laid off because of an increase in the volume of imported television sets, some 30 per cent in this year, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce undertake to investigate this situation to see whether a dumping operation is underway, and particularly to determine if there is a need to reimpose the tariff on television sets, and will he in the course of that investigation undertake to review standards of fire resistance of cabinets which are lower in Canada than in the United States and determine if there is some impediment to this kind of operation that is affecting Canadian workers?
November 13, 1974


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly refer the anti-dumping aspects of the hon. gentleman's question to the proper tribunal. In respect of the tax and tariff policies, as they affect the Canadian computer industry, we are now in the process of reviewing all aspects of commercial policy as it affects that industry as we feel there is some room for a concrete review. I am going to refer the practical administrative matters immediately to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, but we are looking at it on a policy basis.


MERCURY POISONING OF NATIVES ON GRASSY NARROWS AND WHITE DOG RESERVES-SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH JAPANESE EXPERTS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding mercury poisoning in the English River system. It appears from a CBC documentary and information I have received about blurred vision, tingling fingers and other symptoms of mercury poisoning that several hundred Indians living on the Grassy Narrows and White Dog Reserves are in clear danger of losing their lives. Since the federal government is ultimately responsible for the health status of Indians, would the minister consider bringing Japanese experts in the field of mercury contamination to Canada to assist in a complete examination of these native people who, incidentally, are still feeding on contaminated fish?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, an intensive study has been made of the situation in that particular area. That study was made public and the report has been tabled in the House confirming the serious situation mentioned by the hon. member. I will certainly be pleased to look into the suggestion to see whether any advantage could be gained by bringing in a foreign expert to add to our present knowledge, but I must point out that the facts are known since they have been published. At the present time the question is more one of trying first to change the living conditions generally for the Indians in the area. However, I will look into the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the alarming decline of fish catches in Atlantic Canada, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence area, what steps, if any, has the minister taken to inform other countries of the seriousness of this situation? Has he taken any steps to obtain agreement from all nations still fishing this area to completely restrict their fishing opera-
Oral Questions
tions in the Gulf of St. Lawrence before this spawning area for our offshore banks is irreparably destroyed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, of course the whole effort of the Canadian delegation at the Law of the Sea Conference, and the effort of the government, is to establish a regime which will ensure proper conservation and management techniques for the coastal state. That is the position on the first part of the hon. member's question. With regard to the second part of the question, I should like to have a word with the Minister of Fisheries on that point to see what in his view might be done through other international agencies.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the charges of the political pork barrelling that surrounds the LIP program, would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the practice in which ministers had complete control of approval of LIP applications within the provinces they represented has now ended and that riding allocations are now made strictly on a formula based on population figures and the unemployment figures for those ridings?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept any of the allegations. I personally did not have control of allocations in my province, nor so far as I know did any of my colleagues have control over any.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister, to verify his answer would he instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make available to this House all riding allocations for the 1974-75 LIP program as well as population and unemployment figures used for the calculations of riding allocations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is asking for information which will be available, if at no other time, at least when the estimates of the minister involved are being examined.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAMS-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO METHOD OF ALLOCATING FUNDS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the serious nature of the revelations made in the press in respect of the cabinet decision to clear LIP allocations in this fashion, would the minister set up an independent inquiry, which will of course not be edited as has been the case in the past, for the purpose of inquiring into all aspects of these allocations so that we in this House can

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
have the assurance that this kind of organized pork barrelling is not going on.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in the answer I gave to the first question I indicated that certainly this practice did not exist in this province in which I am a member and I doubted if it existed anywhere else. When the estimates of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration are before the House this matter can be examined. That is what Parliament is all about.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 7, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, in recent years the House has not had too much experience in committee of the whole procedure. I wish to begin my discussion of this bill by saying that committee of the whole is part of the House. It is not an inquiry-type operation but, rather, a deliberation-type operation. It gives us an opportunity to put forward our views in short statements and to ask question of the minister. It gives us an opportunity to carry on a dialogue so that we can give due deliberation to this very important bill. I suggest to the minister, because of the importance of this bill, that he might consider allowing us a certain amount of leeway in respect of handling the various clauses in the bill.
One proposal I wish to make is that we start on the general clause, clause 1, at which time one or two general observations can be made and the minister can respond, after which we might leave the clause open so that we can move, possibly before the end of the day, to one or two other items. Clause 3 is one in which I am interested. In this way, I would have an opportunity to put forward some suggested amendments not only in respect of clause 3 but in respect of several other clauses. The minister then would have an opportunity to look at these various amendments, refer them to the law officers of the Crown for their considered opinion vis-a-vis their constitutionality and also refer them to the drafting officers, if he

should accept the proposals, so they can make sure that they are in harmony with the whole bill.
This is the first request I would make of the minister; would he let us go forward and make some observations on clause 1 in a general sense, then adjourn consideration of the clause and go to clause 3, in order to facilitate the work of the House in dealing with these amendments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member means clause 2, rather than clause 1. Our usual procedure is to automatically skip the preamble and the short title clause and go to clause 2. If the committee is agreeable, I would be quite happy to have remarks of a general nature made on clause 2. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is a useful one. I would like to express my appreciation for his having made available to me the amendments he intends to put forward. As he has anticipated, I have sought the professional advice of my officials with regard to these amendments.
As a result of public scrutiny of this bill, particularly by those in the industry, a number of amendments of a more technical character have been suggested with regard to various points in the bill. I have been anticipating the immediate arrival of some officials with these amendments. As soon as they arrive, I will make sure that hon. members have them so they can look at them in advance of the amendments which are to be put forward by my colleagues. I look forward to having comments, and indeed will be happy to make responses if this should seem appropriate.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain as agreed to by the minister. Is it agreed that the committee go into a more general debate while considering clause 2 of the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we will have general remarks under clause 2 and later in the debate, hopefully today, we would adjourn clause 2 temporarily and get on with clause 3 so that I can bring forward substantive amendments and have them tabled. My general remarks will be a summary of the objectives we should have in mind.
All members of the House want to produce a good bill. All members of the House want to honour the agreement made by the heads of the 11 governments at the meeting on March 27 this year. All members of the House, I think, have agreed on the principle that we should have a lower oil price all across Canada than the world price. The level below the world price is not stated at this time. There should be however, some form of time formula stated in the bill that will make it clear to industry and to the provinces that this competitive price, to ease the strain on the commercial operations of the various agencies both
November 13, 1974

