1974-11-01

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-4, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill S-13, an act respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It arises out of a statement which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) reportedly made outside the House last evening. During a special debate yesterday, the minister had an opportunity to make an announcement on what he would do regarding beef prices in this country. However, no announcement of new policy was made by the minister in the House last evening.
Earlier in the week the minister promised that such an announcement would be made sometime this week. Last evening I drew this to his attention, as did other members, but we received no response. The minister then went outside this House and reportedly made to the press a specific commitment on two aspects of the motion before the House. I believe it is an infringement upon the rights and privileges of all members of this House for any minister of the Crown to refuse to announce a new policy in the House and then speak to the press outside, while the debate is in progress, and announce two new aspects of a policy which he should have announced in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think it is an infringement on the rights and privileges of all members of the House, regardless of which side they may sit. If Your Honour finds that I have a question of privilege, I will move that the Minister of Agriculture be asked to make a statement in the House this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the so-called question of privilege, I suggest that the hon. member either get the tapes or talk to the members of the press about what I said. I made myself very clear.
Last night my time ran out after 20 minutes. I understood I could not re-enter the debate. I could not say anything more in the House because the Speaker had called me to order. At that stage I had not realized my time was up. However, I announced no new policies. I asked farmers to have confidence in the policies which have always taken care of those in the beef industry. With regard to the inquiry, I said we were waiting for the results of the Food Prices Review Board report, but we were prepared to go ahead with an inquiry if that report did not accomplish the things we thought it should.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville was good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege and I thought I should hear from him about the specific nature of the allegation and the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture. I have heard from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and briefly from the minister. There are numerous precedents which indicate most clearly, that statements made outside the House of Commons do not constitute a breach of privilege. Furthermore, hon. members may be critical of statements made by ministers or others outside the House, and they may legitimately be the subject of debate or questioning but they do not constitute a question of privilege. The citations on both counts are numerous and I do not propose to take the time of the House by reading them. I therefore rule that a prima facie case of a question of privilege does not exist.


Mr. Lawrence:: On a separate question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, even though it relates to the same matter, is there any way in which members on this side of (he House can convince you that there was a very definite new statement of government policy made outside this chamber last night? I have the tapes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -if you require them-if you require the actual words the minister used.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think I can make my disposition of this matter any clearer than I have.
958

November 1, 1974
Federal-Provincial Relations EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


LEADERSHIP OF DELEGATION TO WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Robert Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of rule 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Egmont, and in a case of urgent and pressing necessity, I seek consent to move:
That it is the sense of this House, being conscious of the great importance of the forthcoming world food conference in Rome to millions of people who are suffering from malnutrition, hunger and the threat of death by starvation, that the Canadian delegation led by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture will be able to give leadership to meet the urgent challenge to humanity which faces the conference.
I understand, after some discussion among members, that if the motion is permitted it will be accepted without debate.


Some hon. Members:: What motion?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That will be a new experience.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without unanimous consent.


Mr. Woolliams:: What is the motion? Nobody heard any motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I thought everyone heard the motion as it was read. The motion is:
That it is the sense of this House, being conscious of the great importance of the forthcoming world food conference in Rome to millions of people who are suffering from malnutrition hunger and the threat of death by starvation, that the Canadian delegation led by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture will be able to give leadership to meet the urgent challenge to humanity which faces the conference.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TABLING OF PRIME MINISTER'S INVITATION TO PROVINCIAL PREMIERS TO ATTEND CONFERENCE
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I was asked about correspondence preparatory to the meeting which took place the day before yesterday. I was asked by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham whether I would table the correspondence. Under Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies of the Telex that I sent to the premiers inviting them to attend the meeting on Wednesday. In essence, all their answers accepted the invitation. I have not had clearance from all of them as of yet to table their answers, but I am sure it will be forthcoming if the hon.
[Mr. Speaker.)
member still desires it. For today, I should like to table a copy of my Telex.


HOUSING
Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning forthcoming legislation. I should like to confirm the government's intention to introduce in the House very soon legislation which would authorize, for a one-year period, the payment of a $500 grant to people buying a new home for the first time, provided the home is moderately priced. For this purpose a home may be defined as a principal residence of permanent type which conforms to local standards or by-laws.
This measure was a commitment made by the government during the election campaign in order to make it easier for families to purchase their first home. Rather than wait until legislation can pass through the House, I wish to make this benefit available to families immediately and to remove any uncertainty on the part of the home buyer or the housing industry.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House and the people of Canada that when this legislation is presented to hon. members for their approval, it will stipulate that the grants will be payable to people who fulfil the required conditions and who purchase and occupy their new homes on or after this day, November 1, 1974, until November 1,
1975.	In other words, the legislation, if approved, would be retroactive and would benefit people who bought and occupied their new house now, without waiting any longer.
The conditions under which the grants may be paid will be spelled out in the legislation but I would like today to review our intention in general terms.
The homeowner grant would be payable to people who are buying a new home for the first time, within price limits which vary by market area. They will be those used by CMHC in setting the upper limit of loans it will insure under the National Housing Act. In Regina, for instance, the grant would be payable to someone buying a house costing $31,580. In Toronto, where costs are substantially higher, the maximum price eligible for a grant would be $44,915.
The legislation will provide that the housing must be new, not previously occupied and must be the owner's principal residence. At such time as the legislation may be approved, the owner who has bought and occupied his new home may apply to the local Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation office which would process his application and, if it is acceptable, send him a cheque.
This grant will be a selective measure, Mr. Speaker, directed to those who need help. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) pointed out in announcing the government's intention:
It will go directly to the home buyer-to the consumer. It will not be available to housing speculators or to the wealthy purchasing expen-
November 1, 1974

sive homes. It will be -available to first time buyers of moderately priced homes.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will find favour among hon. members when it is presented as a timely help for a very large number of Canadian families. It is an important initiative in the broad range of federal housing measures and one of a number of proposals which I shall be presenting to the House during this session of parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to thank the minister for sending me a copy of his statement. I received it about a quarter to eleven and I would have been concerned if there had been very much in it, particularly with a housing crisis of the proportion that we have today.
At the outset I might say that I am very happy to get some confirmation at least on this matter, because when the House first convened for this parliament I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about this promise and he sort of threw up his hands and gave one of those evasive answers to the effect that within the next four or five years some legislation would be introduced.
I think we must take a look at this program. First of all it provides $500 to anyone who purchases a new home at a moderate price. Those are important words when you analyse the degree of inflation in this country and in the United States today. As one of my friends pointed out a few minutes ago, the present rate of inflation is about 10 per cent so that the price of a house in the category set out in the second paragraph of the statement would increase from between about $4,000 to $5,000. Keeping that in mind, this is really not going to do very much to assist these people.
I should like to ask the minister one question through you, Mr. Speaker, about this most unusual procedure. If this government is as honest, as credible and has the degree of integrity it attempts to hold out why did the minister not present a bill today for first reading? In this way we would not only know that the $500 is to be provided for by legislation, but we would then have the opportunity to see the law and the regulations regarding the manner in which this money would be paid.


Mr. Stanfield:: He is not ready.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of course, the reason we have received a statement rather than a bill is that we have flushed this government out. During the election campaign it made about $2.5 billion worth of promises across this nation. I suggest the only person who really has not had a heart attack over this is probably the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who is too busy trying to wiggle out of these promises.
Why was a bill not presented in order that we might know the terms and conditions of this proposal? I suggest today we have a very serious housing crisis. This matter is so important that I should like to spend a few minutes on it. It is interesting to note that on October 2, I posed a question concerning the drop in housing starts of 24.3 per cent over last year. In fact, housing starts for September
Housing
were down 35 per cent. When I brought these figures to the attention of the new minister he said, as reported in Hansard for that date at page 28:
-I suggest there is not a housing crisis in this country.
When the minister held a press conference, and I draw this to his attention, he said, and I quote from the Vancouver Province of October 21:
Danson says he's "about to present new ideas to cabinet" to help solve the housing mess.
That statement was made about the time he was denying in the House that there was any mess or crisis. I do not know whether anyone can take him seriously when, at one time he holds a press conference at which he states there is no mess, while at another time he admits in the House that there is. Perhaps the minister has gone to his colleague the Minister of Finance with his cap in his hand. In any event, he is always talking about AHOP under which $467 million has been spent. I understand there is about $47 million to $50 million left under that program, so it is about to die when there is an actual housing crisis in this country.
Unless this government comes to grips with ever increasing inflation, high interest rates and the fact that the average man, even with both he and his wife working, cannot afford the down payment on a new house, this program which is really a government subsidy program, will go bad. If it merely provides the $500 to the developer or the builder and not to the purchaser, and I am concerned about that, it might be known as the "rotten egg" housing program. I suggest it will be about as effective if the grant goes to the developer or the builder and not the purchaser, and that is our fear.
It would have been far more effective had this government repealed the 11 per cent sales tax on building material, and that would be far more realistic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is my hope that the minister will bring in legislation immediately so that we can see whether it includes safeguards of such a nature that the $500 will go to the purchaser and not the builder or developer.
We found out by examining the estimates that nothing was really being done about land banking in this country. No money has been spent on the new demonstration program, and I suggest if there had been this would not have built even one new house. In any event, if the money is being spent that program is costing the country $55,000 a day without one new house for anyone and without any real effect in curbing the housing crisis. My final word on this matter is that the minister should go back to his colleagues for some concrete policy that will curb inflation, and in that way he will be doing something about the housing crisis in this nation which he denies exists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled, shocked, disgusted and dismayed at the statement of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) in charge of housing. He is beginning to sound more and more like the Minister of Agriculture-all huff and all puff. The $500 grant to first-time purchasers of
28305-611/!

November 1, 1974
Housing
new homes will not help solve the housing crisis. It is very much like giving a peanut to a starving elephant. What we need to solve the problem is action to increase the supply of houses, action with regard to decreasing the interest rate and action with regard to the diffusion of moneys to increase the land banking and the servicing of lots across the country.
With regard to increasing the supply of houses we have had an announcement that there will be a 25 per cent drop in respect of housing starts this year. With regard to interest rates no action whatsoever has been taken to decrease the interest rates. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that if a person were to buy a home with a $35,000 mortgage at 11 per cent it would take him 25 years to pay if off at a rate of $350 a month. After 25 years, he would have paid $100,000. This action does nothing to help the serious housing crisis across the country. We need action. Members of the New Democratic Party have mentioned that there should be a revolving fund with regard to land banking, and there should be a massive infusion of money for the servicing of land across the country so that more housing may be available.
This is a miserable offer to solve the housing crisis across the country. When one looks at the restrictions related to the $500 grant, one finds that it must be a new house and that the person involved must be a first-time purchaser. Then, there are the limits with regard to price. The limit the minister mentioned in respect of Regina would be $31,580 and the limit in respect of Toronto would be $44,915. The average price of a house in Toronto is $55,000. I would invite the minister to take me to any place in Toronto and show me a new house that could be purchased for a price of $44,000 or less.
This is legislation by announcement. If the minister wanted to bring forward this meagre measure, why could he not have translated it into legislation immediately and have it passed. He does not want to do it. He wants to spin it out and be a part of this slow progress for which the Liberal government is so well noted. As I said, this minister is not a minister of housing but of hoaxing. This is a cruel hoax on the purchasers of homes in Canada. I would remind the minister that the philosophy announced by his predecessor is that every Canadian is entitled to a home at a reasonable cost. This minister is not implementing that philosophy. It is about time he stopped this hoax and took the initiative with regard to this serious problem.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard and read the statement made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) in which he says that only first-time buyers of new moderately priced homes can benefit from the $500 grant for a moderately priced home of $31,850 or a $44,915 home in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that this statement and the legislation which we eventually will have before us is a sheer mockery at the population. Indeed, of the ordinary workers who constitute the very broad majority of our population and who earn $8,000, $9,000 or $10,000 a year, who are those who can afford a $44,000 or a $31,000 house? It is true that it is somewhat impossible to buy anything cheaper these days, but that does not mean that it is a moderate price; it is rather a prohibitive one. That is the

problem. And we will not assist home ownership with a legislation providing for a $500 grant for people buying a new home, when the sales tax on building materials stays at 11 per cent. That means about $3,000 on any house within the categories mentioned by the government.
There is another point. When a Canadian citizen buys a home and seeks financing with banks or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to whom he has to pay a 12, 13 or 15 per cent interest rate, instead of the 7 or 8 per cent interest rate of yesteryear, Mr. Speaker, what is the $500 good for? There will not be, I believe, 2,000 people across Canada who will avail themselves of this legislation. That means that the government is still laughing at the worker, at the Canadian population. And if they were logical in their dealings with people, they would first suppress the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials and bring down the interest rates to 5 per cent, instead of demanding 15 or 18 per cent as the case is presently.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest expressed on the subject of foreign workers and pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I am tabling a copy printed in both official languages of a pamphlet entitled "What you need to know about employing foreign workers".


FARM CREDIT ACT
Eugene Whelan: for leave to introduce Bill C-34, entitled an act to amend the Farm Credit Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time because I have been sitting here waiting and hoping that we would hear some kind of statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on at least the broad position of the government with regard to the food conference which will be taking place in Rome. It appears that the government is quiet on this subject, but I think that it has an obligation to the people of Canada, and certainly to the House of Commons, to at least present us with a broad statement of intentions or a statement on what Canada's position will be at the conference in Rome. I feel that somewhere, sometime this government must start giving some leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 1, 1974



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I have decided that the government is trying to change the old adage of a chicken in every pot into a mess in every department.
I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture-and this of course has nothing to do with messes but with a very serious state of affairs-whether, in the light of the report of the Food Prices Review Board released this morning and the debate that took place last night, the minister will not recommend to his colleagues a full scale inquiry into the beef industry in order to alleviate the plight of both the producers and the consumers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have just received the report of the Food Prices Review Board and if the findings in the report are that the situation in the beef industry is not good enough, I will recommend a full fledged inquiry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I take it that the minister is insufficiently concerned about the conditions that he sees in the industry, at the prices that continue to remain high at the retail level despite the reduced prices received by the farmers, and insufficiently concerned about the dramatic events that have taken place to demonstrate the anguish of the farmers, to believe that an investigation is necessary to reassure the country?


Eugene Whelan: I do not agree with anything in the preamble of the hon. gentleman's question. I want to make sure that I understand what is in the report of the Food Prices Review Board, and we have properly reviewed it in our own minds before recommending a thorough investigation. I have made it clear that I am in favour of a thorough review of the feeding programs and everything that is involved in the total production of beef in this nation. If I feel that it is not in the report of the Food Prices Review Board, then we will certainly institute an investigation because, as I have stated many times, I am concerned about all the things which the hon. gentleman talks about.


BEEF-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION IF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD REPORT IS INADEQUATE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the inconclusive nature of the findings of the Food Prices Review Board in their beef report released today and in view of the growing disparity between prices paid to producers and prices which we have to pay-my question is prompted by the growing lack of confidence of the people of Canada in the present Minister of Agriculture-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Absolute nonsense.


James Aloysius McGrath: -I ask the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to having an inquiry into the whole mess in the beef industry in Canada conducted under the aegis of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in order to ensure that there will be no attempt by the Minister of Agriculture to hide the facts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept in any way the innuendos in the question. I would say that this report will be studied by the government and the minister and, as the Minister of Agriculture indicated, if we do not believe its findings are broad enough covering the area of concern, we will consider the matter of instituting an inquiry.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.The hon. member who just asked a question has made all kinds of insinuations, trying to assassinate by innuendo. I object to it. Again, he has said that I am trying to hide the facts. This minister, this member of parliament, this man has never been known in his public career as one who hides facts, and I want this known.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


BEEF-SUGGESTION MINISTER RESTATE COMMITMENT MADE OUTSIDE HOUSE THAT PRODUCERS WOULD NOT LOSE MONEY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that he said outside the House to reporters yesterday that he would guarantee that any cow-calf operator producing calves during the present season would not lose money on that production, which in fact means he was agreeing with the proposal I put forward on behalf of my party in the debate last night, to which he refused to reply in the House, I should like to ask the minister if he will give the same commitment to the House and thus publicly commit the government to the course of action that he outlined to a reporter outside the House.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Agriculture has continually said-


Some hon. Members:: Which one?


Eugene Whelan: -he has continually said, and it is there if the hon. member wants to check the record, and this government has continually done things to guarantee farmers a decent return for their production-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Put my remarks in context; do not pick out little bits and pieces of what I said. Put them in their

November 1, 1974
Oral Questions
context. I have said that the stabilization legislation which will be before this House will make sure that farmers do not lose money on their production. This is what I said. Do not pick little things out of context, but use everything I said. Do not use little bits, because the statement was quite lengthy.


BEEF-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO REDUCTION IN PRODUCTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question refers directly to what the minister said, and it is on tape and on record. He gave a specific guarantee for specific producers during the coming months. I take it that the minister, in his answer, was reneging on that commitment, unless he can clarify it later on.
My second question concerns a statement made by a staff member of the Food Prices Review Board, Dr. Burton, at a press conference this morning. He said, in reply to a question about the prices paid to the producer of beef, that the only way, in his judgment, that they can be improved, that is, for the farmer to get a better return, would be through a cut-back in production, which has horrendous implications both for consumers of Canada and starving people abroad. I ask the Minister of Agriculture if his position and the government's position is that that is the way to get a fair price for the farmer? Does the minister agree that his policy will not involve a cut-back in beef production?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think we all realize that we must have peak production. I agree with one of the things the hon. member said, which may surprise him. I agree with him when he talks about the need for more production around the world. The biggest problem around the world concerns the world food distribution system. I challenge anyone to say that this minister has ever told farmers not to produce. Anyone who says that this minister said we should not produce as much as we can is wrong. On the contrary, I said we must produce enough to meet demand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should permit the minister to get away consistently with a complete refusal to answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the minister is this: Will he assure this House that the government will not embark on the policy of cutting back the production of beef as a means of assuring a fair price for its production to the farmer?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are asking for a total review of the whole beef industry, all aspects of it, to see how we can do the most good for the sake of utmost production.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: That will be the policy this government will follow. There is a proper way to distribute meat products around the world. We should find out what it is and make sure that in no way is meat being destroyed. As I said at the beginning, I am a farmer who produces crops and if there is one thing a farmer deplores more than anyone else, it is to see something which he has planted destroyed. We do not like to see anything destroyed. I suggest that if the hon. member could learn a little about planting and harvesting, he would realize some of the problems confronting our producers in agriculture. He would have a better understanding of our problems.