public and private dealing with oil and gas in Canada, can be made more certain and stable. These two principles, of a lower price and the staging proposal, have to be followed by a third principle, the cushion effect, which I think is adequately dealt with in the bill.
There are other principles I wish to refer to, as I mentioned in the discussion on second reading. I am not satisfied, and I do not think any member would be satisfied, with the fact that there is no mention in the bill, under the "purpose" provision, of a quid pro quo for the provinces. When any government is asked to make a sacrifice in the interest of the national good-in this case, a substantial amount running at the present time from $2!4 billion to $3 billion per year for two provinces-I think it is only fair that we do what we can within that national purpose to make sure there is an indication by this House that, if possible, we will provide a quid pro quo dictated in principle by this House and not through informal discussions between the minister and the producer governments. It will, therefore, be our intention to move at least one, if not two, amendments on the quid pro quo principle, backing that up with a substantive amendment which will give an example of what I mean, so that the House, in effect, directs the type of quid pro quo that it thinks would be fair and equitable.
The final principle on which the main thrust of the debate will centre is the question of consultation. There is no doubt that under the British North America Act the ownership of land and resources resides entirely within the right of the province concerned. There is no question that the federal government has complete sovereign power in interprovincial and export trade. Here we have a situation where the power of one administration acting purely within its constitutional right has the effect, by incidence or by result, of influencing the actions of another legislature, another sovereign power, which in turn is acting purely within its sovereign right. I do not think that in this particular debate the issue at stake is the question of which level of government is the most greedy. What we are trying to do here, as a federal parliament, is to make certain that we bring forward legislation that will not be found unconstitutional and will serve the purpose which we all want it to serve.
I shall give an example of what I mean, Mr. Chairman. For 30 years, during the twenties, thirties and forties, the federal government-formed of both parties which held the reins of power during those years-in good faith used to lease land on Indian reservations to people who were not of Indian extraction; and they used to sell properties, part of Indian reservations, to people off the reservations. The money was turned over to the Indian bands.
This type of action was carried out in almost every province of Canada over many years. The inevitable happened. Although the federal government felt it was acting purely within its constitutional right, namely, that it was responsible for Indian affairs in this country and that it was doing the right thing in leasing land on Indian reservations and selling it with the agreement of the Indians, the moneys going back to the Indians so that it seemed a fair and reasonable activity by the federal government, somebody took the transactions to court. These actions went right up to the Supreme Court and the Privy Coun-
Oil and Petroleum
cil, and it was ruled that when the lands were no longer used for the pure purpose of Indian reservations, they reverted to the Crown, in right of the province. Even though the federal government thought it was acting within its constitutional prerogative in looking after Indian reservations, it found itself in an ultra vires position in respect of these activities vis-a-vis land on Indian reservations.
The government of which I was a member had to face the fact that under the British North America Act, lands in the provinces that were not federal lands and mineral rights in the provinces which did not belong to the federal government, had to be dealt with through the legislatures of the provinces. In other words, we had to obtain the consent of the Crown in right of the provinces. In response to this conclusion, in 1958 the then minister of Indian affairs introduced two bills into this House. One was entitled, "An act to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick respecting Indian reserves." This particular bill was passed. It has some interesting points. The facts which I have described are set out in the bill. Section 2 of the schedule reads:
All grants of patented lands are hereby confirmed except in so far as such grants purport to transfer to the grantees any minerals and said minerals are hereby acknowledged to be the property of the province.
Even though there was agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the federal government that they would legitimize these particular transactions over the previous 30 years, the federal bill, with the agreement of the province, provided that the province still reserved the right to any minerals in these lands. The mineral rights of these lands which were transferred to the grantees, or to the people who bought or leased them, were kept within the prerogatives of the Crown in right of the province. Section 3 of the schedule reads:
New Brunswick hereby transfers to Canada all rights and interests of the province in reserve lands except lands lying under public highways, and minerals.
I am reading this into the record, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that even though the federal government acted in good faith from 1922 to 1958 and within its constitutional jurisdiction, and felt it could handle problems on Indian reservations across Canada by taking lands out for lease or ownership, it found that it could not move without the consent of the Crown in right of the province. The British North America Act makes it clear, in sections 109 and 125, that minerals are the property of the province and the federal government cannot tax or do anything with them. If any federal action has the effect, through the principle of incidence, of hurting the interests of the other party, in this case New Brunswick, it is ultra vires. Similarly, we must consider the rights of provinces such as Nova Scotia, which provides a similar example.
My point is this: no matter how conscientious and hard working the minister may be, or how sincere his advisers may be, unless the minister can be absolutely certain that he is acting within the constitution we may be heading for trouble. That is why I suggested this method of proceeding, because we can consider these matters and the law officers of the Crown can consider whether, according to
1294

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
all precedents, what is being done under all clauses is proper. My second point concerns consent. On page 5960 of Hansard of July 14, 1959, the then minister of citizenship and immigration, Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough, is reported to have said the following, in moving second reading of Bill S-6, to confirm an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick respecting Indian reserves:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purpose of this bill, has given consent so far as Her Majesty's property rights are concerned, that the House may do therein as it shall think fit.
The circumstances concerning the prerogative of the Crown in which the bill of 1959 was introduced were similar to those we are now considering. Then the government, since the bill at that time affected the property of the Queen in right of the federal government, obtained consent of the Sovereign. The Sovereign said that the House could do as it saw fit. In other words, the Sovereign did not intend to put obstacles in the way of any decision the House might take at that time. That consent was obtained on the advice of the law officers of the Crown. According to Hansard, the minister went on to say:
The purpose of this legislation is to ratify and confirm an agreement made on March 25, 1958, between the government of Canada and the government of the province of New Brunswick in relation to lands forming part of Indian reserves in the province of New Brunswick. The necessity for such an agreement arose from decisions of the judicial committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain in two cases involving the sale of portions of Indian reserves in Ontario and Quebec, by the federal government, following surrenders for sale given by the Indian bands for whom the reserves had been set apart... In both cases it was held that notwithstanding that Canada had exclusive jurisdiction over lands reserved for Indians, the radical title to the reserves was in the province and therefore, a valid agreement, after a surrender for sale by an Indian band, could only be made by the province.
The spokesman for the official opposition was the then hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. Apparently he knew a good deal about the matter before the House. He said in part, as recorded at page 5961 of Hansard for July 14, 1959:
Certain cases were appealed to the Privy Council, and it was held that these lands were the property of the Crown in the right of the province. This means that it was necessary to take action to validate the defective grants, and negotiations between the two levels of government have been going on for some ten years and have now ended in mutual agreement.
I am making two points. First, there must be consent by both governments to any dealings affecting the property or prerogatives of the Crown. That is why the minister of that day made the sort of statement which ought to be made now in this House and whenever we are dealing with property or prerogatives of the Crown. Second, once consent to that agreement was obtained, it was ratified by legislation in the provincial legislatures and in parliament which provided the consent of the Crown in right of the province.
Speaking as a layman, I am not at all satisfied that this bill may not be declared beyond the competence of parliament. After all, the British North America Act laid down how the various powers within this country were to be divided. At present I am dealing with the narrow issue of Crown prerogatives. I submit that this bill is unsatisfactory, because the minister has not yet indicated the consent of the Crown in the federal right and there is no evidence

before the committee showing that the Crown in right of the province consents to passage of any parts of the bill which affect the property of the Crown in right of the province. That being so, if I were in the minister's position I would wish to consult the law officers of the Crown before answering. That is why I suggested our present procedure: we can put our views forward, the minister can transmit those views to the law officers of the Crown and receive an answer which we can consider.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: valid exercise of jurisdiction. In following that exercise of jurisdiction at that time, that act of the parliament of Canada was attacked, particularly in the Cal-Oil case. The Supreme Court of Canada held that administration of the national oil market, as part of the administration of interprovincial trade, was intra vires of the government of Canada. In this particular case, we are exercising an identical jurisdiction.
In this bill we are exercising jurisdiction by saying that once the particular commodities become products of interprovincial or international commerce, the responsibility clearly given to the federal government under section 91(2) of the British North America Act, for the regulation of trade and commerce, comes into play. At that point it is not only the right, but the responsibility of the federal government to regulate the national market. Provincial measures adopted from time to time, even in total agreement with the object of the government of Canada, cannot in themselves be effective. They could be effectively attacked by either a private party or another province.
Probably the best and most recent evidence that this continues to be a valid exercise of power is the decision taken by the National Energy Board with regard to setting a minimum and maximum export price for gas. At that point, the government of Canada, exercising its powers over international trade, which are no different in this regard from those over interprovincial trade, stipulated the price at which natural gas could be sold in Canada, not only in minimum but in maximum amounts. This stipulation has not been contested by any provincial government nor, as far as I know, by any private party. In this bill we are not expressly or consciously legislating or exercising jurisdiction witb regard to a natural resource of any particular province. We are exercising our jurisdiction over a subject of commerce which has been, or is to be introduced into interprovincial or international trade.
I wish to refer to one other comment made by the hon. member. This issue has been raised from time to time both in debate on this and its predecessor bill. It is the question of quid pro quo. I suppose in every piece of legislation put before parliament it almost inevitably happens that it strikes one part of the country less evenly than another. One need only look at the equalization formula as it applies to certain provinces but not to others. One could look at each of these pieces of legislation and say, "I have to be satisfied that a particular region is getting a quid pro quo or I shall not support this bill."
In this, as in other cases, it is a reasonable observation that exercising this judgment as to what is in the national interest, this parliament should determine whether it is desirable to maintain some restriction on oil and gas prices in Canada for the benefit of consumers in not only this and other provinces, but even in the province of Alberta, in the sense that provincial pricing is accommodated to the interprovincial formula that has been followed. It is in the interest of Canadians generally that the Canadian economy should have the benefit of this price cushion. There should be a protective cushion against the kind of prices imposed upon the western oil consuming nations by the oil producing nations. Therefore, it is not a question of a bargain in this regard; it is a concept of what is in the national interest. I was not a participant at the
Oil and Petroleum
March 27 meeting, but I take it that it was sufficiently in the national interest to motivate the premiers of the producing provinces, as well as the other provinces, to put forward this proposal.
I do not know what the question of a quid pro quo means. I do not know what the quid pro quo is intended to mean in this case. However, I do not think it is desirable for these major pieces of legislation which affect the economy, generally, of Canada to look for a declaration of a quid pro quo in so far as particular interests are concerned.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has served a useful purpose in raising this matter as a constitutional issue. I do not share some of the views he has expressed, but I think it would be useful to have the minister's department and the law officers look into this matter so we have a clear idea of the position with respect to this legislation.
Far be it from me to pose as a constitutional expert. I am not a lawyer; I have no training in the legal field. Let me deal, first, with the matter of provincial rights. There is no doubt that the minerals, lands and forests within a province are vested in the Queen in right of the provincial government. They have all the responsibility with regard to controlling production and supervising conservation. They also have the right to certain reimbursement when non-renewable resources are exploited within their province. That is why I think it is very important, in establishing any price, that it be kept in mind that the provinces are witnessing the diminution of part of the public domain which cannot be replaced. It is not like a renewable resource such as grain or lumber. When you dispose of a mineral, oil or natural gas, the province is dispossessing itself of a resource. Once taken out, it is gone forever.
It should also be remembered that the royalties which the provincial governments receive from the development of their resources, both renewable and non-renewable, do not represent a clear gain for the provincial treasury. In a great many instances they spend millions of dollars doing surveys, carrying on exploration, mapping, building roads, and so on. If an industrial development follows their exploration, they have the responsibility of providing schools, hospitals and all the other municipal services in the area. Therefore, they are entitled to every consideration when we are talking about exploitation of their basic resources. That is why I was very disturbed when the Minister of Finance suggested in his budget last May that the royalties paid to provincial governments by resource-based industries would not be deductible from income tax. We shall go into that matter when the budget is brought down.
I think anything which appears to be interfering with the rights of a provincial government to develop its resources and reimburse its people for the exploitation of its public domain should be watched very carefully. Even in the matter of setting prices there has to be the maximum amount of consultation with the provinces and, if possible, agreement with the provinces as set out in clauses 22 and 50 which provide for an attempt to enter
1296

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
into agreement regarding the price to be established. In a federal system such as ours, everything possible should be done by way of consultation rather than by confrontation. This is the goal which should be pursued, and these are the means which ought to be used.
Having said this, I think we should be very clear as to the powers of the federal government. To a layman like myself, it seems there can be no argument at all that the federal government has the legislative or constitutional authority to set prices outside the province in which the goods are produced. I do not think there can be any argument about its authority to fix the price once the commodity crosses a provincial or international boundary. From my reading of this bill, that is perfectly clear. Clause 20 provides:
This part applies to crude oil which enters into international or interprovincial trade or that is mixed or blended with crude oil which has been acquired for movement out of its province of production.
Clause 24, setting out particulars, provides:
No person shall
(a)	sell any quality or kind of crude oil for consumption outside its
province of production,
(b)	purchase any quality or kind of crude oil for consumption
outside its province of production
Subsequent paragraphs use precisely the same wording. Later, we come to clause 27 which reads:
Every person who acquires any crude oil in a province other than its province of production shall keep records and books of account at its place of business in Canada, or elsewhere in Canada-
We shall, of course, be glad to hear the comments of the minister, the opinions of the law officers and arguments of hon. members generally on this point. However, it seems to me, on the face of it, that the powers which are sought in this legislation are within the authority of the federal government. As a matter of fact, I do not know how selective price controls could be possible unless there were federal jurisdiction over goods moving into interprovincial or international trade. I do not know how there could be a two-price system for oil unless the federal government had such power.
If Canadians are to be cushioned against outrageously high international prices for oil by policies enabling them to buy their supplies at a price lower than the world price, while at the same time permitting our oil to be exported at the world price, with the governments of Canada, federal and provincial, picking up the difference between the two prices, I do not know how all this could be done unless the federal government had the kind of authority contained in the legislation before us.
The provincial governments, certainly the people I have talked to in the producing provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, recognize the logic of that position. The question they raise is the one to which the minister himself referred a few minutes ago. They ask, "What is the quid pro quo?" They say, "You are not doing this with regard to steel, cement, automobiles or machinery. You are doing nothing about freight rates which have militated for decades against western Canada and the Atlantic provinces." This argument is a valid one, in my opinion. The minister cannot very well comment on it now, but I think he should tell his colleagues that the lack of anything which can be regarded as a quid pro quo sticks

in the throats of people in the producing provinces who say, "Whenever we have something the rest of the country needs, there is a price control imposed as soon as it crosses provincial boundaries. But whenever we buy farm machinery, cement, trucks, automobiles and a host of other commodities which enter into our cost of production, we are obliged to pay the going price."
I believe the federal government has the right, constitutionally, to the. power it is seeking in this legislation. I hope it will not be used unwisely. I should like to ask the minister, for instance, what reaction he has received from the oil and gas producing provinces to the proposals contained in this bill and the list of amendments which he courteously sent over to us. Are those provinces prepared to co-operate? What are the possibilities of getting a voluntary agreement on the price of oil under clause 22 rather than having to use the mandatory clause 36? What are the possibilities, as a result of discussion, of getting a voluntary agreement on the price of natural gas as provided for in clause 50 rather than having to use the mandatory provision in clause 52? I am not objecting to clauses 36 and 52. We shall be dealing with those clauses when we come to them.
I do not think any federal government responsible for governing the nation could carry on negotiations indefinitely as to the price of oil and gas while the public continued in a state of uncertainty. I think there comes a time when somebody must have the authority to say, "This is what the price will be." Nevertheless, I ask the minister what reaction he has received from the provinces respecting voluntary agreement. There is another question I want to ask. I think the answer to it might make a considerable difference to the attitude of the oil producing provinces. What does the federal government propose to do with any money in the export charge fund that is left over after these compensation cost payments have been made? The estimate last year was that the government would probably take in $1,300 million or $1,400 million. It was estimated they might pay out in compensation costs, in the area east of the Ottawa Valley, $800 million or $900 million. I asked the minister in the national resources committee what the government was proposing to do with any money that was left over, and he quite properly said that we should wait and see whether there was any money left over. That is why he would not allocate money he had not received.
I should like to know whether any money will be left over, and whether any of it will go to the oil producing provinces. Originally, when the minister made the proposal about divvying up the money from oil, the provinces were going to get 50 per cent of the export tax revenue. Now, in lieu of getting a slightly higher price for the oil, the provinces have no claim on any part of the revenue from the export charge. If several hundred million dollars are left in the fund after compensation payments have been made, then I think the provinces will feel that at least part of the money, if not all, ought to go back to them.
I think the people in the oil producing provinces are good Canadians and are prepared to say that all the money necessary should be taken out of the export charge fund to
November 13, 1974