An hon. Member:: Come on Gene!


BEEF-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT OUTSIDE HOUSE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I really think it is about time we tied down this wild-tongued minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: It is like trying to contain a bowl of fat in a fishnet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The minister last night, after having had full opportunity of saying what he liked in the House, went out and had a press conference with a CBC radio reporter. My question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have already been over that ground on a question of privilege. This is a supplementary question and at this point I would be grateful if the hon. member would ask it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is this: Perhaps the minister would kindly explain his words. If they are taken out of context, maybe he can explain them to us right now. After he had harangued the CBC radio reporter, the reporter said, and I quote:
You are giving them your word they won't lose money if they hang on.
The minister very clearly replied:
That's right.
Surely we should have some explanation from the minister of the budget requirement with regard to that remark. What program has he in mind; or, if those words are taken out of context, let us hear him give the complete statement to us right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this minister lives by his word. And what I said the government means. I also talked in that conversation about our stabilization legislation, which will be presented before this House, and about hanging on. I said that by the time producers are ready to sell their
November 1, 1974

product they will be able to get a decent price for beef, if the legislation could be passed by that time and the program initiated. That program would mesh with other programs. I took it for granted that the program would work with other programs the provinces have implemented, some of which are very good. All these things would be reflected in the price producers will receive. The prices of some products at present are not as bad as some would have you believe. The price of top quality beef products is not that bad. There are feed programs in Canada under which you can feed cattle in feed lots for 40 cents, while in other lots it costs 60 cents a pound. So, how are you to resolve a problem like that? If you want facts, you have to put all these factors together. That is what we want to do and what we are going to do.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is this. The whole conversation previously referred to is on tape and concerns, I suggest, the potential losses this winter to the producer. Now I ask the minister, and he has not told me, what program has he in mind this winter with respect to these livestock producers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel compelled to say that, desirable as the practice of asking supplementary questions may be, I cannot look at repetitions of questions as supplementary questions. The question has been asked not only by the hon. member who was on his feet, but by other hon. members, and the minister has had ample opportunity to make whatever response he is going to make.


MANPOWER
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister in charge of LIP projects. It is a quite important one and I would even wish to raise it as a question of privilege, giving as an example my own riding.
Last year-and do note that the same thing happens in others, in the constituencies of opposition members in particular-the department granted $200,000 in the Temiscamingue riding for LIP projects. That amount was not enough for the projects we wanted to implement. I appealed to the minister who told me that funds were short, that they were waiting until the end of the season to see if there was any money left anywhere.
Now it happened that $72,000 were not spent in the Temiscamingue riding. They were allocated elsewhere while projects were refused in mine on grounds of lack of funds. This year, Mr. Speaker, about $400,000 were earmarked for the Temiscamingue riding.
I would therefore ask the minister to add to the $400,000 allotted for this year the $72,000 of last year which were refused to us though we had projects under consideration. It would represent a total amount of $472,000.00. Such a case applies also to other constituencies.
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I shall have to examine the comments of the hon. member which are intricate and complex. I should like to consider them and perhaps take notice of the question, then respond either directly or in the House at the earliest opportunity.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Indeed, a civil servant of the department advised me of it yesterday saying that the amount had been spent elsewhere. Can the minister tell us whether it might be possible to take steps to make sure that the ridings are not deprived of the funds they were allotted last year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not in any position to indicate any additional funds for local initiatives for this winter nor until the final tally as it were of all applications versus all constituency allocations are completed and examined, to indicate whether there will be any adjustment of funds as between different regions or different constituencies.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that members on this side of the House have been asking the government to state Canada's position at the World Food Conference in Rome ever since parliament met in September, and in view of the fact the Canadian delegation will be leaving this weekend, will the minister take this final opportunity to tell the House and the public what proposals Canada will be presenting to the World Food Conference or is it the minister's intention in the absence of any such statement to try to work out a position with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, while en route to Rome?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the answer to the last part of the question is no. The Canadian position has been carefully worked out. I have already indicated in general terms in my participation in the debate on the Address in Reply some of the major questions that will be dealt with at the food conference. It is my view that it will be in the interests of the success of the conference, and in the interests of solving the problem of world hunger, for the Canadian position to be stated in detail at the conference. That would have a much more efficacious result. I considered the possibility of making a statement in general terms on this point, but I thought it would be unwise and the best course would be to reveal our position at the conference.

November 1, 1974
Oral Questions


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-SUGGESTION SURPLUS BEEF BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO NEED IT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the minister at least take the opportunity of discussing with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and the meat packing firms prior to his departure whether our surplus beef can be sent to those who need it most?
Hon. Allan <J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, no doubt the question of food aid is a very important aspect of the conference. The conference secretariat has put before the world community a request for the provision of food aid over the next three years. Canada will be studying in detail its position of food aid for the next three years. It will certainly be possible, where appropriate, to provide Canadian source food commodities. Each commodity will have to be considered on its merits in relation to distribution systems, transportation and the needs in the developing countries. The hon. member can be assured her suggestion will be considered.


BROADCASTING
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Has the minister received a request from Canada's only living Father of Confederation to investigate the ownership of the shares of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company and specifically the relationship between the owners of CJON and the opposition and delays to cable applications in the St. John's area?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I believe CRTC will assume that task when the cable company applies for a permit.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the nature of this allegation by the only living Father of Confederation, will the minister check with the chairman of the CRTC and report back to this House whether there is any impropriety involved in the ownership of the shares of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Corporation and whether the owners of that corporation have in any way influenced the processing of cable applications in the St. John's area?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can only say again that the decision, if one has to be made-and I am not aware of the serious mess of the allegations that have been made-would be that of the CRTC president, with whom I can of course discuss the matter, because it would be up to him to decide.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fisheries). It relates to the terrible conditions which exist at the present time in the Atlantic Coast fishing industry. Present indications are that haddock, cod and halibut are heavily over-fished and landings are very low. Deep sea lobstering is not profitable because of the destruction of gear by foreign trawlers. However, swordfish on the Atlantic coast are abundant and are being harvested by other countries, especially the United States which has opened its markets to swordfish in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York. Will the minister visit Washington and discuss with his counterpart the possibility of re-establishing the Canadian swordfishing industry which has been closed since February 1970?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is welcome. If it is felt that my participation or travelling to Washington would be a positive contribution, I would be happy to do so. However, I have to remind the hon. member that the problem is not with my counterpart, but the U.S. food and drug administration. Exports of swordfish to the United States containing levels of mercury which they consider unacceptable constitutes the real barrier. There are states which have on their own allowed fishing for swordfish by their residents. However, we are always interested in a review of this area. I have already discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in relation to Canada's position and a possible appeal to the American authorities.


SWORDFISH-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON POSSIBILITY OF RE-OPENING FISHERY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As this is a matter that is vitally important to Nova Scotia and many of his constituents, has the minister taken any steps to interview the food and drug directorate of the United States to see if the Canadian swordfishing industry may be reopened?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not taken any direct action myself, but I will take into consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member.


AGRICULTURE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture who will be a member of the delegation attending the World Food Conference. We in this House
November 1, 1974

have not been able to secure any information excepting ephemeral and uncertain information concerning the stand of the Canadian delegation. Knowing the minister's capacity for detail, I wish to ask him what advice he has given or what stand he has taken concerning Canada's surpluses of food products that could be made available to the food bank. Also, what products are in surplus to such an extent that they could be used immediately or very shortly for the alleviation of starvation in all parts of the world today, it being one of the most serious problems facing mankind?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the official spokesman for anything that is to be said before we go to Rome. He has already stated the government has gone into great detail trying to work out a program. We realize our responsibility in being part of the world food aid program. I am sure the right hon. member has read all the speeches I have made in the past two years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -about world food aid. Much to my amazement, a group of people who have done research have said that this Minister of Agriculture has made more constructive statements-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -about what we can do, what we are doing and what can be done in the future about world food aid than any previous Canadian Minister of Agriculture. They appreciate the stand I have taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: After listening to his speech, notable for its modesty, may I ask the minister, now, because he has all these things at his fingertips, as his speeches reveal-and I read all of them, sometimes for amusement but more often for information-where are the surpluses of Canadian products which he is advising the other members of the delegation will be available to assist countries which may require them, whether it be eggs or beef or pork? What are the products he is advising his co-workers on the delegation will be available to assist needy countries? Can he give us a general picture of them, because he has all this information at his fingertips?


Eugene Whelan: The right hon. gentleman says he reads all my speeches. I am sure that when he refers to the information in them he is correct. I am sure that what he says about their containing humour is correct, too. If he reads the speeches made by some of the members on his side of the House he will not find either of those qualities in them.
I am sure the right hon. gentleman realizes that our producers are among the most capable in the world and that they can turn the taps on when there is need to do so. We have the know-how and we have the facilities. Our farmers could turn these things on if we had a proper world distribution system.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: What products are available? That is what I am asking. What products are in surplus?


Eugene Whelan: The very fact that we have a surplus of eggs, for instance, places us in a better position to supply egg protein to other parts of the world.


MANPOWER
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it arises from a recent directive which he has issued to the effect that actions in addition to registration with manpower offices are necessary in connection with the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. Is it the minister's intention to reunite unemployment insurance and manpower services so that a national employment agency may be established from that structure?


Robert Knight Andras: It is not my intention to recommend the integration in a structural sense of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower. However, we have had considerable success in getting much closer co-operation and co-ordination at all levels between these two organizations and this is a course we intend to pursue.


SUGGESTED CHANGES IN MOBILITY GRANT REGULATIONS
William Arnold Peters: The new directives indicate that jobs have to be sought not only through the manpower agencies but also outside those agencies. Is it the intention of the minister, then, to extend Part II of the mobility grants and make grants available to those who seek employment outside the manpower structure and find employment in other places, so that those who do locate jobs in this way may get the benefit of the second part of the mobility grant program?


Robert Knight Andras: In the first place, the requirement that a person who is unemployed and receiving benefit should conduct an active job search beyond co-operating and registering with the manpower office has always existed. With regard to the mobility grant, I should like to examine the hon. member's recommendation in more detail, but generally speaking we are very keen to offer not only recipients of unemployment insurance benefits but all who are seeking work the full benefit of mobility grants to assist their search for work outside their normal location. This does, however, call for prior liaison with the manpower centres before such a grant can be approved.


William Arnold Peters: It is a requirement that before drawing unemployment insurance benefits persons seeking jobs should make an application to a manpower office. In my area people often go outside the manpower structure to get jobs and I am sure this is true across Canada. Is it not reasonable, then, that the minister should change the
966

November 1, 1974
Oral Questions
terms of the mobility grant so that the Department of Manpower should not be the only agency responsible for dispensing the advantages of mobility program when someone takes the minister's advice and locates a job outside the manpower structure?


Robert Knight Andras: 
HOUSING
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
According to a news report which appeared in yesterday's issue of Le Droit, some provincial officials of the Ontario Housing Corporation would apparently be arrested soon in relation to a matter of bribes.
Moreover, according to the article, it seems that lobbying by certain contractors allowed their company to extract considerable profits from housing projects in the area of London, Hamilton, Kitchener and Ottawa.
Can the Minister tell the House if the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation exercises any control over the spendings of the various provincial housing agents in relation to the acquisition of real estate?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The CMHC monitors its own programs extremely carefully, particularly since there have been suggestions of irregularities in other agencies. I would be happy to meet with my counterpart Mr. Irving, the Minister responsible, to discuss any procedures which might be appropriate. If there are cases regarding which the hon. member has specific information I would appreciate receiving details from him.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS TO MR. JUSTICE BERGER'S INQUIRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has indicated that if Mr. Justice Berger, in the course of pursuing his inquiries into the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline, should seek any sensitive documents in the possession of the federal govern-

ment he would consider changing the terms of reference of the inquiry, which is something I find very shocking particularly after what we have seen in the country to the south of us recently in connection with claims of executive privilege and things of that sort. Will the minister assure the House that he will not interfere with the inquiry conducted by Mr. Justice Berger and that there will be a full inquiry into that pipeline proposal to the extent that it is necessary?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this parliament has passed a number of laws, including laws with regard to oil and gas land regulations and the Income Tax Act, in accordance with which proprietary information made available to the government by firms and individuals is held to be strictly confidential to the extent that ministers are prevented from making this information available either to the public or to other ministries of the government. In these circumstances, particularly with regard to the oil and gas land regulations, I might be faced with compulsion to make public documents which by law I am told to keep confidential. I expect to meet Mr. Justice Berger within a few weeks to discuss the conflict which might arise involving the specific injunction placed upon me in my capacity as minister.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister give the House an assurance that he will confine any claim of confidentiality to documents which are clearly defined by acts of this parliament as being confidential, that he will not set himself up as a judge of what should be kept confidential and what should not, and that we shall, in fact, have a full and fair inquiry and not one conducted according to rules which, the minister himself may try to lay down?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. member that the rules have been laid down, not by me but by parliament. What is more, may I point out to the hon. gentleman that there are other documents, for example, cabinet proceedings and other proceedings of that kind, which while not covered by statute, have traditionally been regarded as confidential to the executive. It seems to me that for the hon. member to suggest that these kinds of confidences should be breached is a misreading of the responsibilities I have in my office.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ALLEGED THREAT TO CHANGE TERMS OF REFERENCE OF MR. JUSTICE BERGER'S INQUIRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but for the minister to suggest that if Mr. Justice Berger, in his search to have a full inquiry and to do the task that has been assigned to him, asks for certain documents to which the minister does not think he is entitled he will change the judge's terms of reference, this is one of the most shocking things that has taken place in this country for a long time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I said clearly in response to the question from the journalist, which presumably the hon. gentleman has read, and I say to him clearly now,
November 1, 1974

that I am under certain injunctions with regard to the law. I hope that he will not try to twist my answers in any other way.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister think that Mr. Justice Berger is not aware of the laws that are on the statute books of this country and that he will not know there are certain documents that he cannot ask for because the minister cannot produce them? Therefore, I ask the minister whether he has been asked to produce any documents which would be contrary to the laws restricting him at this time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, sir. The question specifically put to me was whether I would make all documents available, whether covered by law or not, and I indicated to the reporter some of the difficulties involved in this question. There has been no request from the judge, though there has been a request that we should meet and discuss this difficulty that exists between his responsibilities and mine.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then why is the minister making threats to change the terms of reference before he has even met the judge to determine what the judge wants?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was no such threat; it was merely a response to inquiries from the press as to the situation in which we would find ourselves. It seems to me that one of the appropriate things to be done by a minister and a member of parliament is to respond to this kind of press inquiry as to what a particular situation may be.


PROPOSED COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL RECORD SYSTEM-SUGGESTED INVASION OF PRIVACY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, because it could overlap with the responsibilities of a number of departments I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the recent report of the Science Council of Canada, report No. 22 "Science for Health Services", which recommends a nationwide, computerized birth-to-death medical record system for all Canadians, access to which can be had anywhere in the country. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he has no present intention of encouraging the creation of such a system, which could seriously threaten the privacy of all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report but I will refer the question to the relevant ministers.
Oral Questions PUBLIC BUILDINGS


SUGGESTED RENAMING OF JUSTICE BUILDING TO HONOUR RIGHT HON. LOUIS ST. LAURENT
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the considerable difficulties encountered by the minister in using statues to pay tribute to former prime ministers, I am wondering whether the minister is considering suitable alternatives; and specifically, would the minister consider renaming the justice building which is currently being renovated by the Department of Public Works, in fitting memory of a distinguished former Minister of Justice, and later Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in respect to this particular suggestion there is a governmental responsibility which is shared by the Department of Public Works and the Secretary of State. I will be glad to look into the suggestion made by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I wish him well on his trip with the Minister of Agriculture. My question is based on the recent declaration of all the leaders of the Arab states, including His Majesty the King of Jordan, that the PLO should attend the Geneva conference. In the light of the Canadian government's view that the Palestinians should be represented at Geneva, is it now the opinion of the government that such representation be through the PLO? If not, how in the view of the Canadian government should such representation be achieved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Canadian government-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is well known.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -is well known, as the Leader of the Opposition has so helpfully indicated. It is to the effect that it is not the job or the purpose of the Canadian government to prejudge the form of Palestinian representation at the Middle East peace conference. We believe that the Palestinians should be represented because of their vital interest in the outcome of the talks, but we have not judged, and we do not and will not judge, the form of that representation. That is the situation. It is the situation because we believe that it is the right of the parties involved in the dispute to determine that question, not that of Canada or other countries.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood on a supplementary.
28305-62l/z

November 1, 1974
Oral Questions


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-CANADIAN POSITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD FOOD BANK
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not supplementary. I had intended to put the question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in view of what has happened this morning I will put it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister, without going into any detail, state whether Canada will support at the world food conference the setting up of a world food bank and give a definite commitment to make a substantial Canadian contribution to enable this to be done?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, put in those terms, to my knowledge there is not a specific proposal before the conference for the establishment of a world food bank. There is a proposal put forward by the secretariat with respect to national stockholding of foods, and certainly Canada will make a positive response to that question, as was done earlier by the Minister of Agriculture at the FAO conference. The whole question of world food security will, of course, be positively responded to by the Canadian delegation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood may ask a final supplementary.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the proposal includes what Canada is, as I understand the minister, going to receive favourably, namely international co-ordination of the food security plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the flow of food resources must be the result of international coordination. It is our intention to support the necessity for this international co-ordination, and if possible to set up mechanisms by which the co-ordination and flow of resources can be carefully monitored.