compensate the people of eastern Canada so that they pay the same price for their oil, plus whatever transportation and handling charges there are, as other Canadians. But I think they would feel very much upset if $400 million or $500 million were left in the fund and the federal government said, "By virtue of the power that we have under the Petroleum Administration Act, we intend to take this money into general revenue". I think that would only exacerbate any feelings of resentment that there are.
I close by saying that I think, as every member here knows, that a federal system creates many problems which you do not have in a unitary form of government. It has advantages in that it makes for better decentralization and for government closer to the people. But it has the disadvantage that we are always concerned about conflicting interests between provincial and federal authorities. Anything that can be done to militate against these feelings of hostility, and to convince people that one part of Canada is not being treated differently from another part, ought to be done.
I think one of the ways of doing this is for the minister and the government to give very serious consideration to stating that if there are funds collected from oil that is exported which are in excess of the money we have to pay to compensate the people of eastern Canada, then either all this money, or certainly a substantial part of it ought to go to the oil producing provinces. If the minister can give us any information on the two or three points that I have raised, I would certainly appreciate it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the hon. gentleman which, as always, are very relevant. The questions that he has put to me are, firstly, with regard to provincial reactions to the bill. I would have to say that with respect both to the provision of the export charge to fund the compensation fund and to the creation of the compensation fund itself, since these are both the direct result of the March 27 meeting of first ministers I think they can be regarded as having the support of all provinces, including the particular producing provinces he has referred to. In this regard, of course, I am talking about crude oil.
The hon. member raised the question of the prospect of a provincial agreement with regard to crude oil. Of course, such agreement does exist with regard to crude oil up until June 30, 1975. The ongoing pricing arrangement itself will have to be a matter for discussion. I understood the first ministers to say it would have to be a matter for discussion in about May of the coming year, so we can then determine what their views are as to appropriate price levels after the agreed period comes to an end.
With regard to natural gas, in effect we are really only dealing with one producing province, Alberta. In this respect, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, every bit as much as Ontario and Quebec-indeed, one might say the individual householders in those provinces, even more so than those in Ontario and Quebec, are consumers of Alberta gas- have the same interests as others in trying to moderate price increases in so far as they may occur. I think the consuming provinces, including Saskatchewan and Manitoba, would support the notion that prices should not go as they would otherwise go under the Alberta arbitra-
Oil and Petroleum
tion act, but that price increases should be restrained over a period of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: assume the same can be said of British Columbia.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: British Columbia produces a fair amount of gas for itself, and exports a fair amount more. However, because of shortfalls in British Columbia producing fields, they have now become customers for Alberta gas as well. On the whole, I take it that they would be less enthusiastic about higher interprovincial prices than they might have been a year or a year and a half ago.
The area of contestation, of course-to get right to the point-will be with regard to the concept of the federal government's exercising jurisdiction, in the event agreement is not arrived at, in the national market so as to set the price of oil. Equally, failing an agreement in the case of natural gas the federal government will similarly exercise its jurisdiction. With regard to both these commodities, the province of Alberta has made it clear that it opposes this exercise by the federal government of its jurisdiction under section 91(2), and those particular provisions of the bill before us do not have their support. That has been made perfectly clear to us and we need be in no doubt about it. With regard to the agreement with the affected provinces on gas prices, I think I would have to say that the returns are not yet all in as to whether or not it would be possible to achieve some kind of agreement.
As to appropriate staging over a period of years, we have had discussions with Ontario as one of the major consumers, as well as with the government of Alberta. We put forward to both these provinces a proposal for the phasing of gas prices over a period of time. In terms of Ontario as a consumer province, the matter has been very much narrowed down to a question of mathematics. At the moment I think it is correct to say that we have not had a further response from Alberta on whether this proposal would meet their requirements. However, we are still left with the general statement by either the minister of mines and materials or the premier himself that there could be phasing, over time, of any gas price increase; but I am unable at the moment to give a final answer whether there will be an agreement on gas pricing. There does seem to be a basis for an agreement, but no agreement has yet been finalized.
As for the disposition of funds, I think I would have to acknowledge in the most general terms that the argument put by the hon. gentleman is a reasonable one. If, indeed, at some time in the future, either by a miraculous reduction in international prices or through some other regime supplanting this particular one, a substantial amount of funds collected from the export charge were left over, then I would think that the producing provinces would have a very strong argument in saying that just as 50 per cent of the export tax funds are made available to them, so they should have some expectation of looking to some part of these additional funds.
I would have to say, however, that the prospect, in the relative short run, of that fund remaining in a surplus

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
position is not that intensive. As hon. members know, we have been looking at propositions made by a number of provinces and by the private sector that Canadian exports to the United States should be reduced from the current level, which would move us from a slight surplus in the account over the compensation we have to pay to the point where, in effect, the compensation in relation to the export charge would be running in deficit.
Under these circumstances, I think I probably would have to repeat the same answer. For the time being we should be careful to maintain this fund in account, in case the claim for compensation should outrun the ability of this particular program to be funded out of the export charge. As I say, if ultimately a credit balance is established in favour of the treasury, then at that point there would indeed be every basis for discussion as to how it should be disposed of; but at the moment it looks as though we may have to look to other sources of revenue if this reduction is to continue in 1975 and 1976; that is, to provide for the fact that exports to the United States may be dropping in coming years.
Mb. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):
Would not imports drop proportionately for a while?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think that is likely, at least in the early stages before the pipeline flow would be going through into Montreal. In that event, exports would drop, but in fact the production would be shut in on a standby basis so that the same level of imports would continue but there would be a lower level of exports. It certainly would be true that at the time the flow was going into Montreal to the extent of 250,000 barrels a day on average, our liability on overseas selling would be reduced.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question on that point? If the compensation fund went into a deficit position, where would we find the revenue? Would it come out of general taxation, or would the government consider imposing an excess profits tax on some of the oil companies to recoup the necessary funds?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say that I would have to defer to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in that regard. He has general responsibility, under the consolidated revenue fund, to meet that obligation. But it might be that we would have to look at some other available sources. I am sure he would consider the two sources the hon. member has suggested, among others.


Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, has some questions along the same line and I would defer my remarks until he has concluded.
Mb. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain): I am very grateful to the hon. member for Calgary Centre for letting me go back to that point at this moment. My remarks are in reply to what the minister has said in outlining the future position on a constitutional basis. May I say at this time that I agree 100 per cent with everything the minister has said, as did the hon. member who spoke for the NDP. However, he has not met the point I was trying to put forward. I would accept the suggestion

that I did not express it very clearly, because it is a very difficult point.
What I am trying to say is that property of a province in the form of land is not just subject to the legislative prerogative of that province but also to the prerogative of the Crown, and if anything happens through the principle of incidence to affect the prerogative of the Crown, then this legislation will become dubious if it goes before the courts. For example, the federal government has legislative authority to control production, whether it be of oil or gas, crossing a provincial border; but the application of that restraint on price, or control of price, has an incidence on the value of the property.
For example, if there were a surplus of $200 million, in this calendar year, of money collected by the federal government in export tax-which the federal government has the power to impose and collect-over the amount paid in compensation under this bill-and the federal government has the power to provide that compensation-I would ask, as a layman, who would own this money if the matter was brought before the courts? This is a depleting resource of the province, and in theory the property, the land or the resource is subject to the Queen's prerogative and can only be altered with the consent of the Queen in right of the province, which means its executive or the legislature. If the minister accepts the seriousness of my case, it would seem that neither he nor I can answer that question. Therefore, the amendments we shall put forward are intended to prevent this type of situation occurring. If the matter went to the courts, it would throw out the whole system which by mutual agreement we are all trying to put into this area.
Therefore, I come back to the key point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, namely, that the way to avoid all these risks and the potential danger of court action is by agreement mutually arrived at. With such a safeguard in this legislation we would protect the ownership and the rights of the federal government in this field. I would think, therefore, that the debate has come to the crunch. We are not debating the legislative competence of the federal government in fields of interprovincial and international trade, nor are we debating the fact that the provinces own these resources; but what I am putting to the minister as a question that should be of as much concern to him as it is to all of us is, what are the law officers going to say on the question of the Queen's prerogative in respect of the ownership of these resources by the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta?
I put that question to the minister because I do not know the answer. I suggest that very few of us here have an answer, but with all the precedents this matter is worthy of very serious consideration. That is why I mentioned the case of the Indian lands, because after 25 or 30 years of doing something, to finally realize one has made a big, fat boo-boo does not mean we should repeat the same mistake. That is the message I am trying to get across to the minister in a constructive way, to see if we cannot produce better legislation.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands spent most of his life on the prairies. I am sure he shares with me the knowledge that the wealth of the people on the prairies, relative to the people in Ontario and Quebec,
November 13, 1974

is pretty good; but that does not resolve their difficulties. They know, as surely as they exist, that they are part of a colonial structure and even though the four western provinces produce 70 per cent of the wealth of this nation, they represent only 20 per cent or 25 per cent of our population and the representation in this House. They still get this treatment from the central provinces, even though they produce 70 per cent of the basic wealth, and there will be even more coming from our provinces. They have no say in the running of this country and no share in the national interest. We must do something to cushion the shock of the rapidly accelerating price of oil and asking that the producing provinces bear this subsidy of $2,500 million to $3,000 million out of their depleting resources.
The westerner keeps asking himself when he will see signs of equal status among all the provinces. Are they not all equal? Are they not all equal, not only in respect of what they receive from confederation but in respect of their responsibilities? The question I asked of the Prime Minister in respect of electricity was along the same line. Here we have one province endangering another province. I think it is potentially dangerous in the province of Ontario to have one of its plants out of operation, to have another damaged through fire, and to have a coal strike in the United States. Although this situation may not be dangerous, it could be dangerous. Ontario is still our largest industrial complex.
We all ask ourselves, on this issue, not what is right but, rather, what seems to be right; that is, when will this government apply the principle of equality on this very vital energy source, electricity, and ask the province of Quebec to consider its responsibility to the whole country and not be busily negotiating the sale of its surplus power to the United States when a neighbouring part of the Dominion of Canada needs that power.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands mentioned many other things. We think, in this House, traditionally of our transportation difficulties. What about lumber in the province of British Columbia? Last year, when the prairie provinces and Ontario were short, there was no action by this government to bring about equality of sacrifice. When it affects the prairies, do we get called upon to make the supreme sacrifice! I am simply pointing out, on the political issue, that perhaps this bill should be visualized by the minister as more than an administrative-legislative act to carry out the agreement of the eleven governments. As part of a policy of his government, I think he should recognize there is a political fact at stake, and he should put into the bill clauses which will guarantee reasonable equity to the provinces which are under the gun-in this case Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I speak with some feeling because this bill has political connotations. Westerners are waiting to see when the government will treat them as equals. I want to show the House this book by Dr. Ollivier, who once sat at the table where you are sitting now, Mr. Chairman. It has reference to the British North America Act and selected statutes. The preamble refers to the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act and the Alberta Natural Resources Act of 1930. In 1905 we were not allowed equal rights to our resources, such as British Columbia and the six eastern
Oil and Petroleum
provinces had. We were treated as a colony and told that the federal government could hand out grants of our forest resources and everything else.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And
did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And did. It took years for the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to restore those resources that were despoiled by the greedy government in Ottawa. In 1930, the government of Canada adopted the statement that all provinces were to be treated as equals. I wish to read this section.
And whereas the government of Canada desires that the province should be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources as from its entry into confederation in 1905-
Now, at this time of national emergency because of suddenly rising prices, we lose our equality. I think the minister is aware of the political difficulty of his government in respect of the prairie provinces, and therefore he should accept the fact that in this bill there should be the appearance of fairness and he should give more than sympathetic consideration to the type of constructive amendments we are trying to put forward.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, if I might refer again to the question which the hon. member raised, I do not know whether I followed his argument exactly, but it seems to me the essence of it is that the Crown in right of a province could, by exercising its right in respect of a particular commodity, thereby oust all the legislative jurisdiction of the government of Canada. If that was the question put to me, I think the answer clearly would be no. Clearly, the powers of the government of Canada given under section 91(2) would, for example in interprovincial trade, as much affect the property rights of a province as a private individual. Surely this has to be the structure of the whole statute, otherwise there would have been no basis for the division of power in the first place.
The hon. gentleman referred to a question he posed to the Prime Minister during my absence yesterday in Calgary, with regard to the possible power interconnection between Ontario and Quebec. The first comment I would make is that there is already such an interconnection. Following the January energy conference, I wrote to all the premiers indicating our interest in establishing closer interregional connection, given the unfeasibility at the moment of the kind of national connection which is sometimes talked about in the press. I received answers from the provinces.
In particular, both Ontario and Quebec have indicated approval in principle of the concept of regional interconnection, but both laid very considerable stress on the point that they would take the lead themselves, as provinces, in negotiating those types of arrangements and, if I may say so, in a rather polite way they indicated they would not thank the federal government for telling them the kind of interconnection they should have in this regard. As to the question of an emergency export of power from Quebec, of course under the terms of the National Energy Board Act the applicant, Hydro-Quebec in this case, would have to satisfy the National Energy Board that there was a surplus available in excess of that which would meet the reason-

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
able demands of a neighbouring province. For example, the obligation would be on Hydro-Quebec to establish that there was not, in fact, a need in Ontario which could be met by the same block of power.
So the jurisdiction is already there and is established under the National Energy Board Act-indeed it is exercised by the National Energy Board-to make certain that if there are problems for Ontario Hydro this winter, and if it has difficulty and does not seem to be rushing for federal assistance in this regard, before a neighbouring province could export power which could assist it, that province would have to seek the concurrence of the National Energy Board, and the National Energy Board would have to be satisfied in that regard.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, we looked at this bill and its predecessor both during second reading stage and before the standing committee. We are now looking at it in committee of the whole house. Many of the points made earlier today have been made before, although I think some of the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands were very well articulated and made very good sense, at least to me and, I hope, to members opposite. In respect of the constitutional argument raised, and the minister's announcement that the national policy of 1959 established a precedent, I should like to correct a remark of the minister in which he indicated that this established a precedent that there would be a higher price for crude oil west of the Ottawa Valley line. In fact, that national oil policy did not deal with price at all; it simply stated that exports from outside Canada would not be permitted into the area west of the Ottawa Valley, leaving that area available for domestically-produced crude oil.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Higher priced crude oil.


Harvie Andre: The price was set by the marketplace.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, the price was set by
exercise of jurisdiction.


Harvie Andre: The price was set by the marketplace.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The price in Ontario was set by the exercise of jurisdiction.


Harvie Andre: The minister will have to show me exactly where it says that the price was to be set by the National Energy Board or by anybody else. The price was set by the marketplace. They restricted the marketplace.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If there had been a free marketplace, and not one controlled by the government, then offshore crude would have dominated it.


Harvie Andre: The marketplace was restricted, just as it has been restricted for automobiles and other things in the past, by tariffs. There is nothing new in restricting the marketplace. I think it is a rather

generous extrapolation, however, to suggest that something like a tariff or a restriction of imports is tantamount to price control. It simply is not.
I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's reaction to the quid pro quo situation is that this is not in the national interest. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked, why is it not in the national interest to be concerned about the legitimate aspirations of western Canadians? Why must a problem be located in central Canada before it is a national problem, and problems elsewhere are regional problems? This attitude is at the root of many of the difficulties we are facing today. This psychological hang-up must be surmounted if we are ever to have a sense of unity in this country.
Originally, all the funds were to go to the producing provinces. Then a 50-50 split was agreed upon, with the provinces also to get the increase in the price of crude from $4 to $6.50 a barrel. The budget came out and confiscated that, but today the minister says it will be considered. I would have to see it in writing, Mr. Chairman, before I could put any trust in it. There are four cases of revenue-sharing where a commitment was made and then immediately broken.
On the matter of rights and constitutional prerogatives, there is no question that the federal government has jurisdiction over trade and commerce, and the provinces own the natural resources. But it seems to me there is also no question that there is no such thing as an absolute right, any more than the right of freedom of speech or freedom of the press allows slander or libel, any more than the freedom of religion allows one to make human sacrifice at some temple. A right is a right only to the extent that it does not impinge upon the rights of others. It is not good enough to say that because the federal government has jurisdiction over trade and commerce, they can effectively do away with any of the normal rights associated with ownership. What does ownership mean, if it entails a denial of the right to dispose of property, if it is dictated where the property shall be disposed of and at what price? Such conditions make ownership meaningless.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands indicated that there may be some necessity for clause 36, the veto clause which would allow the federal government to impose its will unilaterally in the case that no agreement was reached on price. It is my contention, Mr. Chairman, that this clause should be eliminated for a number of reasons. Aside from the question of whether there are constitutional powers to enact that clause, it is a slap in the face for the producing provinces. It is tantamount to suggesting that we do not have confidence in their magnanimity, that we do not trust them to act as loyal Canadians. I do not believe that is a proper attitude for the federal government to adopt.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain referred to the numerous, long-standing grievances of the producing provinces which have been presented to the government but apparently have fallen on deaf ears. The present situation in terms of oil, gas and energy gives the west some leverage, for the first time in 100 years, through which it can demand adjustments in the policies that have worked against it for so long. If we were now to step aside,
November 13, 1974