HOUSING
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, through you may I put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Last Wednesday I asked the minister for his comments concerning the Conference Board's prediction that housing starts next year will be down 35 per cent compared with last year. In response, the minister stated that he would be taking appropriate steps to rectify what he believed was an unacceptable situation. Would the minister explain if his penny-ante program today is one dramatic step in his program of rectification?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the description by the opposition of a program for which they have been asking for some time as penny-ante. It is but one of several measures that have yet to come before the House. As far as the Conference Board is concerned, as I said the

other day I respect the Conference Board's figures as valid, based on projections. But the figures for the United States are even poorer; there is in the U.S. something over a 50 per cent reduction in housing starts. We do not intend to limit the number of housing starts in Canada during the coming year, and the measures that I will be introducing soon, in addition to this one measure, will help achieve that result.


REASON FOR RESTRICTION OF APPLICABILITY OF $500 GRANT TO NEW HOMES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could explain why his program applies only to new homes as opposed to all homes, bearing in mind that Statistics Canada figures, on which he may be relying, include only the actual house price in the sense of bricks and mortar and not land cost, yet bricks and mortar have only gone up 60 per cent while land costs in this country have gone up 200 per cent in the last five years, all of which means that home prices in Canada have gone up 110 per cent compared with 38 per cent in the five year period? The minister is suggesting a very limited program and I wonder if he would explain why it does not apply to all houses?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as we know, there are statistics and there are statistics. We now have two sets, Statistics Canada and statistics Stevens, and I rather prefer the former. This is a judgment or trade-off that one must make, and it is quite in keeping with government policy to increase supply. We have our resources and ideas, in this case AHOP, and the funds were channelled after the initial start program into new housing construction. We think this will serve all the people of Canada well by increasing starts and reducing the price of housing in Canada, and that is our objective.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the many and varied discussions the minister has had with the former member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and myself over a period of many months regarding unemployment insurance benefits due to the pre-retired coal miners, and in view of the very excellent hearing the minister gave a delegation representing the pre-retired miners some months ago, at which time the moral responsibility of Devco in the matter was discussed once again, I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he is in a position today to advise the House of any decision he has come to on this very important problem?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, a number of decisions have been made as a result of these meetings, representa-
November 1, 1974

tions and the like over the last couple of years. The most recent request I received came I believe from a spokesman for the pre-retired miners group asking for a further meeting. I will certainly be prepared to arrange that. Also within the last week I had discussions with the president of Devco regarding the whole process of negotiations for a new work contract with presently employed miners and others of the Devco organization. I assume that as a result of these negotiations there will be certain elements which will relate to these already retired. I am waiting to hear in more detail from Mr. Kent as to just what kind of propositions are going to be put forward and the extent to which the future of the already retired miners is in fact or likely to be involved in the negotiations for a new contract.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that 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, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, when I moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday I had outlined five proposals which might become part of a national oil policy for Canada. I want now to add a sixth proposal. I believe the government should not tie up scarce capital and materials on oil and gas pipelines mainly designed to move United States oil and gas to the United States, which will have little value for Canada. The first of these proposals, and I know it is now being resurrected, is for the construction of an oil pipeline from the Mackenzie Valley to the United States. It should be pointed out that we do not, so far, have any proven reserves of oil in commercial quantities in the Mackenzie Valley. The main purpose of such a pipeline would be to transmit oil from Prudhoe Bay to the United States. It is true that if we discovered some oil we could put it into that pipeline, but the quantity of Canadian oil would be negligible and would not warrant the $6 billion to $10 billion capital investment that would be required.
The same thing is true with reference to a gas pipeline from the Mackenzie Valley to the United States. In this instance we do have commercial quantities of gas in that area, but we have a 25-year supply of gas in the southern part of Canada and we need not look at this area for at least ten years. Those who are proposing the building of a gas pipeline from the Mackenzie Valley are not thinking in terms of Canada's need. The situation is that the gas in the Prudhoe Bay area can only be taken out as the oil
Oil and Petroleum
resources are exploited; therefore, they want a pipeline with Canada involved so that for the first four or five years some 70 per cent or more of the gas going through the pipeline will be Canadian gas. The result will be that by the time we need the Arctic gas most of it will have been sold, through the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, to the United States. There will come a time when we will need that pipeline, but that is some years away. When we build such a pipeline, it should be a pipeline to sell Canadian gas in Canada, and not to export it out of the country.
My third point has to do with offshore oil reserves. So far we have not, unfortunately, found quantities sufficiently large to warrant development. We cannot count on this source to solve our problems in the next decade. It is to be hoped that oil will be found off the Atlantic coast, but we should reconcile ourselves to the fact that in this respect a lead time of five to ten years will be required. Therefore, Canada's best bet is to develop the Athabasca oil sands and the heavy oil deposits in Saskatchewan. The estimate is that the Athabasca oil sands have an oil capacity of some 300 billion barrels, of which about 50 billion barrels can be recovered by strip mining. The National Energy Board report of 1972 suggested that we could produce 1,200,000 barrels a day by 1985. It is my opinion that this figure is too optimistic as it would mean building eight plants between 1977 and 1985 and moving about two million tons of loose quartz sand every day. I do not think that is possible. We must step up the programs we have now.
What concerns me is that the government seems to be lackadaisical about the one sure source of oil to meet the critical situation which will confront us between 1979 and 1980. We already have the Great Canadian Oil Sands company, which is producing some 53,000 barrels a day and which will probably go up to a peak of 65,000 barrels a day. We have the Syncrude plant which is now under construction and is hoped to be completed by January, 1978, with a capacity of 125,000 barrels per day. Also, the Shell Oil plant, if it proceeds as it should, will be started in 1976 and completed in 1981, also with a capacity of
125,000	barrels per day.
If we assume an exportation and importation balance, I think it is safe to say we will have to find a supply from other sources. The only other sources which come to my mind are the Athabasca oil sands and the heavy oil deposits in Saskatchewan. We will have to find, from those sources, between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels a day by 1980, and something over 900,000 barrels a day by 1985. That is the reason I urge that we do everything possible to step up the program in respect of the oil sands and the heavy oil deposits.
First, I think our course of action must be by way of conservation in order that the existing, conventional oil supplies will last as long as possible. Second, we must step up, encourage and intensify the development of oil from the oil sands. Third, the government should be spending very large sums of money now in scientific research related to alternative sources of energy, because we must not forget that even the great oil deposits of the Middle East have a life index of only 35 years. The whole question of solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear power must

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
be examined, and the research must be carried on much more rapidly than has been the case.
I am concerned about the provisions in this bill for paying compensation to the oil companies and for paying higher prices to the gas companies. Canada is paying tremendous sums of money to the oil companies for imported oil. We agree that it is necessary to maintain a single price across the country, plus transportation and handling charges. But we paid out, under Governor General's warrants, between June and October $470 million in compensation to the oil companies. Under this bill, for the first quarter of 1974 the government is authorized to pay out another $430 million. This will represent an amount of $900 million in a period of less than a year.
I have a very strong feeling that the public funds of Canada are being ripped off by the oil companies. It is very significant that, in this oil crisis, everybody makes some sacrifice except the oil companies. The consumers have accepted an increase of $2.50 a barrel. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan are giving up in the order of $1,300 million a year. But the oil companies have never had it so good. The profits of Imperial Oil increased 45 per cent last year over 1972, after payment of taxes. The profits of Gulf Oil, after taxes, increased last year by 58 per cent over 1972. I do not have their figures for 1974, but I do have them for Shell. In the first nine months of this year the Shell Oil company had profits of $119.5 million, compared to $60 million for the first nine months of last year. This represents an increase of almost 100 per cent. It is positively obscene, at a time when we face a national and an international crisis, that the multinational oil companies have been able to rip off the public and the public treasury to the extent that they have.
This legislation allows the government to fix the price of gas. I do not object to that, because this party is in favour of selective price controls. This is one field in which price controls are appropriate. We want to know, however, the price level that the minister has in mind. In statements which have appeared in the press from time to time the minister has suggested that the price probably ought to rise from, say, 60 cents per thousand cubic feet to $1.20 per thousand cubic feet, by stages-on the principle, I suppose, that it does not hurt a dog if you cut off his tail an inch at a time. Why does the price have to virtually double over a period of time? Have the costs of production gone up? No one will quarrel with an increase in price if the costs of production have risen, but they certainly have not risen to the extent the minister seems to envisage.
I do not buy the argument that it is necessary for these companies to have larger and larger profits because they will use those profits to explore for more gas. If the government wants them to use the money for the exploration of gas, let the provinces and the federal government collect the money and then rebate it to them for the exploration they carry out or, better still, have the exploration carried out under federal and provincial auspices. I think the public will accept higher prices for gas if production costs warrant it, or if they can be sure the money will be used to find further supplies. But the public will not stand for an increase in the price of gas if it is merely to swell the already high projects of the gas companies and of TransCanada Pipe Lines in respect of the

transportation and sale of resources which belong to the people of Canada.
I wish to make an appeal to members of this House, particularly the younger members, many of whom will be here long after I have left. I ask that, no matter what their party is, they apply themselves conscientiously to finding a solution to the energy crisis which faces Canada and the world. This is the most serious problem facing our generation. I suggest that the policies we adopt and the actions we take in the next few years will determine our life style, our future and our survival.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to take part in a debate on energy, which is so important to the economy of my province which produces about 86 per cent of the crude petroleum not only for domestic needs but for export to meet the needs of the world. I also like to follow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). Even though we may disagree on our stand in respect of a program, he always provides food for thought and has vision. I was pleased to hear him speak out as he did today, particularly in his concluding remarks, about this being one of the most serious problems facing Canada and the world in the next few years.
I am told by representatives of the industry in Calgary that they now find, since the election-probably because the pressure is off-that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has relaxed a good deal, is much more affable and easier to deal with. I hope that situation continues for the next four years. I should like to break my speech into four parts. I wish to deal with the history of this bill, some of the constitutional questions involved, and particularly part III of the bill. I also wish to say a few words in respect of incentives for exploration and development, which is one of the most important aspects of this subject, in order to ensure an adequate supply.
The bill, in part, flows from the historic meetings of first ministers. That was a point made by my friend, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). We all remember the second last meeting of first ministers, held at the residence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the latter part of March, 1974. We need not wait for history to put that occasion into proper perspective, as the agreement they reached will stand as a triumph of statesmanship, good sense and co-operation in the delicate field of federal-provincial relations. I heard the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain say that.
I would emphasize another point which was made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain; that is, that when the meeting took place and there was agreement, it was for a period of 15 months. That is why we have grave reservations, with which I will deal later, in reference to part III of the bill, whereby the federal government can bring about price-setting, control of supply and other measures without consulting the provinces and securing their agreement. Of course, if you carried the practice to its logical conclusion, it would destroy the economy and the jurisdiction the provinces have under the constitution. The essence of the agreement was that for a period of 15
November 1, 1974

months, which would expire on July 1, 1975, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan undertook to sell one of their principal, non-renewable resources at an average price-as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said-of $6.50 per barrel at the well head. There would be a set price across the land, except for such factors as transportation and handling. The federal government, for its part, agreed to adjust the distribution to ensure that crude oil would become available at the same basic price across the country.
Part III of this bill was not one of the terms of the government reached by the ministers but was, rather, a mechanism whereby the federal government, by agreement in cabinet, could impose its will unilaterally upon the producing provinces in respect of the price at which they would sell one of their depleting natural resources. To that concept, strong exception has been taken by myself, by the attorney general of Alberta and by members of the standing committee when Mr. Leitch appeared before them as a witness, both on the ground of principle and of constitutional validity.
Part III, to which our most fundamental objections are directed, far from embodying a term of first ministers' agreement, stands as a direct negation of the principles upon which that agreement was based. It permits the executive council to terminate an existing agreement between a producer province and the federal government, or to decline to negotiate a renewable agreement and to impose, by unilateral action, maximum prices on a natural resource owned by the province.
The inequities in part III are both plain and subtle. I ask the minister-even though his party now has a working majority in the House and in the committee, so that when I said what I did about the industry, it was not puffery; it was fact-in view of the new atmosphere in which the minister is operating, is he giving serious consideration to making changes to part III? If he is, this bill could be expedited, not only on second reading but in the committee. If one of the negotiating parties reserves unto itself the right to cancel the bargain, or the right not to bargain at all, then the consultative or negotiating process becomes meaningless: the concept, the grand scheme, the sensible formula for resolving federal-provincial differences loses its very foundation. For example, if one of the negotiating parties, by legislation, purports to reserve unto itself powers of the most dubious constitutional validity, it invites the other party to embark upon a course of judicial confrontation.
There was a position taken early in the negotiations and the minister knows that even the proposition to implement the surtax may be questionable constitutionally. The producing provinces-I do not know whether it was Mr. Blakeney of Saskatchewan or Mr. Lougheed of Alberta- did not want to come to the federal government at a time when there appeared to be problems and a constitutional confrontation before the Supreme Court of Canada; therefore they arrived at the agreement which I have already discussed.
In the last analysis, when viewed in practical terms, part III amounts to an assertion by the federal government of the right to regulate the price, the flow, the production and the sale of a provincial natural resource. I
Oil and Petroleum
say that is unconstitutional. It embodies a concept which I am sure no provincial government, after measuring the consequences of its extension to other natural resources this is the point the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was making-such as lumber and hydro power, would accept. I do not believe for one moment that a powerful province in central Canada which has more political muscle than others because of the number of its members, the province of Quebec, would want to see a federal tax put on hydro, which they export, particularly in view of the great development at James Bay. I think somebody said last night that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we do not have equality for all provinces, small and large-those with small representation and those with large representation-on matters of this nature, then confederation will erode.
We deal with potash, iron ore, asbestos, nickel, copper and coal without acknowledging that in today's economic circumstances the federal government has taken complete charge of the provinces' capacity to determine their future economic development. I am sure that was never intended in the terms and conditions of confederation, even in the spirit of confederation, and it is certainly not in the spirit of the law as it has been interpreted. There is no need for the legislation contained in part III which provides for the substitution of the federal will for the negotiated agreement referred to in part II. They can negotiate, they can make agreements for the good of the nation even when they represent the special interests of their province, which every provincial premier must do.
The first ministers' conference demonstrated the presence, strength and vitality of the national concept in a way which is perhaps unparalleled in our history. I hope that concept will not be impaired by the enactment of legislation which is unnecessary and susceptible to constitutional challenge because, as I have said, the very spirit of confederation would be eroded. I do not think now is the time, when we are dealing with matters of energy, to have a constitutional confrontation.
I might say that in the area of constitutional law-and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, who was the premier of Saskatchewan for many years, will agree with me-when you are interpreting the constitution before a judicial tribunal, everything depends on the personalities there. I do not want to pass any judgment that would reflect upon a judge, but I say that the personality of a man appointed to that position, and his philosophy when he is interpreting the constitution and therefore taking into account the social, economic and political implications, is reflected in the decision. That is why, whether it is in the Supreme Court of Canada or the supreme court of the United States, you find that the courts legislate in the field of constitutional law.
I do not know who mentioned this, but it has been said that it seemed to be constitutionally unsound for the provinces to tax little, but constitutionally sound for the provinces to tax much. Surely that is not the formula on which we should base federal-provincial relations when dealing with taxation, particularly when dealing with property, civil rights and resources owned by the provinces.