to deny that leverage to the western provinces, it might be another 100 years before they would be in that position again.
There are other and more important reasons why the government should seriously consider removing this clause. Under the British North America Act, provincial legislatures are not without muscle. It does not take much imagination to see that several pieces of legislative artillery could be introduced by the provinces to counteract any aspect of this legislation felt to be detrimental to their interests. The federal-provincial fight has been escalating for a year and a half. In my own province it has resulted in a lot of genuine people seriously considering the future as a separate political entity. This is of tremendous concern to myself and the majority of Albertans who are Canadians first and foremost. But it is understandable, Mr. Chairman, and anybody with a little sensitivity can appreciate why some people have arrived at that point of view.
Clause 36 was not part of the agreement reached by the first ministers on March 27, yet the federal government, in effect, is saying they are going to continue the fight because under the British North America Act they think they can win it. If they continue with that attitude, there will be very serious consequences for this country which I hope we all love. But I think the country has had enough of this bickering, Mr. Chairman. It is time we came together and talked about consulting and working together, instead of fighting.
The first, important step the federal government should take is saying, "We have confidence in co-operative federalism and in the federal state. We have confidence in provincial premiers who are concerned for the rest of Canada. We believe we can work out our difficulties next July, in the same way as they were worked out last March." That advice does not come from me alone, nor from members on this side alone; it is expressed in a document which the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources tabled in July, 1973, entitled "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase 1." For example, on page 9 one finds the following:
Federal and provincial responsibilities and interests in the energy field are intimately interrelated. No national policy can be contemplated without the fullest of intergovernmental consultations and consensus.
On page 58 one reads the following:
While the federal government considers that it is its responsibility to take the lead in the development of national energy policies, it recognizes that, generally speaking, these should evolve from the harmonization of the priorities and policies of the several provinces and of the different regional concerns.
That is excellent advice. Lower on the same page one reads the following:
That there can be no effective set of national energy policies developed without the participation of the provincial governments is readily apparent. The provinces own 90 per cent of the assets of the electricity generating industry in Canada, they control almost 100 per cent of the oil and gas produced in Canada today, and, when the potential of the oil sands is included, they control a majority of Canada's future petroleum potential. They also hold the rights to almost all of the coal potential which will meet future energy needs. Obviously, policies developed in isolation in Ottawa hold scant hope for success.
Oil and Petroleum
That is precisely true. That is excellent advice prepared by the minister's department. I wish it were followed. Some may consider this a debate on provincial rights. It is not. The provinces can look after their own rights. They can muster all the legal and legislative muscle which is necessary to take care of their rights-of that you can be sure. The point is that we, as federal members of parliament who are concerned about the entire country, cannot stand aside and allow the escalation which has been continuing for the last year and a half to carry on. We have witnessed what looks like empire building on the part of conflicting bureaucracies who say, "The people of Canada be damned." That attitude is neither acceptable nor responsible.
I shall not touch upon federal and provincial jurisdiction, preferring to deal with that matter when we deal with the appropriate clauses. The bill says nothing about supply, which is regrettable. It talks about protecting consumers from unstable prices. Indeed, it is becoming ever more apparent that we need to guarantee stability of supply; we should not worry so much about price. Unless current trends are reversed, oil and gas will not be available no matter how much we are willing to pay.
I am disturbed because the bill sets no time limit for government controls. Are permanent price controls to be introduced? The minister said this is not the case and implied that this is to be a temporary regime. I agree that no one can see into the future and we do not know what will happen. Nonetheless, introducing such controls, without saying for how long they are to last, is setting a dangerous precedent which may lead to permanent price controls. If the imposition of such controls is in line with the conscious wish of parliament, then for goodness sake let us talk about it publicly. Let there be legitimate, public debate on the question and let us not sneak into a system of controls by the back door. Also, I am not satisfied with the way in which the bill deals with natural gas. Clearly, this matter has not been considered carefully enough. The government has open to it many alternatives for dealing with natural gas. Again, past actions smack more of empire building than of any legitimate response to meet a difficulty.
The subsidy program, on which I commented previoulsy, is the most complicated one can imagine. It purports to take into account every boatload of oil which arrives in this country and, on the basis of a complicated formula, to determine the subsidy which will apply to that oil. Why is a single export tax levied on every barrel of oil produced in this country, regardless of quality, place of production, specific gravity or destination? Why is it necessary to apply a complicated formula to imported oil, a formula which is difficult to administer and which has resulted, despite the government's commitment to a uniform price system across Canada, in crude oil in Montreal being less expensive than crude oil in Toronto? The subsidy program has brought this result: crude oil in the Quebec market is cheaper than crude oil in the Ontario market. That runs counter to supposed government policy. These remarks show some of the weaknesses of the bill.
Whether we are locked into our positions, and whether it is impossible or too late for change, I do not know. I hope it is not too late. I hope, if the government is con-

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
cerned about the unity of this country, that it will reconsider the necessity for clause 36 of the bill and withdraw it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I shall comment briefly on what the hon. member has said. He and his colleagues spoke about the difference in price of crude in Montreal and Toronto. Quite aside from the difference in transportation costs, the difference is qualitative, the offshore crude having a higher sulphur content than the Alberta crude and not being of the same quality.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-32.1 do so because of certain statements made a short while ago by the minister in response to certain questions. Having looked at the bill, I realize that it confers tremendous powers upon the federal government. As a colleague of mine suggests, they are enough to make your hair stand on end. The bill deals with gas. According to clause 2-
'gas' means natural gas or any fluid hydrocarbon or any fluid mixture of hydrocarbons other than a hydrocarbon recovered in liquid or solid state-
And so on. Contrary to the minister's statement a short while ago, I understand that the Newfoundland government will not accept a purely advisory role in the management of our east coast offshore resources. In fact, consultations held to date on the amendment question have resulted in a provincial advisory role, this being all that the federal government will concede. The minister, in his reply, can explain to the House why this is so.
I would point out that as a result of this adamant stand, Newfoundland has, in its determination to seek solid provincial management rights, been forced to take independent action in order to secure greater control over its offshore resources. Unfortunately, the other Atlantic provinces do not seem as determined as the government of Newfoundland to obtain this form of management and control. This is regrettable in light of the discovery off the coast of Nova Scotia, for example, on Sable Island. It is unfortunate for the province of Nova Scotia and its future.
The minister now knows the government of Newfoundland will not easily retreat from its present stand. In fact, if negotiations with the federal government fail, it is my understanding the Newfoundland government will take this issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. This is not just a matter of dollars and cents. The first decisions in this federal-provincial dispute relate to the granting of exploration and production permits in the offshore areas. What level of government will be responsible for issuing them? The exploration and production permits will determine the terms and conditions under which the oil companies will participate in the offshore development. Under this bill, who will have final authority in this matter?
Second, Newfoundland wants a strong voice in determining the type of field practices which will be carried out by the oil companies. This is very important, because it will cover such items as conservation and the rate of production. The type of field practices carried out is also a very important question in view of the area in which exploration and development will be carried out, mainly

on our offshore banks where our fish stocks are spawned and where oil pollution presents a further threat to our fish resources.
I can well understand the concern expressed by the government of Newfoundland over this matter. They, like those of us who reside in Nova Scotia, realize our lack of surveillance capability in Atlantic Canada. It is in such a difficult position as to be almost absurd. This is a very valid concern that is being expressed by the government of Newfoundland, because they realize that without surveillance just about anything can happen and is happening on our offshore banks.
Finally, the government of Newfoundland believes it must have a say in determining how any resource products are marketed and used, once they are established. In these three areas the Newfoundland government has refused to accept only an advisory role. It is only fair and proper that the minister explain to this House just what the position will be, not only for the government of Newfoundland but for the other Atlantic provinces, because this is an ongoing dispute; it has not been resolved although discoveries have been made which are worth while.
In my opinion, the federal-provincial relationship should be more of a partnership than having Ottawa end up with ultimate control of these resources. I am not a constitutional expert, but it is my understanding that under the British North America Act the resources of this country belong to the provinces. By giving the federal government final control, I believe we are playing fast and loose with the constitutional balances in this country. There is no reason why our offshore resources should be treated any differently from resources found on land. I believe our provincial governments, especially those in Atlantic Canada, should back up that concept with all the force at their command. I say this because within a few years our oil and gas resources in Atlantic Canada may well be making a meaningful contribution to our energy needs not only in Atlantic Canada but throughout the eastern part of this country. The discovery of natural gas off Labrador in two areas, for example, is very meaningful. Although it is too early to evaluate the commercial potential of these two finds, they are, hopefully, the forerunners of more discoveries in this area.
In conclusion, the absence of a federal-provincial agreement on our offshore areas has unfortunately acted as a negative factor in our attempts to spur additional exploration activity. In fact, federal proposals for heavily taxing our resource companies could have a serious and damaging effect on our rate of exploration and development activities. I have raised some very important points. I have spoken about the concerns of the premiers in Atlantic Canada, primarily Newfoundland. In his reply I hope the minister will not only answer these points but will give us a little better understanding of his concept of the British North America Act and of provincial and federal rights as he sees them under the act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should make it clear to the hon. member that this proposed bill does not deal with the question of exploration for and development of oil and natural gas, either in any province or offshore, or federal territory. It deals with oil and gas
November 13, 1974

marketing after the product is produced and once the intention is fixed to move it to interprovincial or international trade. In that sense, the question of negotiations with the eastern provinces and the kind of regime which will apply there are relevant and important in another context. They were the subject matter of discussion with Newfoundland, for example, by myself as recently as last week. However, the Petroleum Administration Act does not deal with that question. From the standpoint of the Atlantic provinces, it provides the means and assures that consumers of oil and oil products in the hon. member's province, the other three Atlantic provinces, as well as Quebec and eastern Ontario, will not have to pay international market prices for the products they use.
The policy of the federal government is to have this cushion which has been much objected to by some producing provinces. By this cushion we have taken action to protect the hon. member's province and other provinces from the full impact of international prices. The question he raises is very important, but in another context and in another bill. There is nothing in this bill dealing with either administration of offshore resources or, indeed, exploration and production in any province, at this point.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Can the minister explain how gas is developed in Atlantic Canada, specifically off the coast of Labrador, to the point of selling it to Quebec, for example? Will the minister explain how this can be done by the government of Newfoundland? In other words, am I correct in interpreting the minister's comments in this way, that it will be quite acceptable for the government of Newfoundland to establish its own marketing agency for gas they discover off Labrador and to sell this gas to the people of la belle province, Newfoundland or Nova Scotia without running afoul, as we say in the maritimes, of the minister's regulations? Is this a correct interpretation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Chairman. This government does not concede that the continental shelf is within the jurisdiction of the government of Newfoundland. That is really what the discussion is all about. In any event, if the gas finds were within the inland waters of a particular province, exploration and production there might well be within provincial jurisdiction. However, once the commodity was introduced into interprovincial or international commerce, the federal jurisdiction over trade and commerce would operate and this bill would apply to it.


Donald W. Munro: I thought I heard the minister say that the federal government does not concede that the continental shelf off Newfoundland falls within provincial jurisdiction. He went on to say something about inshore waters. Could he tell us where the break-off point is? I have been asking a series of questions about this very matter and I am finding, to my consternation, that there are three-possibly four-regimes which must be considered when we are examining this question. I have been looking into the position on the Pacific coast, on the Atlantic coast, in the Arctic and along Hudson Bay to find out the circumstances which exist there. I find that certain provinces have jurisdiction in those areas, while others have not. The jurisdiction of some provinces goes to the
Oil and Petroleum,
edge of the continental shelf, and in other cases it does not.
Where is the cut-off point? What does the minister mean by "inshore waters off the coast of Newfoundland"? There is another question I should like to ask the minister. Can he tell us whether in his conversations last week he was able to reach agreement with the minister in charge of these matters, Mr. Crosbie, I think it is? Does he believe that his interpretation will prevail?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To deal with the last question first, Newfoundlanders, of course, maintain that they have jurisdiction, and the government of Canada maintains that they do not.


Donald W. Munro: Oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am surprised to hear that expression of surprise from the hon. gentleman, since this has been the issue for the last seven years or more. In the case of the hon. member's own province, the question was taken to the Supreme Court and it was held that the areas beyond low-water mark, with the exception of the inland waters as defined at the time of confederation, were within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. It happens that in the hon. member's province the provincial government is more interested in preventing exploration and development of hydrocarbons than in making it possible, but that is another question altogether.
With regard to Hudson Bay, I think it is clear that beyond the low-water mark, in the grants by which the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba were given jurisdiction, was withheld from the grant and remains in the federal sector as, indeed, it does in the north.


Donald W. Munro: A complicated
system.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Quite right. It is a complicated system and that is because at different times in our history different parts of the nation's territory were placed under provincial jurisdiction.


Donald W. Munro: I quite understand that there is a difficulty and that the federal authorities claim jurisdiction over certain areas off the Newfoundland coast, while the province of Newfoundland claims the contrary. Could the minister give us some indication of the manner in which this difficulty is being resolved? Is it being treated as a political matter, or will there be a reference to the Supreme Court. In that case, who will make such a reference? Or will the whole thing be left to fester?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is, of course, being treated as a political matter. That is what the negotiations of the last two years have been about. They have reached a point at which three of the Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec are considering a possible regime which might be mutually acceptable. With regard to Newfoundland, I think the conclusion reached at the meeting with Mr. Crosbie, the minister of intergovernmental affairs, and Mr. Barry, the minister of mines, was that we would analyse proposals for the kind of administration we now have in mind, as a federal government, on the conti-

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
nental shelf and the kind of ambitions they have in mind, in an attempt to discover whether there is any real difference of opinion as to how the administration should be handled. This is a matter for negotiation and, quite frankly, my preference is to solve these disagreements by negotiation rather than through reference to the courts.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, this bill raises important questions of principle. First, it pits one region of Canada, the west, against the central market. In effect, it tells western producers that they must sell the goods they produce at a great deal less than their value. This leads us to examine the whole concept of provincial rights. In practice, the provinces are being asked to give up control over their products except that in the case of oil and gas they perhaps have a choice whether to leave them in the ground.
In the second place, the bill sets a price of $6.50 a barrel for oil without saying what is to happen in the future. Most people think the price of oil is bound to reach the world price eventually, but there is no indication here of the means by which increases in price will be permitted. At the purchase level it does nothing for conservation. By setting a lower price, consumption is encouraged. All of us recognize the need of a person to keep warm, but what about the man who drives a large car or who uses a 90 horse-power motor on his power boat when he wants to water-ski? Is he entitled to the same consumer benefits as, say, a pensioner?
The arrangements contemplated in this bill will displace the market as a means of setting the price of gas and oil. With the market no longer functioning, one has to rely on the political process, which means that one or two people with a special interest will set the price. Eventually, the whole country will suffer. In Canada, with its immense distances, market forces should prevail whenever possible or reasonable. Oil and gas are no exception. The prairie governments are very sensitive to attacks on their oil and gas interests. In fact, they are as jealous of those interests as the people of Quebec are about their language.
The struggle of the western provinces to get their natural resources back from Ottawa was long and bitter. It lasted from 1900 to 1929. Now the federal government is attempting to take those rights back again. Mr. J. W. Defoe, editor of the Winnipeg Free Press and one of the staunchest Liberals in history, did a great deal for the Liberal party in western Canada and much to keep this issue alive. We now have a Liberal government in Ottawa backtracking again. When the western provinces were first formed, Ottawa until 1935 treated them as if they were quite incapable of managing their own resources, even though section 109 of the British North America Act provides as follows:
All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union, and all sums then due and payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise-
The use of revenue from resource development was accepted in principle, but when Manitoba tried to be