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
I should like to turn for a few moments to a matter that has political implications. In May, 1974, gasoline prices increased. The higher gasoline prices, following the controlled lifting of the price freeze by the federal government, reflected the increased cost of doing business but mainly the higher cost of the raw material, namely, crude oil. Very little of the price increase went to the petroleum industry; most of it ended up in the government treasury. I make one suggestion, if we want to put safeguards on this: if you leave it to the corporations, human nature being what it is they can use the money for exploration in Canada, all things being equal in international competition. I agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that if oil companies are to be encouraged to explore and develop petroleum resources, the government should in some way hand back to them part of the money which has been paid in tax, as compensation for exploration expenses. Only in this way will we encourage exploration and development of petroleum and natural gas.
State-owned corporations are not as efficient as private corporations. True, some corporations have made agreements with communist countries, but they remain privately owned. I do not think a state-owned company can be as efficient as a privately owned company which is answerable to its shareholders. That is where I part company with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I accept his first idea, that of giving a rebate to companies for exploration expenses, but I reject his second idea. We differ in philosophy in that regard.
What is the future of the Canadian oil situation? Canada will be threatened with the loss of self-sufficiency in crude oil production toward the end of this decade unless action is taken now to increase investment in new oil resources. The word which keeps cropping up as I listen to members of this government and of provincial governments is "supply." That word is very important in any consideration of the price of crude petroleum. Adequate supply will only come about through adequate exploration and development.
Many geologists in my constituency believe that there is much oil still to be found in Saskatchewan and Alberta. People speak as if no more oil is to be found there. They are not right. In addition, we have the tar sands and we have the Arctic development, about which I shall speak later. What is most serious is that drilling rigs are moving out of this country because greater incentives for exploration are provided elsewhere. These rigs always go where the action is, where the dollars are. Let us be practical. I have yet to meet a man or a woman who can tell me that human nature is different as between Socialists, Conservatives and Liberals. We are all pretty much the same.
What is our Canadian oil potential? There is much guessing, but it is estimated that our potential reserves total over 300 billion barrels, enough to meet Canada's needs far into the future. We can only develop this potential if we encourage exploration. This we can do only if we change some of our ideas with regard to taxation. This, too, I shall speak about later. What happens when there is a cutback in oil production, or in exploration and development? The adverse effects are felt not only in Calgary,

which city people have already left, but in the rest of Canada in the secondary and tertiary industries which operate in areas like the golden horseshoe and other industrial areas. For example, the oil industry buys from Ontario manufacturers piping and valves worth between $500 million and $600 million. So when you rock the boat it is like disturbing the balance of nature. The ripples spread out and are felt in every corner of the land.
What can one say about oil industry profits? Some say that these profits are excessive, relevant to investment in the oil industry. Others who have examined the facts say that returns are not very great. I will deal with this topic later. The $6.50 per barrel price of crude oil provides only 77 cents per barrel investment for oil companies with regard to search and development. In other words, out of the gross price of $6.50, the companies have available 77 cents to invest in exploration and development in Canada, unless cash flows in from outside. Many of us think that some degree of Canadian investment is preferable to foreign investment. Well, you cannot cut the profit levels of oil companies to nothing and expect them to carry out exploration and development. So I suggest that there is a need for foreign capital and we must develop a sensible formula in this regard.
Provincial and federal governments, through the medium of the export tax, take about 90 per cent of the value of exported oil. As we heard yesterday, the federal government had received by June 1974, $900 million in oil funds, and by the end of this year it will receive $1.5 billion. Most of our oil comes from Alberta. Saskatchewan exports to the United States most of its 14 per cent share of production. From its 86 per cent share of production, Alberta supplies all areas of Canada west of the Ottawa Valley. We are providing oil to the rest of Canada at $6.50 per barrel when the world price is better than $10 per barrel. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said, what Alberta is doing shows that the province is not selfish. It is subsidizing eastern and central Canada to the tune of $1.5 billion. Altogether, in one year the 1.5 million people of Alberta will subsidize the rest of the people of this country to the tune of $3 billion.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, we have a little quality here today, if not quantity. Before lunch I was dealing with the fact that with the surtax alone that is collected on Alberta resources, $1.5 billion is paid to subsidize and compensate for the cost of oil imports, mainly from the Middle East and Venezuela. In addition, $1.5 billion is paid
November 1, 1974

to Ontario indirectly by reason of the fact we are selling crude petroleum to them at $6.50 a barrel: it is the difference between $6.50 and the world price. The surtax has been as high as $5.20. Our profits are compensating the nation in respect of crude petroleum in the amount of $3 billion annually. That is the amount collected this year. I know the minister agrees with that figure.
I wish to turn for a few moments to the consumer problem. It is at the gasoline pump that the public meets the petroleum industry most frequently, not in the executive offices. It is, therefore, only natural that public reaction to petroleum industry activities begins at this point. Yet the gasoline pump is many steps removed from the raw material source, the oil well, and it is even more remote from the planning and legislative process that controls the search for and development of the raw material. Therefore, there sometimes is not very much liaison between the consumer who fills his car with gasoline, and the people involved in the exploration and development stage. When I talk about that stage, I need only remind the House that this week a tragic accident occurred. Thirty-two people from PanArctic, with know-how and skills, geologists and others, lost their lives in the Arctic this week through exploration and development for our nation.
Any burden on the raw material, be it in the form of royalties for the provinces, royalties for the federal government, surcharges, mineral tax or corporate tax, must eventually be borne by the consumer. He is the only real taxpayer. I emphasize that: royalties, surcharges, mineral taxes and other taxes must eventually be borne by the consumer. Taxes are just as much a cost of doing business as are wages, salaries and raw material. If taxes on the raw material increase, the cost of the raw material will in turn rise and the consumer will pay higher prices at the gasoline pump. I want to emphasize that we cream so much off the resource industry that we do not leave enough money in Canada for exploration and development. Our explorers and developers are engaged in international competition. Corporations which are owned by Canadians, the drilling companies, will leave Canada.
When Canadians began paying more for gasoline following the controlled lifting of the price freeze on petroleum by the federal government on May 15, 1974, the higher prices reflected the increased cost of doing business, but mainly the higher cost of the raw materials. Very little of the price increase went to the petroleum industry; most of it ended up in government treasuries. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there was an increase of $2.50, from $4.00 to $6.50. Of that $2.50, the oil companies received about 77 cents; the rest went into government treasuries to be used for various programs, federal and provincial.
The proposals in the budget of May, 1974, would, if implemented, accentuate this situation. The point I am trying to drive home once again is this: if the May budget had been approved, or if the same terms and conditions are included in the next budget, the federal government would be taxing not only the profits of the companies but the royalties paid by them, royalties which constitute a provincial tax. In other words, these royalties are included in the amount upon which tax is claimed by the federal
Oil and Petroleum
government. I say that this is unconstitutional, that it is unfair and that it is certainly not good for confederation.
Inherent in such a process is the prospect of an energy shortage in the near future. Consumer dollars siphoned off by governments into the social sector are not available to the industry for reinvestment in finding, developing and producing new supplies of oil. What will happen? In the end, Canadians will be the losers. There are people in this House who seem to enjoy the prospect of a shortage of crude petroleum. They talk about an energy crisis. Mr. Speaker, there never was a real energy crisis in Canada. What we saw, resulted from the inability of governments to plan transportation and pipelines to move petroleum and natural gas to all parts of the country at a cost which the people and the industrial empire of Canada could afford. There certainly was not a shortage of supply. If there is a shortage, how is it we are exporting a million barrels of crude petroleum to the United States every day? As things are, the consumer faces the prospect of paying increasingly high prices while at the same time Canadian supplies dwindle and Canadian self-sufficiency is impaired.
When you tax an industry to death, the consequences are obvious-exploration slows down and the cost of gasoline at the pump goes up. Canadian crude oil production from the so-called established areas will soon peak and then begin to decline if there is no further exploration and development, especially of the tar sands. We shall become increasingly dependent upon foreign supplies. Canadians are not used to such a disturbing outlook. Under the stimulation of a national oil policy backed by appropriate tax and royalty policies, Canada tripled its oil production from 625,000 barrels a day in 1961 to two million barrels in 1973. This was the program devised and implemented by the government headed by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
Members on the treasury benches opposite have often spoken in glowing terms about the national oil policy implemented by the party to which I belong, a policy which, as I say, enabled us to triple our oil production. If we could do that in a ten-year period in the past, we can do so again. The fear that we shall run short of supplies is not great. The fear of Canadians who understand this question is that pea-brained policy makers will fail to provide an incentive for the development, the supply will fall off and the cost of energy to the consumer will go up.
I want to deal, now, with the world situation as it fits into the picture, with special reference to OPEC and how it works. OPEC is not a government, but a world power which is presently giving the western world the jitters. And it shows no sign of breaking up. The welfare of most of the world's non-communist countries depends more and more on decisions made by a dozen oil producing countries acting through a cartel, plus Venezuela and Ecuador. Who are the members and leaders of this suddenly powerful group? How are they able to make the oil consuming world pay ransom? OPEC's full name is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The source of their power is oil, billions of barrels of it, and the billions in dollars and other currencies which have come from its sale. It is the source of their power and their common bond.

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, they never put their own money into the development of these resources. It is foreign capital which developed these wells in the Arab countries as well as in South America. Be this as it may, OPEC is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful cartels the world has ever known, controlling the price and supply of oil which is the lifeblood of industrialized societies. In the last 12 months some members of the cartel, acting individually, have restricted the output of crude. All its members, working together, have been able to impose an increase of 400 per cent in the price of crude oil as a result of the stranglehold they have exercised over this vital resource. Indeed-and I speak after giving this matter a great deal of study and attention-this stranglehold exercised over a large part of the world's energy resources has raised fears of a global depression resulting from the growing burden of oil costs. Such a depression is well within the realm of possibility in the next few years.
It is obvious to anyone who comprehends international trade in crude oil petroleum that the wealth of the industrial western nations is fast flowing to the Arabs. The seriousness of the situation is starting to sink into the consciousness of all western nations, including Canada. Unless we can create a climate and atmosphere for continued exploration and development, a deep global depression is in the making, caused in large measure by the astronomical increase in price of crude petroleum in the last 12 months, an increase from $2 a barrel to $10 a barrel. At one point the price was $11 a barrel.
The blackmail and economic pressures caused by the OPEC countries cover the Mesopotamian area, plus South America. Let us consider some of the high costs that have resulted. In 1973 the United States imported the same amount of oil as in 1974; the cost in 1973 amounted to $7.5 billion, whereas the cost in 1974 is estimated to be $25 billion. Japan paid $6.7 billion in 1973, and $21 billion in 1974. West Germany jumped from $5.1 billion to $11 billion, France from $3.4 billion to $9 billion, Britain from $3.3 billion to $9 billion, and Italy from $2.1 billion to $7 billion. Canada imported proportionately less, but nevertheless it cost us an extra $1.5 billion. This sum was paid, not by the treasury but from revenue derived from the resources that flow from the province of Alberta. Only 16 per cent of our oil emanates from Saskatchewan, and this is used for their own consumption.
The finance ministers of the western world, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), gathered in Washington in early October for a meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. All western countries were worried that they would not be able to pay their inflationary oil bills or would not be able to borrow enough to pay those bills, and they asked the producing nations, particularly OPEC, to lend money to the World Bank from the surplus of moneys they had earned from oil sales. The serious question is, will they do this? If they will, then will they continue to do it?
Canada has been in a very fortunate position, however, and will continue to enjoy that position provided the federal government does not overkill exploration and development. I emphasize the word "overkill" in terms of taxation, which stymies exploration and development.

Every day we use from our own crude reserves one million barrels, and we export about the same amount to the United States. In other words, we import one million barrels and export one million barrels. So our imports and exports of crude petroleum are equal. Therefore, Madam Speaker, in reality we are self- sufficient in oil and would face no problem if this government and the provincial governments would make certain that transportation facilities will carry these reserves to all parts of Canada. The propaganda that Canada had an oil crisis, as I have said, was manufactured by the government to cover up for its ineptitude, procrastination and vacillation.
Those who oppose foreign capital coming into the resource industry are the first to cry blue ruin when there is a shortage. You cannot develop this type of industry without large pools of capital. Everyone seems frightened to say this, but I am not: if it had not been for United States capital and know-how at the beginning, in 1947, Alberta would not be in a position today to supply 86 per cent of domestic Canadian crude petroleum needs and, in addition, export one million barrels a day. We must always remember-I say this without criticism-that the money to develop these fields of oil did not come from St. James Street in Montreal any more than it came from Bay Street in Toronto. The money came from a foreign source to begin with. We were as poor as any other non-producing province until Leduc No. 1 was drilled in 1947. The development took place ten years after a world depression, at a time when Alberta could not meet even the interest of its bonds.
In other words, all the finance ministers were told that the western world must come to grips with this problem or we would definitely be in a serious recession or depression. It is regrettable that a country which continues to build reserves by developing the tar sands and encouraging continued exploration within provincial borders and the Arctic is following a policy of overkill in development. The OPEC price will only be reduced when countries like the United States, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands said today, find alternatives to crude petroleum and, indeed, natural gas.
This does not mean that a worldwide economic slump is unavoidable. But it does mean that there is no single, simple solution, and from what I have read, and according to what independent financial experts in the world say, the answer for Canada lies in exploration and development in Canada. If we had ample supply at a time of shortage, then for the first time we would be able to outcompete our competitors. This means a great deal, particularly to the province of Ontario which is the industrial centre of Canada and which has transformed us from an agrarian nation to an industrial one.
All the beautiful arguments about the constitution may contain many high-sounding phrases, but I have found that in the field of constitutional law, constitutional tribunals legislate by interpreting words to fit the social, economic and political conditions of the time. Therefore, precedents and constitutional law are of somewhat limited value.
I should just like to refer briefly to two other matters. Some 39 rigs and 250 crewmen left Canada this year in response to the great demand in the United States and the
November 1, 1974

Middle East. One has only to read what Mr. Thomas Kennedy wrote in the Globe and Mail to learn how many drilling rigs are leaving Canada because of the overkill to which I have referred. They are going to the United States, Alaska, the North Sea and elsewhere. Our enemies-I mean our political enemies-will in the future be able to rise in this House and say that we are now in short supply because of the short-sighted policies of the government. Preliminary statistics as at the end of September indicate that 2,967 exploratory and development wells were completed in western Canada, including the Arctic, for a decrease of 245 from the first three-quarters of 1973, and there was a decrease in footage to 10.6 million feet. Those figures speak for themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there agreement that the hon. member should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have only a few more points to make regarding what I think the government should be doing, and I thank hon. members for giving me this opportunity. First of all, we must make certain that our corporations are good citizens. On the other hand, we should stop flogging business for emotional vote-getting. One thing of which I am confident is that corporations are here to stay. Farm-out agreements with corporations in communist countries are common. In fact, the leader of the provincial Liberals in my province, who runs an oil company in Alberta, has farm-out agreements with communist countries and he described them to me when we were playing golf.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How is his golf?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: To digress, I must say he is a better golfer than I am. Canada cannot, and will not, destroy these corporations. Our rules should be set up and shaped in such a way as to make certain they offer these corporations incentives in a competitive world to continue their development and exploration operations. The federal attempt to tax every barrel of crude petroleum, taking into consideration royalties in the calculation, means tax upon tax, and this must be abandoned. Section 36 of the act must be modified so that the federal government does not have the power to control supply, price-setting, and so on, without consultation with and agreement of the provinces. In addition, I think a North American conference should be called in order to have either formal or informal discussion of the best ways to develop and explore our resources and, indeed, find alternative crude petroleum on the North American continent. We must remember we are in competition with the European Common Market and the Asian bloc.
Lastly, the subsidy paid to the provinces which are importing crude petroleum should, in my opinion, come from the taxpayers' federal treasury, instead of the government continuing to gouge revenue out of one or two
Oil and Petroleum
provinces. I end on the words I used in starting. I thought the greatest statesmanship was shown when the provincial premiers came together with the Prime Minister and his ministers to work out a deal to sell oil at $4 a barrel less than the price of the same oil in the world market. I could not help thinking of the bigotry of some people when I read the following in a leading newspaper recently:
If Alberta can exploit the accident of geological history that left much of Canada's oil and gas within the boundaries of the province, then surely it cannot complain when central Canada exploits the accident of Canadian history that gave it sufficient political power to dominate federal politics and determine that national policies shall favour the east.
That is real bigotry, because we reached a compromise with the rest of Canada to make sure that this nation would get its energy at a proper and equitable price. I have enough faith in this country and in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario to say that they have not, to my mind, ever deliberately used the power that has been given them to break up and destroy confederation. The answer today may lie in energy to help this great nation build together for the future. I thank hon. members for giving me extra time and I say it has been a pleasure to talk to hon. members this afternoon.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act. I was very interested in the comments of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). I think the wind-up statement by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, when he spoke about the energy issue as perhaps being the most important to be decided in this session of parliament, was very true. The energy policies we adopt in the next few months or the next year or so will have a very important effect on our life style, the growth of this country, our attitude toward growth and our ability to compete in the world marketplace. I was pleased to note, as well, that the hon. member agreed with most parts of this bill. Most of the remainder of his speech seemed to me to deal with other matters which are important, but outside the scope of the bill before us this afternoon.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, for two reasons. I lived for a few years in his constituency, and know what a fine constituency it is and the importance of that part of Canada. I listened, also, because that hon. member has a reputation in this House of being a man with ideas and I wanted to see what new ideas he would bring before us. It seems to me that a couple of his ideas were not altogether accurate in respect of this bill. He suggested that the former bill which this one replaces, Bill C-18, was a much more temporary measure that would be phased out automatically. As I read it, that is just not the fact. There was no time limit or specific time when Bill C-18 would pass out of existence.
The hon. member also suggested that Bill C-32, the one before us, was a whole new ball game and a completely different bill. I submit that nearly all its features, includ-

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
ing the export charge, the oil pricing system, the system of restraint on oil prices, the compensation program and the administration of the act are basically the same as those in Bill C-18, with only the addition of gas pricing and the procedure of compensation features of this bill being new. Even here, the principle of restraint in gas pricing and the prescribing of a gas price is the same as that outlined in Bill C-18 in respect of oil.
It seems to me that the hon. member was agreeing with the idea of cushioning the transition to higher prices for oil which are prevalent in the world today. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said something to the effect that the government was moving rapidly, in a blundering way, in the direction of price and wage controls. This bill as it relates to oil pricing, export tax and compensation was before the Canadian people at the time of the July 8 general election. The government's policy on oil pricing was consistent before and during the election campaign, and it has been consistent since the election. I am not sure which side the hon. member was on in the debate that took place within the Progressive Conservative Party as it related to wage and price controls. However, I would not think any member of the official opposition would want to talk very loudly about blundering in respect of wage and price controls.
The hon. member seemed to be especially concerned about consultation in the establishment of prescribed prices for oil and gas. As I read the bill, part II, division I provides for this when it speaks about "mutually acceptable prices" between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the producer provinces. It goes on, in the second part of that division, to talk about reciprocal orders in council to implement these prescribed prices. It seems to me that this government has shown that consultation does not rest just at the official level or at the level of cabinet ministers, but extends right up to the first ministers of our country. This was amply demonstrated in the agreement on oil prices reached by the first ministers last March; also this week during the consultation on other important matters relating to our economy.
Let us consider this proposed legislation in somewhat broader perspective. The world energy economy is undergoing a traumatic adjustment process to a new set of economic and political realities. These are relatively unchartered waters, and bold and imaginative responses are required from governments, industry and individuals if we are to ease the transition to a new energy environment. Most members are aware of the many facets of this new environment, which include a quadrupling of international oil prices in less than one year; a correspondingly large transfer of wealth, about $100 billion, annually to a small number of oil exporting nations; Increases in demands for aid from the less developed parts of the world; the possibility that overseas oil supply could be disrupted at almost any time, for political reasons.
In response to this environment, most oil importing nations are seeking a more rational use of energy in an effort to reduce demand, and at the same time are endeavouring to encourage increased production from indigenous sources. If successful, both measures would, of course, serve to reduce dependence upon imported crude oil. At the same time, international financial institutions
are trying to devise arrangements to channel the greatly increased wealth of the oil exporting nations to imports of industrial goods, to develop and diversify the producing nations' economies, to aid for developing countries, and to international capital markets in an effort to ease the strain on the already precarious balance of payments positions of many oil importing nations. Unfortunately, efforts to reduce the high, worldwide rates of inflation-of which greatly increased oil prices is one contributing factor- have to date met with very little success.
Among the industrialized nations of the world, Canada is in a relatively favoured position in this new energy environment because of our self-sufficiency in petroleum. However, our resources, for the most part, are located in western Canada, while the large consumption centres are in eastern Canada, necessitating long distance transportation systems. In order to economize on the cost of moving oil to markets, it was advantageous to export some of our petroleum production to markets in the United States while importing oil from markets east of Ontario.
In 1973, petroleum accounted for approximately 5 per cent of the volume of Canada's merchandise exports. In 1974, as a result of higher export prices, it is expected that this proportion will increase to over 10 per cent. Imports of petroleum roughly balance our oil exports, resulting in no net balance of trade implications. However, since we are net exporters of natural gas, as gas increases in market value following oil prices we can expect a significant increase in export earnings of roughly $10 million annually for each cent per thousand cubic foot increase in the border price of gas.
Petroleum and gas are also very important commodities in interprovincial trade, and will probably amount to $2.5 billion in 1974. The Canadian energy economy, therefore, bears a similarity to the world energy economy: oil and gas in Canada are the most important sources of energy, accounting for almost 80 per cent of energy consumed; the oil and gas resources are located a considerable distance from major consuming centres, resulting in significant trade between producing and consuming regions; and the producing regions desire to use the wealth derived from the exploitation of their non-renewable resources to further diversify and industrialize their economies.
However, we must recognize that if Canadian oil prices were to track world oil prices, severe strains would be forced on our national economy similar to those now facing the world economy. For example, if domestic oil prices had not been held at several dollars a barrel below world prices, Canadians could be experiencing a rate of inflation perhaps 2 per cent higher, and fuel oil prices might be as much as 15 cents a gallon higher than current prices. In addition, severe financial imbalances could have arisen between our producing and consuming regions, which might have imposed serious strains on our confederation.
We recognize that oil and gas prices must increase from the low levels to which we have become accustomed, first, if producing provinces are to secure an equitable return for a non-renewable resource and, second, to encourage the development of our frontier oil and gas resources in