treated like the other provinces, Ottawa refused. When the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta came into existence in 1905 they made a similar request and were also refused. This shows how seriously the western provinces regard this as an attack on the resources they own. The feeling was so great that the Conservative Party of 1911 had as one of its pledges that the western provinces would be put on the same footing as other provinces. Nothing came of this until in the 1920s the western progressives supported the Liberals and used this as a lever on the Liberal party to give the western provinces their resources. The government of the day bought off the maritimers with some sweeteners, since the maritimers said that they were entitled to some of the resources in the western provinces.
The federal government of that day sold a great deal of land, some 200 million acres, comprising school land, and so on, and there followed a long and bitter hassle over the amount of compensation to be paid. Alberta claimed for the coal, oil and gas that had been produced up till 1930, and to show that the federal government of that day was not interested in conservation-or perhaps, to be fair, did not take into account conservation-they drew the oil and gas leases in the Turner Valley and billions of cubic feet of gas were wasted. It took a special act of parliament to enable Alberta to enact natural resource conservation legislation.
Some people contend that the federal government is the only body with an over-all view of this country. They say it is the only body capable of marrying up conservation, production of oil and usage. Here we have an example of a provincial government having to step in to conserve a valuable reserve of natural gas. Ultimately, a royal commission awarded the two provinces $5 million, but by this time they were so heavily in debt owing to unemployment that this was a sort of saw-off.
It is very important to the western provinces that jurisdiction over natural resources remain within the province, even in times of emergency such as the present, if I may call it that. If there are emergencies arising because of price, we should not lose sight of the very important fact that the western provinces in particular, though I think all parts of Canada, will function better, nationally, if they remain in control of their resources. For example, we were told that the price of copper in Canada is lower than the world price, that we have a two-price system, but that Ontario is the main loser. Nevertheless, the province of Ontario must stand to gain something, with their large industrial base.
All the good things that have come to the west in recent years have been due to the wealth of natural resources. Saskatchewan has its potash as well as its oil fields, and these resources have made for a better economy. Manitoba has its hydroelectric development, which is still in course of completion and will be very valuable to the province. If this bill fails to recognize the right of the provinces to control their own resources, then I think unity in Canada is in for a very rough ride. The west has fought a long time, as I have detailed, to get possession of its resources and to keep them so as to preserve unto itself some clout in the Canadien confederation. If the federal government takes over the resources of the provinces through the
November 13, 1974

instrument of this bill, then the provinces themselves will move into the field.
It has been suggested by the Hon. Eric Kierans that the provincial governments would probably take over all exploration and development of Canada's resources within a period of five to ten years. Perhaps they will, and perhaps they won't; but from the tax point of view alone, the provincial governments are almost obligated to move into the field. For example, taxes on utility companies and hydroelectric companies are such that Crown corporations are at a distinct advantage. The provincial governments almost have to take over public utilities in order to stop the federal government getting too much revenue. If the provinces do move in-and they may have to-then they could do so in different ways. One way would be to do almost what the Arabs are doing in the Middle East, which is allowing companies only a few cents a barrel to pump out the oil and to claim a heavy tax. But no matter what method is used, it will not likely make for any cheaper oil and gas in the rest of the country.
I, for one, believe that the private sector has a large part to play in the oil and gas industry. I feel that letting the provinces manage and control this industry is much the best way of extracting these resources from the ground. I see little point in the provinces themselves having to take over production of the resources. I think people in general would sooner deal with private companies for their supplies of oil, gas and hydroelectric power, assuming the price is reasonable, than deal with a Crown corporation.
Now, what about the consumer? The bill seems to indicate that it is in the interests of consumers to have relatively cheap energy all across the country. I suggest that if everything were the same price across the country we would find ourselves in an impossible situation. A bill setting the price at $6.50 a barrel, giving no indication as to when the price rise will occur or how it will come about, flies in the face of any practical reasoning. If we are to have a lower price than the world market price, let us have some priority as to those who should benefit from the lower price.
Canada is one of the few nations of the world which increased its energy commitments and capacity in the last year. Even United States commitments and capacity have remained almost steady. The days of cheap energy are all but over. Let me quote what former energy chief John Sawhill of the United States said, as reported in the Toronto Star of November 12, 1974;
I think ... the time is coming when we've got to be honest with the American people and tell them the prices of energy are going to be higher in the future than in the past.
This bill seems to indicate that we will continue to have an everlasting supply of oil at prices lower than world market prices, and that we will continue to take a "head in the sand" attitude. I suggest that because of this attitude Canada is still without a rational, all-embracing energy policy. This bill indicates to Canadians that they can go on blithely convinced that we are wallowing in energy resources. That is not the case. We have lots of energy, but it is very expensive to produce or extract. For instance, it costs in the neighbourhood of $1 billion per year per plant
Oil and Petroleum
to extract petroleum from the tar sands. On the basis of that cost we are looking at oil in the neighbourhood of $10 to $12 per barrel.
This bill sets a price of $6.50 per barrel on oil whether it is old, new, or whatever. There may be a good argument for suggesting that old oil produced in the past and based on a lower tax structure should be put into the pot at a much lower level than new oil. However, at a time when we know that the United States is operating on the basis of $10 a barrel, and at a time when our drilling rigs are moving to foreign areas, we are allowing the same $6.50 a barrel for oil produced in a tar sands plant and for oil produced from wells no matter at what depth.
This bill does nothing to encourage the development of new supplies, and that will be important. Unless this bill shows a greater awareness of that need, we are faced with a difficult future. We are in for a rude awakening very soon because we will not have enough oil, and what we do have will be at a much higher price. Unfortunately, it is hard for people to face up to the dilemma with which we are faced. We all agree that conservation is good, but none of us really wants to practice conservation measures. This bill sets the oil price at $6.50 a barrel, with no indication as to how that figure will change. To all intents and purposes, the bill perpetuates that figure.
The conservation of oil will cost a great deal of money. Many people will lose jobs and the nation will suffer from increasing unemployment. Many people in Canada think we can escape world difficulties in respect of a petroleum shortage. They feel we will not be affected because we will be able to maintain a balance between exports and imports. Many nations of the world are becoming worried because the United States balance of imports and exports is sagging-and it is the huge United States market upon which our exports depend. Even now, our manufacturing people are finding it very difficult to sell our products to the United States market. The reason the auto pact is not working well for us is that people in the United States have stopped buying cars as a result of the high price of gasoline.
This rigidity of price in the bill is one of its features that makes me doubt its benefits. I think it will perpetuate the Alice in Wonderland approach that things will be fine, everything will work out and we will escape world difficulties in respect of oil prices. This bill is not practical in that sense, and it might help if the minister would indicate, by an amendment or otherwise, how the price of oil will increase or even decrease in the unlikely event that something happens in world markets to cause such a decrease. It would be worth while if the minister would indicate what the government plans in this regard.
We are all aware of the establishment of petrochemical plants, one in Alberta and one at Sarnia. I am sure hon. members are aware of the suggestion that the petrochemical plant at Sarnia would be adversely affected if the Canadian price of oil were equivalent to the world price. Presumably that situation will come about and that plant will find itself in difficulties. Those are the few comments I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could interrupt the proceedings at

November 13, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
this point. Under an agreement I had earlier with the minister, I would ask that we revert to the consideration of clause 3 in order that I might introduce a motion so that hon. members may consider it overnight and decide how they want to treat it.


The Deputy Chairman:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he read his motion into the record at this time. It will not be accepted at this moment, but it will be on the record for consideration.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I propose to move the following amendment to clause 3:
That clause 3 of the bill on page 2 be amended by deleting line 9 and substituting therefor the following:
"province; and, where the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province, then to the extent that Her Majesty in right of a province consents thereto."
I will submit copies, in English and in French, to the Chair so Your Honour will have a record of this amendment for the House journals. The motion is not being moved, Mr. Chairman; it is just being presented at this time.
Progress reported.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 14, 1974