November 1, 1974

order to ensure sources of supply in the future. Third, they must increase in order to discourage the continuation of wasteful consuming practices in respect of our energy resources and, fourth, in recognition of the fact that Canada is an open trading nation who cannot isolate herself, for any extended period of time, from the international environment. We also recognize that prices should not be allowed to increase in such a way as to put our primary and secondary industries at a disadvantage in relation to their competitors, particularly in the United States where oil prices are lower than international levels.
Fortunately, Canada's unique position permits, us, within certain limits, to control our own destiny in regard to the development of oil, gas and other energy prices. Canadian consumers and industries can and will adjust to higher energy prices by, first, better insulation; second, smaller-engined automobiles; third, more efficient energy conversion equipment in factories; fourth, greater use of public transportation systems, and so on. But it takes time to effect many of these changes, It therefore appears prudent for Canada to follow a course of moderation in the transition to higher prices, thereby reducing the social costs and political strains associated with the necessary adjustment to the new world energy environment.
This principle was recognized and accepted by the first ministers last spring. It has been implemented in a manner which minimizes the financial burdens within the economy and cushions the impact on consumers, private and commercial, without ignoring the legitimate interests of the producing provinces. For example, revenues accruing to the Alberta treasury are expected to increase by nearly $1 billion over the level of oil and gas revenues received in the last fiscal year.
In my opinion, Bill C-32 is essential to implement the principles agreed to by the first ministers. Part II provides for an oil pricing agreement between producing and consuming interests in this country. The power to determine maximum oil prices by the federal government acting unilaterally would only be invoked as a last resort. Part III stipulates similar pricing provisions for natural gas. Part I of Bill C-32 will ensure that the difference between Canadian oil prices and the just and reasonable price for that oil in the export market will be appropriated by means of an export charge, while part IV will reduce the cost of imported oil to Canadian consumers so as to achieve oil pricing equality across the country.
Part IV would also provide for compensation of the additional transportation costs that might be incurred in moving western Canadian oil to eastern markets in the event of future disruption of our imported oil supplies. Part V of the bill will empower the minister to undertake certain administrative functions essential to an efficient and tidy management of the act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of Bill C-32 for the role it has to play in the development of sound energy policy, and the opportunity it affords Canadians to be masters of their own destiny during this difficult transition period.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Madam Speaker, it is a treat for a member who has been in this House as long as I have to be able to look at such a pretty face when making a speech. If this is part of the women's liberation movement, then I am in favour of it.
Oil and Petroleum
As the previous speaker indicated when he began his remarks, this is a critical situation within our nation because there is a real and present danger to the world as a result of the events associated with the distribution of world energy resources, more especially in relation to oil. Because we are a fortunate nation with what appear to be more than adequate resources, both now and for the foreseeable future, our plight is possibly not as serious as that facing other parts of the world.
However, there is a serious situation because many of the known resources of oil and gas are located in one part of the nation and, as a result, the whole nation cannot readily secure any advantage from these resources. Therefore, somewhat complicated but acceptable solutions have been worked out. Up until now we have been exporting part of our resources to other parts of the world, while at the same time we have been importing the same amount from other parts of the world. Agreement to this sort of arrangement was not a problem for the nation until last year, when the world faced skyrocketing increases because of certain external actions taken mainly by the Arab oil producing nations. These increases were followed by a similar type of escalation in the cost of oil by the South American countries, one of our major sources of supply.
The solution to the problem, which is partly contained in this legislation so far as the federal government is concerned, is very complex and carries with it some serious complications from the strictly Canadian point of view. I say this because it will produce a great many altercations between the federal government and the provincial governments. These must be solved in a manner wherein both the parties, and the public in general, are protected. At the same time, we must not leave scars on the constitution which will be impossible to remove in future negotiations between the federal government and the governments of the provinces.
The speeches today have outlined, in a good deal of detail, some of the complications associated with this legislation, as well as some of the things that have already happened. Some of the things that have happened give every parliamentarian, whether he be associated with the federal parliament or one of the provincial legislatures, a great deal of concern for the nation. We are concerned about the nation being able to stay together in face of what appears to be, on the surface, in this legislation substantial intrusion by the federal authority into the provincial realm. One thing that amazes me is that federal politicians should be expressing almost greater concern about what is happening at the moment than is indicated by the provincial premiers. It almost seems that the provincial premiers are more anxious to let those who are feeling the brunt of the federal decision carry the burden, in the hope that it will not happen to them. But as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out in his speech, what may be a problem for Alberta and Saskatchewan today could very easily be a problem for Ontario and Quebec tomorrow, and the day after that it could be a problem for Atlantic Canada.
So while I am rather hesitant to put forward my concern, as a federal politician, for some of the problems faced

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
by provincial governments, at the same time I feel it is absolutely necessary that I place before the minister some of my concerns, as a member of parliament from the Atlantic provinces, regarding what I anticipate may be a far greater problem in future because of what is now happening in my part of Canada. It is very obvious to me, and I am sure to the minister and to members from Atlantic Canada, that we are slowly but surely reaching the position where we will become one of the great oil and gas producers, not just of this nation but of the world. It could well be, as the result of strikes that have been announced in recent weeks, which I am sure will continue to be announced in the days ahead, that offshore Atlantic Canada holds the same kind of riches as those discovered in the North Sea.
As a result, it is imperative that a number of things be done by this government, including allowing the resources of the areas in question to flow to the provinces in which they are found, and to be under their jurisdiction as far as rights and benefits are concerned. This has not been the case up to now, and if this legislation is put into effect it may not be the case in the future. I think that in many ways this legislation poses threats to Atlantic Canada, just as it poses threats to the western provinces which are oil and gas producers at the moment. One thing that impressed me in the speech of the hon. member for Qu'ap-pelle-Moose Mountain and that of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was this: up to this moment, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in the main, have provided benefits out of the revenues obtained from their resources to the tune of $3 billion annually. They have done this in order to establish in Canada a single price for oil and gas.
Far too often during the past year the governments of those two provinces were made out to be gougers of the Canadian public, while in fact they have displayed generosity never before asked of a provincial government in providing their resources at a far lower price than could have been obtained under past arrangements. It is an extreme price for Saskatchewan to pay because-like most parts of Atlantic Canada-they are a have-not area and must value every dollar they can get their hands on, by whatever means available, in order to uplift the economy and improve and the lot of their people.
We, in Atlantic Canada, have a special interest because, although for a long time we have been one of the unfortunate parts of this nation, there are many indications, going well beyond the discovery of oil and gas off our shores, that we will become the power-house not just of the eastern Canadian seaboard but of the whole of North America, certainly the eastern part. We have established power resources associated with Brinco. We have the anticipated power developments associated with the Fundy tidal power, coupled with the move, now, by the government of New Brunswick into the nuclear power field. All this indicates that we shall certainly be a powerhouse for eastern Canada and the northeastern United States and, with a proper national system, we could be a power-house for the whole of Canada. Because of this we must look very carefully at any piece of federal legislation which in any way tries to take over what has been firmly established as provincial jurisdiction. I refer to jurisdiction over resources.

Yet, time after time the minister has made statements to the following effect: that it is of the utmost importance for the federal authority to be given firm control over our resources and the final say with regard to how our resources are to be developed and used. For instance, as recorded on page 914 of Hansard for October 31, 1974, the minister said:
We are ... affected by this change in the world situation and we wish to play a constructive role as a member of the international community while at the same time taking action to protect ourselves.
I have referred to the international action being taken. In the bill before us this afternoon we are dealing with domestic action contemplated to protect ourselves in this new situation. Bill C-32, the Petroleum Administration Act, is intended to provide the federal government with a statutory basis for the management, necessary in the interests of all Canadians, of important areas of international and interprovincial trade in petroleum and natural gas. Enactment of the legislation is essential if the government is to have the means to continue to guide the Canadian energy economy safely in the present turbulent global oil environment.
In other words the minister says that because the world is turbulent, the government will assume full jurisdiction over our resources, even though such jurisdiction from the constitutional and legal point of view has been vested in the provinces.
The minister went on to say:
-perhaps the central feature of our oil and energy policy relates to the pricing of domestic crude oil.
Then he said that the department will continue to refine and develop assessments of the net price necessary to "attract the capital trained manpower and technology" which will be needed if our energy resources are to be developed. This, according to the minister, will "provide the supply we will need in the future." In other words the government will determine what the supply is to be. The minister went on to say:
The social aspect consists primarily in finding a position of equity between the needs and interests of consuming and producing provinces in relation to the return which is necessary to justify the exploitation of this non-renewable resource.
The minister is suggesting that it is equitable to allow Alberta and Saskatchewan, our major oil producing provinces, to contribute between $2.9 billion and $3 billion to this country. The government is being very generous. I wonder how long the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan will think this state of affairs equitable. How long will the people of those provinces be willing, in the name of equity, to provide this kind of money from their treasuries? Nova Scotia may think this state of affairs equitable, as will Ontario. The question is: will the people of Saskatchewan or Alberta for very much longer go along with this idea of equity? What is happening may be necessary in the short-run in order to protect our consumers, but we should not expect one part of the country to support another part for very long, especially as we are dealing in non-renewable resources for which there is no tomorrow, there being no replacement for them.
Let me now speak of off-shore resources. For a long time we have tried to resolve a recognizable problem regarding jurisdiction over off-shore resources. Agreements of one sort and another have been negotiated over the years. In this connection may I refer to an article in the "Journal of
November 1, 1974

Canadian Studies" written by Hal Mills, who said on page
57:
The offshore mineral rights dispute has been an overt one for over nine years, and has gone through five major stages, with an acceptable solution still to emerge. The foregoing history of the controversy leaves little doubt as to the prevalence of stages of deadlock, as well as the ill-will and resentment engendered throughout. If the total complex of federal-provincial relations is to be of a continuing and effective nature, one must expect individual conflicts, such as the offshore mineral rights dispute, to be resolved with a maximum of speed and a minimum loss of goodwill between participants at both levels of government.
The dispute continues, without sign of resolution. Indeed only the Premier of Newfoundland seems willing to stand firm and fast in his belief that his province owns the right to all resources offshore Newfoundland. Similarly, I and my leader believe that Nova Scotia has the right to 100 per cent of the benefits associated with the resources off our shores. The same may be said of all five eastern provinces. Yet there is no indication that the government is willing to do today more than it was willing to do nine years ago, and concede to the peoples of the areas concerned the right of offshore resources and the benefits associated with their development.
There is a real danger that we cannot get our resources developed because the government will determine the price of our resources, a price which may be far below that available internationally. As a result, prospects for exploration and development will go out of the window. Machinery for development is already moving to other parts of the world where economic prospects are better than in this country. So long as we depend on money, those engaged in exploration will go where they can make most of it.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has handed me a recent copy of Financial Post which contains this headline: "Oil-sands withdrawal comes as a bombshell." I point out that "bombshell" refers to Shell Oil Company. The text says that the Shell Oil Company's decision to withdraw from its 50 per cent holding in Shell's Athabasca oil sands project hit Calgary like a bombshell last week. I can only say that if the government continues on its present course we shall see many such statements. We are bound to see money for exploration leaving this country and heading for the North Sea, the South Pacific, as well as other places.
Atlantic Canada needs massive development if its people are to have some prospect of the sort of life which was anticipated would be theirs when they became part of this nation in 1867. This development has not taken place, and we have less chance every day that the government holds off, or because of this or that action that has been taken to eliminate this or that opportunity for us. There is no doubt that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That seems to have been the policy of the government since it has taken office.
In the days of the Diefenbaker administration we had one policy after another which enhanced the opportunities of our people. It gave us at least a hope of catching up with the rest of the nation. However, those actions have been
Oil and Petroleum
destroyed on the altar of expediency to benefit the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, especially Quebec.
It is very difficult for our people to look at confederation today and feel they have an even chance or an even break. That opportunity is just not there. If Fundy tidal power were located in Ontario or Quebec, it would have been developed 20 years ago. We are still waiting. We are waiting either for translators or someone else to tell us that the government is going to order another study, or do something else, before it can take a serious look to see whether something can be done about this project.
The people of Atlantic Canada are in the same boat with regard to offshore resources. We have asked for equity, justice, and a right under the constitution. We asked the government to do as much for us as was done for other areas of this nation when they were allowed to increase their boundaries and pick up rich resource land. The government says it wants to talk more. It does not believe we have any more right to those resources than anyone else in Canada. That could be true if every other part of Canada had been treated the same since the beginning, but that is not the case. Other parts of this nation were allowed to expand their boundaries. We believe we have a right to expand ours.
If Nova Scotia is going to extend its boundaries they will have to be extended under the sea because there is no more land available on top of the sea. Our party has recognized that province's right and our obligation. We recognize the fact that we should assist Atlantic Canada, not with half-baked schemes produced in ivory towers in Ottawa, but with development of resources that exist in our area to give our people equal opportunity. I am fearful that if the government moves in with the big grab that is associated with this legislation, takes the power away from the provinces and takes the resources or control of them away, then we in Atlantic Canada will have little hope for the future. Indeed we will have to accept the fact that we are going to be second-class citizens for as long as this government holds office.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-32 for at least the second time. A similar bill was dealt with in this House and in committee last April. However, an election and other things intervened.
This is an important bill because it puts together some of the essential components of a national energy policy. I am referring to a single, equitable, reasonable price across Canada.
I find it very difficult to follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). He talked about the hardships of the eastern provinces, which I fully understand. However, this bill in effect sets a fair price of $6.50 a barrel for oil, plus transportation, for all of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nonsense.


Paul Edmund McRae: It is about $4 or $5 cheaper than the world price. Eastern Canada is traditionally served by the world market. This is a way of subsidizing eastern Canadians and of having a considerably lower price in the maritimes.

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
This bill, which secures this single, fair, equitable price was fought out between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the premiers of the provinces. I think the price of $6.50 is fair. I do not feel the federal government could go beyond that price. If more demands had been made and, if it had been impossible to agree to something more than this, we would have had to go to a national marketing board or something of that nature.
The have provinces, in terms of oil and natural gas, have made some concessions in connection with this bill. With some of these concessions there has to be a quid pro quo, particularly in the area of transportation. There must be a complete reworking of our transportation policy which will favour areas other than Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. That is part and parcel of the quid pro quo for this price which is certainly $4 or $5 below the price on the world market.
There are three major areas in terms of an energy policy for this country that we must consider. There is the single, equitable, reasonable, fair price, something I feel this bill achieves. The second is that there be a larger Canadian component, with greater Canadian ownership of our resources. This is something we must work at, Mr. Speaker. There will soon be some action on this front with the setting up of the Canadian Petroleum Corporation. The third, and perhaps the most important, is having a secure supply of all forms of energy. Canadians need to be basically self sufficient and have a secure energy supply for a long period of time. In this whole notion of secure supply there must be some kind of levelling of demand in order to equate supply and demand. We cannot always have supply chasing demand.
I wish to deal with some of the long-term problems in terms of oil and gas, our energy requirements, and some concerns I have about achieving a secure supply, pricing and everything else that goes along with it. If we are to believe those who speak with authority in this energy field, we have to accept the fact that Canada is going to require investments of up to $100 billion in the next 10 to 15 years.
It is estimated the James Bay project will cost something in the order of $12 billion. There is an application for a Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline that will cost $6 billion plus. There is the possibility of a Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline. The United States government has been and is talking about this. It will cost between $8 billion and $10 billion. Massive investment will be required in the Athabasca tar sands to maintain a supply situation in oil. Each plant would cost about $1.5 billion, and anywhere from 15 to 20 Of these plants would be needed in operation by the end of the eighties. So we are talking here about another $30 billion or $40 billion; the estimates I have seen could add up to around $100 billion.
I am concerned when I hear the press talk, rather lightly, about the desirability of establishing another nuclear enrichment plant. What would be the cost? Around $2 billion? This is not taking account of the extra billion dollars or two billion dollars required to provide the necessary 2,000 megawatts of power. We must consider the effect of these investments. How great are they to be, and

what distortion effects can be expected from them? There are three areas of danger, and I am not dealing now with the environment, the effect upon native peoples, and so on, important as these aspects are.
First, we should consider the effect upon capital flow itself. What would be the effect upon our economy and upon our currency of a massive capital flow from the United States or from Japan? If the capital comes mainly from sources within Canada, what would be the effect in terms of our ability to accomplish other tasks?
Specifically, if we pursue the James Bay project at a cost of $12 billion and simultaneously the Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline scheme at a cost of $8 billion, where will the bucks come from to build houses? We have to take into account the effect on the Canadian dollar itself. What happens to the pulp and paper industry if the value of the Canadian dollar is forced upward by a massive inflow of capital? I come from the city of Thunder Bay, which is tremendously dependent upon sales of pulp and paper and is greatly concerned about markets for this product.
We should also be concerned about the consequences of selling our energy. If Japan or the United States buy increasing supplies of our energy will they be able to purchase, in addition, manufactured goods which we are capable of supplying? Or do we become more and more hewers of water?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How do you hew water?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Ellis:: Have you ever tried hewing water?


An hon. Member:: I should like to see you do it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That's a job description for you.


Paul Edmund McRae: I put the two, water and wood, together. At the rate we are going we will soon not have any wood left.
I am really concerned about this distortion effect. Those responsible for policy should look at our long range objectives in two ways. First, I do not think we can continue to respond affirmatively to requests for this project or that project. The time has come for decisions to be taken as between alternative projects. For example, is the polar pipeline a more sensible approach, or should some other project be preferred? Are there inter-modal facets which ought to be considered?
When we are considering the supply of gas, should we also be considering coal gasification? I believe we should. People to whom I have spoken, people who know something about these things, believe there is a great possibility here, and that the technology is not very far off. I believe we must make a choice between the various projects open to us. If we seek to do all of them at once I believe other important sectors of the economy will be neglected. I think, too, the provinces must realize that they, too, cannot enter upon projects of this scale without some kind of general consensus being reached. For example, aside from its effects on the native people, how far should the James Bay project go? It looks as though James Bay power will be very expensive; a nuclear alternative
November 1, 1974

would be a great deal cheaper, it seems to me, judging from the figures I have been able to find.
Even more important is the whole subject of energy conservation. We see demand curves which follow an extremely steep slope. The supply curves for almost all the energy commodities which one can think of, cross at some point in the eighties. At some point we shall be bound to reduce the slope of these demand curves. Sustained growth in the energy area cannot be maintained along present lines. Thus it seems to me that one of the main components of the supply situation is our success in getting the demand curve to level off so that supplies may, at least, be secure.
I should like to discuss one or two possibilities in the field of conservation. First, I should like to see studies conducted to show, as I am sure they would, that money spent on conservation would result, dollar for dollar, in more energy than money spent on exploration and other development. Those who are concerned with conservation should be placing the results of such studies before us.
One area which should be examined closely is that of transportation. There is no question that there is a great demand for a satisfactory public transportation system, something which would in itself tend to conserve energy. From the point of view of conserving energy, ground transport is vastly more efficient than transport by air- the factor is something like ten to one. This is particularly the case when short journeys are made, because most of the energy used by an aircraft is used in getting the plane up to 25,000 feet.
It seems to me we ought to move rapidly to establish better ground transportation facilities between Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, large communities which are relatively close together. My own feeling is that projects such as the Pickering airport might not be needed if we adopt improved ground transportation as an alternative to air travel.
We live in a country which, in the past, has fortunately been blessed with very cheap energy. We find energy more costly today, it is becoming scarce, and we should begin to think of building our houses in such a way as to conserve a great deal more energy. For example, we could use solar experiments, locating our houses to benefit from solar heat. Different methods of insulating are called for also. These are two aspects that we could explore, but it is extremely important that we do everything we can to flatten out the demand curve.
Then we should insist that the automobile manufacturers in this country produce automobiles that will get a minimum of 20 miles to the gallon. No car should be built today that does not get that mileage. Mention was made in the budget of taxing large cars. I think the tax should be contingent upon mileage. If a car can deliver only 12 miles to the gallon and is certified as such, a heavy tax should be placed on the car. We must make every effort to get cars with good gasoline mileage.
I think that if time, effort and money are spent on conservation we will avoid some of the massive problems that will confront us if we decide within the next ten years to commence huge projects costing $100 million. As I
Oil and Petroleum
have said, if we pursue the idea of massive energy investment and our energy growth continues in the way it is today, then we will create tremendous distortions in our economy, indeed in our whole way of life.
Therefore, I suggest we look at these individual items, decide which are the important ones, and develop priorities. These priorities must be national in scope; it must not be a case of one province wanting to do one thing and another province wanting to do another. Secondly, we should spend a lot of money to convince all Canadians, through advertising and in any other way, that some kind of slight modification of our lifestyle is going to be required if we are to continue living in harmony with our environment in this country.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is, in essence, a resurrection of the petroleum administration bill of the last parliament, and to the extent that the oil omnibus bill duplicates its predecessor, it also inherits its faults. To the extent that additions have been made, the government has simply gone further in its assault on provincial jurisdiction over natural resources. The new measures concerning gas pricing do nothing to mitigate the war of nerves being waged between Alberta and Ottawa. The overt refusal to consult and to conduct serious negotiations with the energy producing provinces serves only to further alienate them and to drive a negotiated solution further out of reach.
This legislation further reflects the Liberal government's propensity to increase its power ambit under the guise of emergency powers, by enacting measures to be used "in case an agreement cannot be reached". More specifically, what is offered here is legislation that would give the government the unilateral power to set natural gas and oil prices nationally, but outside the borders of the provinces where the energy is being produced.
Let me say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that to ensure that domestic natural gas prices do not jump drastically next fall, but increase in stages over a reasonable time frame to price levels competitive with the domestic oil price, seems to be a rational objective. But the methods herein proposed are draconian. I believe strongly, and our party has always stated, that an agreement on what constitutes a fair price should be arrived at by the process of negotiation, and only then should we attempt to stage increases over a reasonable period of time to ease the impact on Canadian consumers. There has been no indication that any let alone all ten provinces have agreed with Bill C-32's provisions.
The minister admits that Alberta has already warned that it would oppose any federal government action to exercise jurisdiction over natural gas pricing, and the signals are clearly out that a further round of charges, counter-charges and confrontation between the governments involved will ensue, leaving a further legacy of bitterness and sense of alienation in its wake.
The minister has attempted to placate the voices of opposition members by pointing out that if Ottawa and the provinces are able to agree to a staged increase over the next few years, to cushion domestic consumers, the federal legislation on gas pricing would not have to be used. In fact, however, domestic gas prices are scheduled

November 1, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
to jump 22 cents a thousand cubic feet today under new gas rates approved by the National Energy Board last week. Furthermore, under Alberta law gas selling prices are scheduled to be revalued again next year.
Instead of waiting until after further discussions with Alberta on the matter, which I understand are scheduled for November 12, the minister wants the Commons to approve his legislation and grant him these extensive powers at once. How can meaningful, good faith negotiations take place when the minister has in advance armed himself with the power to legislate an agreement? In addition to this objectionable aspect, the proposed legislation also allows the federal government to determine how extra revenues from increased gas prices should be distributed between producer, transmission companies and governments.
It is not an overstatement to say that this bill is an assertion of almost total authority and control over petroleum resource development in Canada, and as such flies in the face of our constitution and historical provincial prerogatives.
On the whole question of petroleum pricing I would commend to the minister for his serious consideration an observation made by C. E. S. Fraser in an article on energy published in the Queen's Quarterly last summer. He said:
Over the long run, it is unlikely that Canada can, and undesirable that Canada should, remain an isolated oasis of cheap petroleum.
Proper analysis suggests that oil and gas are not so cheap or so plentiful in Canada as some politicians appear to believe.
The real value of Canadian petroleum supplies is that they can stabilize short-term fluctuations of supply and cost, and in so doing reduce the harmful effects of the inevitable but painful readjustments of world energy industries during the next half century.
But, Mr. Speaker, important as the constitutional questions raised by this legislation are-and they are of fundamental importance-I wish to discuss another matter of even greater concern to the people of Canada, namely, the question of security of supply.
Two years ago Canada possessed a domestic petroleum industrial organization in which she could take great pride, an industry comprising over 300 separate producing companies and which, in the preceding 20 or so years, had grown and developed from relative insignificance to a threshold of strength and competence which rendered it able to operate in competition throughout the world. Plans were afoot in terms of additional development of our domestic petroleum resources, including the tar sands and the transportation facilities incidental to these, that would have assured the Canadian consumer of uninterrupted supplies of oil and natural gas for decades to come. The task was neither easy nor cheap in terms of the capital required, but the goal was attainable.
What is the situation today? Recently released statistics on drilling and exploration activity in Canada are cause for real concern. I suggest with all sincerity to the minister that he is over-sanguine in his response to this situation and these trends which, if not reversed, will create in five or ten years in Canada the same kinds of supply shortfalls now being experienced by our neighbour to the south, but with an impact on our society, if only by reason of geography, far more serious in nature.

During the next 20 or 30 years and beyond, the problem in Canadian petroleum policy, at least as much as keeping prices or the federal-provincial distribution of revenues down, will be to mobilize the investment and resources needed to develop our reserves. But instead western Canada's drilling activity is experiencing a serious decline, brought about by the sense of doubt, uncertainty and insecurity felt by the Canadian petroleum industry as a result of the moves and countermoves of federal and provincial governments in the last 18 months or so.
The number of wells completed during the first nine months this year was almost 8 per cent below the same 1973 period, and with the continuing emphasis on shallow gas drilling footage was down 10 per cent. With the likelihood of this trend continuing into the final three months, the tally for 1974 will be very close to 3,900 wells completed and 13.9 million feet of hole drilled, compared with 4,390 wells and 15.9 million feet of hole last year, a level of activity only slightly above the level of 1972.
Preliminary statistics compiled to the end of September indicate a total of 2,967 exploratory and development wells were completed in western Canada, including the Arctic, for a decrease of 245 from the first three-quarters of 1973, while footage was off 1.2 million feet to 10.6 million feet. This disappointing decrease in activity was reflected in the average active rig count which fell to 155 units for the nine months, with a drop of 12 per cent from 174 rigs working last year. This represents a utilization of only 48 per cent of the 322 rigs available for work.
The number of rigs working in eastern Canada, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and offshore averaged four compared with six last year. But of even more concern is the number of rigs being moved to the United States and Alaska, and in most instances the rigs are of deep hole capacity. A total of 39 drilling rigs has been taken out of Canada this year to work in the United States and overseas, together with about 250 experienced, competent and trained personnel.
While various reasons and explanations are offered for this exodus, it is my view, shared I believe by most knowledgeable people in this area, that the uncertainties over our taxation and energy policies in Canada, aggravated by the ongoing intergovernmental squabbling between governments on energy issues, is the main motivation for this seriously disturbing trend in our domestic petroleum industry.
The decrease in wildcat drilling was a disappointing 16 per cent, with 261 fewer tests for a total of 1,386, while the footage decline amounted to 12 per cent, with a drop of 778,600 feet to 5.7 million feet. A total of 122 oil wells were brought in, down from 147, while gas finds decreased by 18 per cent to 476, and abandoned holes were 130 less at 788.
There were 2,553 wells licensed in Alberta during the first nine months compared with 2,634 last year, and almost 80 per cent were located east of the fifth meridian, with development wells outnumbering exploratory tests 2.5 to 1.
In Saskatchewan the situation is even more alarming. The number of wells drilled in the first nine months totalled 220, compared with 410 a year ago, while footage
November 1, 1974

was cut almost in half to 530,000 feet against more than one million feet in 1973. There were 142 wildcats completed, 57 less than a year ago, accompanied by a 38 per cent decline in footage to 337,200 feet. Only 78 field wells were completed, 142 less than a year ago, with footage off 65 per cent.
The drop reflects the industry's reaction to the political initiatives undertaken by Premier Blakeney's government, with most of the ongoing drilling involving commitment wells. It is essential that the energy climate of Canada be stabilized if we are to again enjoy the benefits of a dynamic and vital domestic petroleum industry which, if given the opportunity, is capable of providing our country with the energy reserves required to maintain our place in the industrial world in which we live.
The suggestion that federal or provincial governments, by direct intervention and investment in the petroleum industry will contribute in a significant way to Canada's over-all energy position is, in my view, erroneous, and I am supported in that view by the policy document of the minister's own department published last year.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said Canadians should own and control their own resources. The Canadian people already own, either at the provincial or federal level, virtually all the oil and gas lands in this country and furthermore, the government possesses the power to regulate the terms of participation in development by private industry and to stipulate royalty rates and levels of taxation to be imposed on income produced therefrom.
I am at a loss to understand what significant benefits can be expected from the creation of a so-called national petroleum corporation in this country. On the other hand I am only too well aware of the negative factors involved, including discouragement of the private sector, wasteful dispersal of resources and talents already in short supply, and the enlargement of the bureaucratic establishment already overly large.
It would make far more sense, and be of greater ultimate benefit to the Canadian people for the federal government as an alternative to deploy the assets it intends to commit to the national petroleum corporation, to the research and development required to make available alternative renewable energy resources, a field in which the government's performance to date is, by comparison with other nations, lamentable.
The Montreal pipeline extension is another example of an over-complacent attitude on the part of the minister with respect to guaranteeing Canadians adequate supplies of domestic oil. I do not often agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on energy policy, but I share his view that the pipeline extension project should be undertaken as an instrument of national security with a serious sense of urgency and purpose now lacking, and if that requires, as it likely will because of the economics of the situation, government involvement or ownership, so be it.
I go further and suggest to the minister that he seriously study the possible benefits in terms of emergency supply capability of creating under public ownership facilities for the storage of a 60-day reserve supply of oil in eastern
Oil and Petroleum
Canada. This type of initiative is being undertaken by the governments of other industrialized countries on a much larger scale, notably Japan, and is a policy option which I suggest deserves serious examination.
In conclusion I repeat my opposition to the elements in this legislation creating a unilateral price fixing mechanism over petroleum and natural gas. I underline my concern regarding long-term security of supply in this country in light of the demoralized condition of the industry, and I urge immediate federal government initiatives to effect the construction of the Montreal pipeline extension to ensure our capability to move 250,000 barrels of oil or more a day into eastern Canada, thereby reducing its dependence on foreign supplies.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for one of those five or ten minute speeches which comes before you see the clock. Therefore, I think I should say something about what has impressed me.
In listening to the debate to this point I was impressed by the sort of conciliatory tone of many of the members from western Canada. This is something very heartening to me, being from Ontario, as up until very recently whenever this subject of energy has arisen there was an obvious bitterness on the part of western members in the sense that they were being asked, on behalf of their provinces, to take less in the way of revenue than they felt they were entitled to receive.
As a person from Ontario, recognizing the substantial benefit we in Ontario are receiving because of the lower price at which we are able to obtain energy supplies from western Canada, I want to thank the people of western Canada. I appreciate that, and I think it is a good thing in our confederation that this kind of attitude prevails, once the quarrelling and argument are toned down.
It is unnecessary to remind people from western Canada that Ontario for a long time, in fact for 11 years under the national oil policy, was prepared to pay higher prices for energy in recognition of the fact that we needed to develop energy supplies and sources in western Canada. There was not very much grumbling about that. That was an expensive program for the rest of Canada. We have various figures in this regard, including those of the National Energy Board, which would indicate a cost to consumers in Canada of $500 million over the 11-year period. My calculations would show that it is much greater, something closer to $500 million a year, in other words 11 times greater, but I do not want to get into any arguments on that ground. I am simply saying this conciliatory tone is really something that fills me with pleasure.
There are understandable differences. People who have the resources want as much for those resources as possible, and the consuming parts of Canada think they should have those resources at as low a cost as possible. These differences are being resolved. We are engaged in this kind of negotiation.
While listening to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) I wondered whether he was adopting the kind of arrangement that is developing

November 1, 1974
Canada Pension Plan
in Scotland, where suddenly there is a new militancy in an area which has the prospect of oil and gas discoveries. Each part of Canada at one time or another either contributes or takes from the general pool of our society. I think it would be sad if, with the prospect of wealth, some part of Canada should forget that at other times it was on the other end of the equation. I sincerely hope there will be substantial discoveries on the east coast because any discoveries in the long run serve to enhance the future of this country and enable us to be a more affluent and self-serving country than otherwise might be the case.
It seems to me that in the future, if not now, we must move toward public ownership of our energy supplies. When I say this in respect of energy supplies I believe it to be important, because we should have that kind of ownership in order to have a rational allocation of energy. This includes gas, oil, coal, nuclear energy and hydro energy. Some of these are already under public ownership. Most of hydro is under public ownership and most nuclear energy in Canada is under public ownership, but not all. It is important that our energy supplies be under public ownership for the future of our country.
I am not making a general statement that public ownership is always better than private ownership because, in many ways, I have never been a strong proponent of public ownership. I think there are many areas where it is not a satisfactory answer. However, in the field of energy, because of the complexities and because of the importance of this field to the future of a country, there are strong arguments which can be made in favour of public ownership.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is the wish of the House to move to another item, so may I move the adjournment of this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is it agreed that we move the adjournment of the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On motion of Mr. Saltsman the debate was adjourned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been some discussions and a suggestion that Order No. 22 might be called. This is the report stage consideration of the Canada Pension Plan amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-22, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-22, to amend the Canada Pension Plan, as reported (with an

amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is not agreement at this time to proceed to third reading.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreement is not necessary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I think we will find agreement to proceed with item no. 7 on the order paper, which is Bill C-207 in the name of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement of the House that we proceed to Bill C-207, and that the other bills will not necessarily lose their position and will be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved: that Bill C-207, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of place of Senators), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House on a Friday afternoon when there is a cozy atmosphere. One sometimes feels we should bring a picnic lunch, spread a cloth in the middle of the aisle, and pass away the remaining hours of our legislative week.
I am speaking today on behalf of my private member's bill, Bill C-207, to amend the British North America Act in respect of tenure of place of senators. This bill is part of a two-bill parley. It originated as a single bill to amend the Senate, but I was informed by the legal advisor that this suggested reform must take the form of two bills. In order to understand Bill C-207 it may be necessary for me occasionally to mention Bill C-261, to amend the British
November 1, 1974

North America Act in respect of the appointment of senators.
I think there has been a fairly widespread desire, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on down, that something must be done with regard to Senate reform. Perhaps first we should look at the reasons for Senate reform. The Senate was instituted in our parliamentary system for two main reasons: first, to give sober second thought to legislation and, second, to represent regions from which the senators were appointed, on a provincial basis. It is in the dereliction of these basic purposes that the Senate has fallen to its present low state. It must be reformed or one day soon the will of the people, as expressed here by the peoples' representatives, will be to do away with the Senate. Let us attempt to reform it. If the reforms do not make it viable then we will have to come to what Hitler referred to as the solution when he was speaking, of course, in another context.
Two recent events may point out how far the Senate has strayed from its original purpose. First I should like to remind hon. members, particularly new members, that last winter in the twenty-ninth Parliament the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) introduced a bill commonly known as the wiretap bill. This bill was amended in committee. The amendments were voted on in this chamber. Some amendments carried, and some did not. Then the bill as amended was given third reading by the Commons and sent to the Senate.
One amendment was not attractive to the Minister of Justice. It must be borne in mind that it had been accepted by the majority of members of parliament here assembled. The Senate at that item, being more mindful of its party affiliation than of its duty, attempted to have the legislation re-amended to subordinate the will of the Commons to the will of the minister. The Senate amendment received the treatment it deserved. The bill was passed according to the wishes of the elected representatives and not the wishes of the appointed senators expressing their life-long gratitude to the government.
The second deleterious occurrence concerning the Senate was the use by the Liberal Party of the Senate in the recent election. We have become accustomed to the appointments to the Senate by successive prime ministers having a strong, perhaps overwhelming, smell of political reward, of payment for services rendered. But recently a new tendency has slipped in. Some Senators no longer make any pretence at impartiality and consider that it is their duty to support the party that appointed them, until death do them part.
I should like to read a few notes on some of the Senators of whom I am speaking. The national campaign headquarters of the Liberal Party listed Senator Keith Davey as the Campaign co-chairman. In speaking of Senator Davey I might read a news item from the Toronto Star of June 19, 1974, which goes as follows:
Federal executives responsible for preparing government announcements during the July 8 election campaign period have been ordered to clear all statements with Liberal campaign co-chairman, Senator Keith Davey...
A memo to that effect was sent to all ministerial executive assistants by Joyce Fairbairn, legislative assistant to Prime Minister Pierre
Senate Reform
Trudeau. The memo, however, has been circulated through government departments as well.
Purpose of the screening is to ensure that all announcements "receive maximum publicity through proper timing and presentation", the memo says.
Announcements and ministerial statements are to be sent to the Prime Minister's office "at least one week in advance".
"Senator Keith Davey will then judge the timing which would produce the maximum result", the memo says.
"Announcements should not be scheduled until his judgment is given". The "not" is underlined.
What relationship does such an activity bear to the original purpose of the Senate to give sober second thought to legislation, and to represent the regions from which the Senators are appointed? None whatsoever. It is this kind of activity that has brought disrepute to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Let me go on with the list of the national campaign headquarters of the Liberal Party. There is Senator Gildas Molgat listed as the president of the Liberal Party, Senator R. J. Perrault as campaign chairman for British Columbia, Senator Earl Hastings as chairman for Alberta, Senator Jean-Pierre Cote as chairman for Quebec, and Senator Lome Bonnell as Chairman for Prince Edward Island. Among those actively involved are John Aird of Toronto, Sidney Buckwold of Saskatoon, Douglas Everett of Winnipeg, Louis-Philippe Gelinas and Louis Giguere of Montreal, Harry Hays of Calgary, Dan Riley of Saint John, Irvine Barrow of Halifax, and George van Roggen of Vancouver. This group have done more to bring disrepute to and to misconstrue and misinterpret the role of the Senate than any group in recent history.
It is pretty clear that the Prime Minister should set about reforming the Senate. But, it is his belief that it is much better to have the taxpayers of Canada providing the dollars to operate his party than to take from the party chests. I should like to read from the Senate Hansard to show you what Senator Godfrey's impression is of his role. This is what he had to say:
I am, and have been since the fall of 1968, the chairman of the finance and treasury committees of the Liberal Party of Canada, and in that capacity I have the overall responsibility for raising the funds for the federal Liberal Party, not only at election time but also to maintain its activities between elections.
The Senate needs reform; nothing could be more clear. It is an absolute necessity that it be reformed quickly or it will be too late.
I should like to say that there are different groups of senators. There is the group I just listed, and there is the other kind, those who enchance upper chamber and Canadian politics by their presence. Although I admit to lack of detailed knowledge of the personalities and records of senators, I must say that in my short time in federal politics I have noticed Senator Cameron, Senator David Croll, Senator Forsey, Senator Goldenburg, Senator Gro-sart, Senator Lamontagne, Senator Manning, Senator O'Leary, Senator Belisle and Senator Yuzyk.
These gentleman do not look upon the Senate as a place in which to express their lifelong loyalty to one party or another. They look upon their responsibilities in a mature way and in the national sense. I tell you that it is only the

November 1, 1974
Senate Reform
achievement of these senators that convinces me that we should attempt to reform that body rather than follow the route prescribed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is because of the work of the second group of senators that I have gone to considerable effort to prepare the two bills, Bill C-207 and Bill C-261.
Bill C-261 would provide a new method of selecting senators bases upon party standings in the House of Commons on January 1 of each year. The then existing vacancies could be allocated on a pro-rated basis among the parties, determined finally by the party leaders. The Governor General could announce the appointments. This would mean that the Senate membership would eventually bear some relationship to the desires of the Canadian people as expressed every four years at election time.
Bill C-207, the one with which we are dealing today, is a bill that has to do with the tenure of appointment. I put in both of these bills a year ago, but I did not win in the draw. In consequence, they were not heard. I put them in again and now have the opportunity to speak on one bill only.
The key words in Bill C-207 are:
A Senator who is summoned to the Senate after the coming into force of this subsection-
That means of course that it will not apply to any existing senators.
-shall, subject to this Act, hold his place in the Senate until he attains the age of seventy-five years or for a period not to exceed ten years, whichever occurs first.
It is not by accident that it say "ten years". Last year it said fifteen years, and this year, on October 2, the Prime Minister of Canada said that he had two reforms in mind for the Senate.
... First, we should limit the duration of senatorial appointments to a certain number of years, seven, for instance, with the option of reappointing senators when they have well served their country.
He is the Prime Minister and I am just an ordinary member, so I thought I would meet him somewhat more than halfway, that I would come down from fifteen to ten, and he could meet me and come up from seven to ten.
I am sure that hon. members opposite will agree that the bill complied closely enough with the Prime Minister's wishes, and therefore they will give it speedy passage later this afternoon and send it to committee.
With regard to the last portion of the sentence uttered by the Prime Minister, in which he wanted the option of reappointing senators when they have well served their country, let me say that this would destroy the purpose of any Senate reform if that option were vested in the Prime Minister. It would make people ask: how did senator X do in the last election? If he did not pull his weight for the party, he would not be reappointed and, if he worked hard, he would be reappointed. This would put the Senate even more under the control of the party in power.
I do not wish to insinuate that there is a great deal of difference between the parties in this respect. The difficulty in some regards is that one party has been in power a great deal of time lately in our country. I do not think that we are all saints and they are all sinners. I think the difference lies in the legislation power that is given to the party in charge, the party that is temporarily forming the

government, to abuse parliament by these types of appointments and employment of senators.
Finally, allow me to quote from the Senate Hansard for Tuesday, March 13, 1973. I shall quote the remarks of Senator Croll who suggested 12 points for Senate reform. I commend the speeches recorded in the Senate Hansard; invariably one finds extraordinarily good speeches, well researched and well constructed. I assure you it is easier to read a well constructed speech than to make one.
Senator Croll brought forward a 12-point plan for Senate reform in the seventies. He suggested, as reported at page 322, that the present absolute veto power of the Senate over all legislation should be reduced to a suspensive veto. I am glad that the Prime Minister agreed with the Senator in his speech of October 2, from which I quoted.
I do not agree with Senator Croll's suggested distribution of Senators. Once again he suggested the appointment of too many senators from this part of the world, and shortchanged western Canada, particularly British Columbia.
The third point must be considered in conjunction with the fourth. He, Senator Croll, suggested that the supporters of any one political party should not comprise more than two-thirds of the Senate at any one time, and that Canadian constitution should be amended as soon as possible to ensure this result.
Senator Croll went on to say:
The Senate is too heavily weighted on one side, and this is not good for the Senate. It is not good for democracy ... Good opposition makes for good government.
His next point was:
The government leader in the Senate should not be a member of the Cabinet.
The leader has to be our man. He is not, and it is time that we cut the umbilical cord with the House of Commons.
The Senator ended by saying:
It seems to me that there are only two options open-Senate reform or Senate abolition. It is a clear case of reform or perish.
I could not agree more with what Senator Croll said in his fine speech.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak to the House. Therefore I would formally like to congratulate you on your appointment. I know in the very short time of this parliament that you and your colleagues have distinguished yourselves in the performance of your responsible duties.
I am very glad to participate today in this most academic of debates on Bill C-207, proposed by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), to limit the tenure of senatorial appointments to 10 years. I agree completely with the sentiments that the hon. member wishes to convey to the House concerning the need for general reform in the operations of the other place. In fact, I even agree that some limitation of tenure of our Senators is desirable, if not absolutely necessary, to make the Senate
November 1, 1974

relevant to the political system of this country, in this technologically complex era.
However, I believe that the reforms of the other place required to bring this relevance to Canadian political life are so extensive that the effect of this bill is merely cosmetic and does not provide a fundamental solution to the problem. Therefore I cannot support my hon. colleague on this matter.
I think that perhaps a couple of bills will be required to change the composition of the Senate. Before we talk in terms of 10-year appointments for Senators, we should look at the terms of reference applying to senatorial appointments, and at the function of Senators within the parliamentary process. I therefore propose, in the short time available, to review some of the background of Senate reform and some contemporary responses to the problem.
I remind my hon. colleague that the British North America Act had scarcely passed the experimental stage when, in 1874, the House of Commons was called to consider the desirability of amending the constitution of the Senate. The House was asked to adopt a resolution to the effect that the system of appointment to the Senate was inconsistent with the federal principle, and that the constitution ought to be amended so as to confer upon each province the power of selecting its own senators. Debate on this resolution was adjourned without any action being taken.
Several years later the subject was revived on the motion of the then member for Perth, who advocated abolishing the life tenure of senators, providing a fixed age for compulsory retirement, and limiting "the tenure of one appointment to within the legal term of three parliaments". After debate the motion was withdrawn. In January, 1908, the same member asked for "an age limit for retirement, or a shortened term of service for future senators." Again the debate was adjourned without any action.
In 1909 Sir Richard Scott outlined a broad scheme for reform in the Senate, including the idea that "the term for which senators may be elected or appointed be limited to seven years." Thus the debate over limiting the tenure of senators is not a recent innovation, and is often linked to the question of whether the Senate should be nominated or elected.
At the time of Confederation Canada adopted the Senate nominative system as best suited to the relations which were about to be established between the provinces and the central government. Election was ruled out on the grounds that the government should only be responsible to the House of Commons, the only body to represent the people directly.
The Fathers of Confederation thought the nominative system had definite advantages. Rightly chosen in the true spirit of responsible government, they thought a nominative Senate would be the strongest bulwark of the constitution and the most impartial guardian of true democracy. It would have none of the hereditary weakness of the House of Lords, nor the partisanship of an elected chamber. It could command the services of experts from every walk of life. If it were necessary for its purpose to use the best talents of any profession-to aid in legislation for the
Senate Reform
development of the natural resources of the country, for protecting public health, for extending trade and commerce, or for widening the horizons of citizenship-they were at its disposal.
Since the 1920's no federal government has tried to alter either the powers or the composition of the Senate. However, in the government's proposals to the constitutional conference in February, 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) added Senate reform to his proposals for revision of the federal constitution. The federal proposals envisaged that the Senate be reconstituted to enable it to play a more vital role in reflecting the federal character of the country.
Among other things it was suggested that senators be selected partly by the provinces, with the term of office reduced, perhaps to six years. It was also suggested the Senate be given special powers, including the right to approve federal nominations to the Supreme Court, and to have special legislative responsibility concerning the official languages, human rights, international relations, and other matters. While some of these ideas have been shelved, the question of fixed terms is still very much alive, as we can see by the Prime Minister's remarks during the Throne Speech debate this session.
When the Fathers of Confederation decided to give Senators life tenure, they hoped this would promote the independence of the Senate and, while this may have been the case, it also had the effect of lowering Senators' prestige with the public, who tended to look upon them as a privileged class of old-age pensioners. We all know they are not that. In 1965 the British North America Act was amended, requiring Senators appointed thereafter to retire at 75 years of age. It is interesting to note in passing that this change has lowered the average tenure of a Senator from about 16 years in the early 1960s to an average of eight years by 1971.
Another frequent suggestion is that the appointment of Senators be for a limited term of six, eight or even ten years as in the bill before us. It is argued that more frequent changes of membership might induce greater activity without tending to strengthen the Senate vis-a-vis the House of Commons. Such changes would also increase the introduction of new men and ideas into the Senate but, perhaps what is more important, would mean that any alternation of power between the parties in the Commons could be reflected much sooner in the Senate. That situation would be welcome, instead of the present situation whereby, when a party has been in office for a long time, it will continue to keep its majority in the Senate long after it is defeated in the House.
This is a crucial point. Over the past few years public respect for the legitimate role of the Senate in the parliamentary process has been steadily eroded since we, as members of the Liberal party, have consistently been charged by the Canadian people to govern the nation. This is a responsibility which they have been loathe to give, for good reason I may add, to Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
The present ratio of Liberal Senators to those of other parties is dangerously close to rendering the whole body of the Senate useless. Hence the sincere offer of the Prime Minister to appoint Senators from other parties.

November 1, 1974
Senate Reform
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to confine oneself to the specific intent of this bill without discussing the whole matter of Senate reform. A simple reduction in the term of senatorial appointments does nothing to answer criticisms of New Democratic Party members, many past members of which party should have continued their very real contribution to the Canadian political system in the Senate after their years in the House of Commons were ended.
I can think of many past NDP members of this House who deserve to be given the nation-wide forum that is accorded to members of the red chamber. Indeed, I can think of a few present members of that party who would be equally effective in the other place.
During debate on the throne speech, I wish to remind the hon. member for Victoria, the Prime Minister suggested the duration of senatorial appointments should be limited to a certain number of years, seven for example, with the option of re-appointing Senators "when they have well served their country".
While most newspapers agreed that the Prime Minister was right to contemplate reform of the Senate, there were many queries concerning this idea. For example, the Toronto Star argued that the greatest value of the Senate lies in the fact that it includes a certain number of strong minded men, not too confined by party ties, who are not afraid to express their views on national affairs and to criticize the government. I quote from the October 18 edition of the Toronto Star:
The danger of the proposed seven-year renewable term is that it would create strong temptation for the Prime Minister of the day to drop these independent, troublesome individuals when their terms expired and to re-appoint only the faithful party hacks who have served the party, if not their country, well. And the remaining members would be under notice not to rock the boat if they wanted their appointments renewed.
The Toronto Star should realize by now that the Liberal party is never quite that partisan and I doubt whether we have ever appointed someone, to use its derogatory phrase, who is a mere "party hack". Rather, we have appointed people who have contributed to the political and social fabric of Canadian society.
At this point I wish to digress and comment on some of the remarks of the hon. member for Victoria. I regret the hon. member feels that, once appointed, Senators should fade away in the lush splendour of the red chamber. I feel that Senators are expected to participate in the political process to the full. I believe that election campaigns are part of the political process.
I can only conclude that the hon. member's derogatory remarks concerning some of our Senators is sour grapes, and perhaps reflects his displeasure that Tory Senators do not participate fully in the Conservative caucus and the Conservative party. However, I do not know that for sure.
Most Senators are partisan appointees and I expect that they continue their partisan involvement. I remind the hon. member that Senators are members of parliament as are members of the House of Commons. We were certainly reminded of that recently in caucus.

Having briefly outlined some theoretical arguments for and against limited tenure for Senators, it is perhaps necessary to consider some practical problems in changing the present situation. The method of appointing Senators is established by the British North America Act, and in over 100 years the only major change in provisions relating to the Senate was the reform of 1965 providing for a compulsory retirement age of 75 years.
Despite this change the fact remains that effective Senate reform is not an easy task, and the Senate cannot be reformed without its consent. Therefore it is important to consider whether the Senate would favour fixed terms of office for its members. The Prime Minister has discussed this with the leader of the government in the Senate, and expressed the hope that some progress can be made in this area.
Yet only two years ago an extensive study of the constitution was undertaken by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. The committee included 11 Senators representing both parties, and it examined at some length the question of appointment and representation in the Senate. Among other things it recommended a new distribution of seats which would maintain 24 seats for Quebec and Ontario, but would allot 12 seats each to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba; 10 seats each to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; six seats to Newfoundland, four seats to Prince Edward Island, and two each to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, for a total of 130 seats.
It also recommended that Senators continue to be appointed by the federal government, although one half of the vacancies in each province or territory would be chosen from a panel of nominees submitted by the appropriate provincial or territorial government. It did not, however, recommend a fixed term of appointment for Senators, concluding only that the compulsory retirement age should be lowered to 70 years, and that upon retirement Senators should retain the right to their title and precedence, as well as the opportunity to participate in the work of the Senate or its committees, but not to vote or receive the indemnity of Senators.
Since this recent document, agreed to by a number of Senators, did not propose fixed terms, one is justified in asking if such an idea would find acceptance in the Senate? If not, then all the theoretical arguments for and against the idea become academic, and the question of Senate reform will probably be postponed once again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) expressed the hope the House would give second reading to this bill this afternoon and send it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He is a nice fellow and I do not like to disappoint him, but I can think of nothing that would be more wasteful of the time of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs than for it to have this bill presented to it.
That is not to say, despite my well-known opposition to the continuance of the Senate, that one can forever block discussion on Senate reform. However, I submit that this particular proposal is not worth committee consideration. I find it just as useless as the proposal of the Prime
November 1, 1974

Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there be seven year terms, subject to re-appointment.
This bill does not get at the root of the question as to whether the Senate is a desirable and useful part of our parliamentary institution. It is being demonstrated more and more that its practices are not in keeping with the principles of democracy. I contend that unless somebody can come up with more significant and more useful proposals for reform than we have from the hon. member for Victoria and from the Prime Minister, my proposal still stands as number one; let's abolish it.
It always interest me when a member like the hon. member for Victoria talks about the purpose of the Senate. He said its purpose was to give sober second thought to legislation passed by the House of Commons. I always wince a bit when that is said. The implication is that the thought in this House is not sober. I do not accept that at all. In any event, I wonder where the idea came from Mr. Speaker. I do not find it in the British North America Act.
I am sure what I shall read from the British North America Act has been put on the pages of Hansards on previous occasions, but not for a long time. Since there is this talk about the purpose of the Senate, perhaps it might be a good idea to remind ourselves what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind.
Section 23 of the BNA Act reads as follows:
The qualification of a Senator should be as follows:
(1)	He shall be of the full age of thirty years.
I suppose that was reasonable 100 years ago but it certainly discriminates against young people who rightly believe they are quite important in today's generation; they have voting rights at the age of 18 and they have the right to enter this House at the age of 18. At any rate, that is one of the qualifications of a Senator. You must be an old man of thirty.
Note, also, that the Act just says "He". Once upon a time the judicial committee of the Privy Council had to rule that for the purpose of going to the Senate a woman was a person. That was an historic decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and I think it is interesting that related to the history of the Senate was the question whether or not persons to be appointed to that place had to be men only or whether they could include women. I move on. The section continues;
(2)	He shall be either a natural-born subject of the Queen-
I always like that phrase and wonder what would be meant by "un-naturally born".
-or a subject of the Queen naturalized by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Ireland, or of the Legislature of one of the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, before the union, or of the Parliament of Canada, after the union.
Well, those are routine qualifications. Let us go on to subsection (3):
He shall be legally or equitably seised as of freehold for his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and common socage-
Senate Reform
I have been asking my learned friends around here what that means, and they are no more learned than I am. Anyway, there it is socage.
-or seised, or possessed for his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in francalleu or in roture within the province for which he is appointed, of the value of four thousand dollars, over and above all rents, dues, debts, charges, mortgages and incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting the same.
Boy! If you are going to apply for a job in the other place, you really have to read the fine print.
(4)	His real and personal property shall be together worth four thousand dollars over and above his debts and liabilities.
I am sure that if the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) were to move an amendment to the BNA Act he is so concerned about inflation he would hardly consider letting that $4,000 figure still stand as a sufficient requirement to get into the other place.


Mr. Gillies:: It is much too low.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says it is much too low. Does he want to make it $40,000? Or $400,000? In my view any monetary consideration at all is a violation of the basic concept of democracy.
(5)	He shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed;
(6)	In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property qualification in the electoral division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that division.
I have been looking through the BNA Act and I find there are no other qualifications required. I do not see any reference to qualifications in terms of intelligence, capacity of training not even sobriety. You just have to be an old man of thirty, a proper subject of the realm and in possession of certain property.


James McPhail Gillies: And be a good party worker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Don Valley says "and be a good party worker". That is not in the Act, but that has certainly been the case in the last 100 years or more. The bill before us makes a proposal under which a term in the Senate could come to an end. I would remind the sponsor that there are already provisions in the BNA Act for the place of a Senator to become vacant. These are to be found in section 31:
The place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following cases:
(1)	If for two consecutive sessions of the parliament he fails to give his attendance in the Senate.
Well, Their Honours do manage to get into the place, so that rule really does not apply very often.
(2)	If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, or does an act whereby he becomes a subject or citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen, of a foreign power;
(3)	If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent or applies for the benefit of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or becomes a public defaulter;
I do not know what the definition of that last word might be. Anyway, there it is, in the Act, and it is printed with a capital "D".
(4)	If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime.
2 83 05-63

November 1, 1974
Senate Reform
Who is to define what is infamous? I believe there are persons guilty of things I would regard as infamous but which might seem a cause for reward to others.
(5)	If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of residence; provided that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of residence by reason only of his residing at the seat of the Government of Canada while holding an office under that government requiring his presence there.
There is really nothing else in the BNA Act regarding the qualifications of a Senator. It does not say he must have gone to school, or hold a university degree, or hold a certificate of professional proficiency. He simply has to be a person past thirty, a proper citizen, not a public defaulter, and possess a certain amount of property.
Some limitations are imposed on Senators. The main limitation is that they cannot introduce into the Senate a bill involving the expenditure of money or the imposition of a tax. There is the further provision that though Their Honours can amend almost any bill we send over there, they cannot amend a supply bill; they must either accept it or reject it in total.
I find these things about the other place interesting, but one searches in vain for the qualification to which reference is made most often, namely, that Senators are appointed to give a sober second thought to what goes on in the House of Commons. I would therefore suggest to the hon. member for Victoria that, before he presses too far his conviction that the Senate is not doing what it was designed to do, he should produce a blueprint setting out what he thinks it was designed for, and in the absence of such a blueprint it seems to me the other place has developed along lines which are natural for a body made up of persons appointed by the government of the day.
It just so happens that during most of this century the Liberals have been in power and they have been filling tl\e place with their appointees. But had the reverse been the case, and had the Tories been in power I doubt there would have been much difference in the performance of Tory Senators.


James McPhail Gillies: They would be more sober.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says they would be more sober. That is his comment, not mine. In any case, as I have said on many occasions, I do have respect for many of the Senators over there. I know a number of them personally. After all, I have been around here longer than most of them. I know them and I respect the 25 or 30 of them who have worked hard at the job. But it seems to me that the whole set-up, couched as it is in the language of 1867, does not fit in with a modern democracy where parliament is supposed to be the body responsible to the people of this country.
I have said many a time that we in the House of Commons can and do make mistakes. But when we make mistakes we have to go back and answer for those mistakes, even as we answer for the things we do correctly, to the people who sent us here in the first place. Over in the Senate, whether they do the right thing, the wrong thing, or nothing at all, they are not responsible to anyone. They

are not even responsible to the Prime Minister who recommended their appointment in the first place.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I submit that the sensible thing for a modern twentieth century parliament to do is to decide that we believe in democracy, and that we want the persons who make the laws of this country to be elected by, and made responsible to, the people of Canada.
Usually if I find myself in a discussion with students and others, and that particular word comes up and it is said that the lawmakers should be elected, someone will ask: "Well, what about electing the Senate?" I say, let the matter rest rather than that. We have enough conflicts now between the parties in this House, between the executive and the members of this House, between Ottawa and the provinces, that if we added to that the conflict between two houses each with the authority to stand on its own feet, it would slow down the process of government even more. So if we cannot get rid of the Senate, let us leave it as it is.
The Senate is in a situation in which Their Honours realize that their authority is limited. As the hon. member for Victoria has pointed out, in the last parliament the Senate did object to a clause in one of the bills we sent over to them. He indicated why he thought they did that, but at any rate they did realize that once this House of Commons had confirmed its previous vote there was nothing more for them to do.
As I say, if we cannot get rid of the place altogether I think it should be kept in the situation it is in at the present time, where the Senators say their piece once in a while but really do not try to upset the democratic apple cart.
I should like to make a brief reference again to the fact that some of the committees in the other place do a good job. The reports they have produced have been the result of thorough and exhaustive study, and some of their recommendations have been exceedingly worth while. But I do not think that the fact that 25 or 30 persons do a good job when work is assigned to them is justification for keeping 102 persons on the payroll; and not only on the payroll, but nominally with the authority to veto the decisions made by the elected representatives.
So, Madam Speaker, I am afraid, like a good Conservative of long ago, I am unrevised and unrepentant about this issue. I think that in the democracy of this latter part of the twentieth century we should be democrats all the way, and that we should have a parliament that is made up only of those who are responsible to the people. Therefore that means getting rid of the Senate. I suggest that to waste time on this kind of reform is just that-a waste of time.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Madam Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you upon your attainment of office and on the way you conduct that important office. I wish you well in your duties.
I listened with great delight to that champion of the status quo, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He reads the British North America Act to us just as they say Senator Huey Long used to read the cookbooks to the U.S. Senate when he was conducting a filibuster. I will not show any preference between the
November 1, 1974

books, but I must say I prefer the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to Senator Long.
I do not want the hon. member of the Liberal party, whose seat I do not know since I do not have my seating plan with me, to think that I am registering an attitude of sour grapes; that is not so at all. Also, my own colleagues will know that I am not revealing any conflict of interest or anticipating things that never seem to come. But I will say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I will support his stand on the Senate when I reach the age of 74 VL At that time I will give in and support him; but since I am only 55, the same age as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we will have to let hope spring a bit reluctantly from time to time, if not eternally.
I believe this proposal is perhaps the oldest public discussion. In 1893, long before I was born, before the mover of this motion was born, and even before the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was born, there was a big political convention in Ottawa, the first national convention in the nation's history. The Liberal party met, and one of the resolutions was that we should reform the Senate. As I say, that was in 1893 and there has not been much reforming done since then.
The giant step taken a few years ago was to say that the Senators could go until they were 75 and no longer, and that has changed the place a good deal. We read of the distinguished Senator who made two speeches in all his career. When he first went there he denied he did so as a matter of political patronage. The next speech was when he thanked his colleagues for giving him a painting on his one hundredth birthday-and there were 35 years between the two speeches. Nevertheless, they said he was a most excellent man, and while he did not speak he always voted for the party whenever those Senate bells began their gentle ringing.
And so the Senate is sometimes laughed at, Mr. Speaker. Dawson, at page 314, talks about the impossibility of making much change, and he quotes from Ulysses:
Surely, slumber is more sweet than toil, the shore Than labour in the deep mid-ocean, wind, and wave, and oar; Oh rest ye, brother mariners, we will not wander more.
And they practise that urge toward tranquility which keeps the body alive and functioning.
On the other hand I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a bit cynical in suggesting, as he often does, that the contribution of some of the Senators is not sufficient to justify the continued existence of the institution. In my short 17 years here-and I came long after the hon. member-I have been much impressed by the work of the committee on the Caribbean-Common-wealth-Canada commission, one of the finest studies ever done in that very important area, as well as by the poverty study. Some other excellent work has been done in the realm of external affairs which was very, very useful. In fact, I should like to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre go to that place; he would add a lot to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, please! Never!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: They are pretty casual about procedure. I can see the day when he comes down the aisle with
Senate Reform
Senator Forsey on one side and Senator Argue on the other, to add to the NDP bloc in the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the
hon. member a question?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has he given up any hope that there might be a recommendation of an honorary degree for him?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Now, Madam Speaker, that is what you call literary blackmail from the chancellor of a very distinguished university. I have often thought that if I cannot get into the Senate then perhaps a university degree, a doctor of letters or something, will do. I will accept his offer and not consign the hon. member to the Senate. Perhaps it will be the leader of his party who will go there, because the leader of the NDP fought very hard against my party during the campaign. I heard him attacking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), and I think he was motivated by fear. He thought that we were going to get a majority government, and the NDP had been in bed with the Liberals for so long that they could not bear the thought of sleeping alone. Thus they did not want a majority government, so that should come as some reward.
To turn to the bill of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), I do congratulate him on what I think is a very sensible suggestion for reform. I agree profoundly with him that neither that House nor this can sustain a continued lack of respect among the public. I have always said that as individuals we can live with that old syndrome of politicians with all their peculiarities, but there must be a basic respect for the institution itself.
The manner in which the hon. member has put forward this step in reform, and as a member of a reform minded party I am all for it and do not join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his unrelenting support of the status quo, I think is forward and progressive. I support the hon. member for Victoria most fully and heartily. In my mind he has made a good move and I wish him well.
A very difficult step in legislation is that of getting the second House different enough to be worth while. As I said long ago, if it disagrees with this House it is inequi-tous, and if it agrees it is superfluous. So you have to find some way, and I think the hon. member has opened a good line in that direction. I would suggest perhaps that if we had 10 members from each province it would be a better place, particularly for example from Prince Edward Island.
Before I take my seat, as I know other hon. members want to speak, I want to point out that the Prime Minister, I am sure accidentally, misled the country and the province of Prince Edward Island when he said through the throne speech that he had talked to Senator Flynn, and that in any case where a member of the Conservative party retired he would appoint a Conservative in his place. I happen to recall that Senator J. J. MacDonald of Prince Edward Island, a Progressive Conservative, retired in 1971
28305-63'/!

November 1, 1974
Senate Reform
and was succeeded by Senator Bonnell, a Liberal. I think the Prime Minister slipped in his memory in that regard. I think it was a rather unfortunate slip, and indeed thought so at the time.
I support my colleague and congratulate him. I think his bill goes about as far as anything the other place would likely pass. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will never be able to put a bill through here that the hon. gentlemen in the other place will support. I am with my colleague the hon. member for Victoria in his move and I congratulate him.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I regret very much that there are only a few minutes left as I know there are a number of members who would like to make a contribution, some of them members on this side of the House.
I listened to the crusade for reform by the hon. member who just spoke and I could not help but remember that the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) and I represent constituencies both of which have far more people resident in them than are resident in the entire province of the hon. member which is now represented in this place by four parliamentarians and in the other place also by four. I cannot believe he was serious in suggesting that we should increase such numbers to 10. If he wants to start on reform I think he should start in his own house and look at it a little more closely.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) presented himself as having two bills, and I think the one to deal with the question of representation genuinely involves the problem of reform. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this bill is not reform and does not get to the heart of the matter.
The real problem with the other place is the lack of opposition. The opposition has dwindled to a handful, and many of them are aging and are not as forceful as they were in other years.
I listened to the hon. member who proposed this bill complain about political partisanship. I wish he had been a candidate in the election of 1962, as I was, when the Senators in the other place had a slightly different preponderance of numbers. I can remember Senator Grosart doing something somewhat similar to the job that Senator Keith Davey performed in the last election. All that time there were members on this side of the House who had some misgivings about the degree of partisanship involved.
If political partisanship is a crime then there is something wrong with our political life. Surely the very essence of our political life is a healthy interest in the democratic process. The cure lies in a better and stronger opposition in the Senate, where there should be a better balance of the parties in Canada. The real weakness of the Senate is the lack of a parliamentary opposition. That is the point to which the hon. member who moved this bill should have directed his remarks.
I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Victoria, and at no point did he deal with the basic point of his bill; that is, limiting the length of a Senate term. This is a popular exercise and I submit that limiting the term would bring about, if it were enacted-and I do not

believe it will be enacted in this form-a discrimination against younger men in the other place. The problem of accepting a limited appointment, to those who are in a profession or business career and are younger in years, is a very serious one indeed.
We are, in my opinion, very correctly raising the question of conflict of interest. We are saying to the men and women who go to the other place they must serve full time, they must serve without conflict of interest, and they must cut their former ties. A man or woman who leaves a profession, business or usual activity, for a limited period, at the end of that period has to face the certainty of going back into civilian life, as it were, and at that point in too many cases has to start thinking of bread and butter.
In such circumstances the very quality of independence, the very quality of full-time service, and the very quality of making sure there is no conflict of interest comes, shall I say, under pressure. That is not the point. The point is that we have a Senate at this stage, whatever the faults of the system may be, and I will concede there are a number of faults. The fact is that the independence of the Senate is the very guarantee of its integrity. The amendment which is proposed in this bill does not, in my opinion, deal with it.
There are two committees about to be struck in this House; one is a joint committee of the other place and the House of Commons to deal with the Public Service of Canada, and the other will deal with the National Capital Region. We look to the other place for able and continuing representation by parliamentarians who will persist in taking an interest in these matters.
On October 30, 1972, there was a previous parliament, of which I was a member, with a number of faces that are not now here, some 120 of them. The turnover of elected representatives in the Canadian parliament is very great indeed. The other place has provided continuity on a number of committees dealing with a number of important matters.
I should like at this stage, with the indulgence of the House and if I have time, to tell a short anecdote. I regret that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) is not here. I am thinking of the problem of the lost statues.
When I was a member of a previous parliament the then minister of public works, now a member of the other place, called upon one or two of the local members, Jean Richard and myself, and said: "I have a problem and I would like local members to give me their very best advice. What do you do with certain statues?" One of them was a statue of former Prime Minister Meighen, and it was simply outrageous. It was not done by any Liberal artist; it was no Grit plot and there was no attempt at concealment, but what you would do with such a statue is utterly beyond my comprehension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send it to the Senate.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It was done as a caricature.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.
November 1, 1974


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, perhaps I might just finish my story as I am sure hon. members would appreciate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Richard and I took a good hard look at these statues and said: "We are members of one political party; we are government supporters and we do not feel we should advise you. We feel there are distinguished and competent members in the other place who are most able to give impartial advice, and which would be accepted by everyone as impartial advice that would not be politically motivated."
The minister of public works appointed a committee, I think of Senator O'Leary and Senator Eugene Forsey, representing different and opposing political interests at
Senate Reform
that time. They carefully inspected the statues that were available, and I suspect that the then minister acted in accordance with the very wise recommendations received from those members of the other place.
I know there are questions on the order paper and that the matter has now been forced into a public debate, and a decision will be made. I hope that this little anecdote will show that there is no conspiracy or plot on behalf of the Commons, or one political party, to do any injustice to previous Prime Ministers in this place.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour allotted for private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 4, 1974