1974-11-14

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

['The hon. member has given me notice of his proposed question of privilege. I would find myself in considerable doubt as to its validity unless he were in a position to establish some legal or statutory obligation upon the minister to table the report. However, there appears to be no need to resolve this point since I presume', 'November 14, 1974\nItalian War Graves\nthe undertaking given by the minister to make the report available is a sufficient resolution of the matter.']
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-2, an act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make related amendments to the Federal Court Act.
Bill S-3, an act to provide for a continuing revision and consolidation of the statutes and regulations of Canada.
Bill S-9, an act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act.



Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a question of privilege in connection with certain remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) the day before. I indicated I would reserve my decision on that question of privilege and deal with it later. I think the appropriate time to deal with it is now.
In the first instance, the question of privilege relates to an interpretation of the remarks of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. Since his remarks were open to more than one interpretation, we did take some time yesterday, at which time I felt the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham clarified very explicitly the intent of his remarks. As a result, I feel I must accept that the clarification extends back to the time the original remarks were made. Therefore, with that clarification in mind, it puts me in some serious doubt as to whether a question of privilege exists.
In addition, I have grave reservations as to whether an allegation about the staff of the House of Commons, important as it may be, in fact constitutes a question of privilege concerning the members of the House of Commons. In any case, I am not required to decide either of those matters because the hon. member did not follow up his question of privilege with a specific motion, and for this reason no action is called for by the Chair. In any case, after hearing the clarification offered by the hon. member, I have decided against finding a prima facie case of privilege under these circumstances.
MR. MacKAY-FAILURE TO TABLE DESJARDINS REPORT ON PILOTAGE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege; it is, perhaps, not a major one but it affects the rights of all hon. members and it is one which I feel creates a bad impression.
For many weeks I have been interested in the report commissioned by the Minister of Transport pursuant to section 14(5) of the Pilotage Act and entitled the Desjardins report. I have brought the matter up with the Minister of Transport on various occasions in this chamber as well as in the standing committee. I have asked for this report and I have also asked for information regarding the cost of its preparation as well as the cost of a similar one called the Marler report which was commissioned last year. I have not received this information though I wrote on November 6 asking the minister specifically whether he was in a position to let me have a copy of the Desjardins report.
It has come to my attention within the last two hours that the Desjardins report is in the hands of several solicitors in Toronto and Montreal, and to the best of my knowledge it has neither been tabled in this House nor officially released by the minister elsewhere.
With the greatest respect to the minister, and to yourself, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the omission to furnish a member of parliament with a report in these circumstances constitutes a breach of privilege. If Your Honour should find that I do have a valid question of privilege, I would move:
That the Desjardins Report be tabled immediately pursuant to the rules of this House since it has been released, in effect, to the public.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have, of course, no reason to doubt the words of the hon. gentleman. If he tells me that he knows that some people have the report in their hands, that may be possible. The inquiry was presided over by Mr. Desjardins and maybe he gave the report to a certain number of lawyers. I do not know. I cannot deny that possibility. The only thing I can say is that, as a government, we have to decide what to do about the report. This has now been decided and I believe that in a few hours, by tomorrow at the latest, I can let the hon. gentleman have a copy.


An hon. Member:: How convenient!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given me notice of his proposed question of privilege. I would find myself in considerable doubt as to its validity unless he were in a position to establish some legal or statutory obligation upon the minister to table the report. However, there appears to be no need to resolve this point since I presume

November 14, 1974
Italian War Graves
the undertaking given by the minister to make the report available is a sufficient resolution of the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First Report of Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service-Mr. Blais.

[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Crouse.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that plans have been made for an official Canadian delegation to visit Italy next April and May to hold commemorative ceremonies in the Canadian war cemeteries. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has advised me that the government of Italy has enthusiastically concurred in the proposed visit.
The delegation will be headed by myself and I will be joined, on arrival in Rome, by His Excellency, our ambassador to Italy. It will be composed of representatives of the government, of the veterans organizations and of survivors of the 1st Canadian Corps who participated in the Italian campaign. This corps was in action during the period from July, 1943 to February, 1945 and involved more than 92,000 Canadian troops. More than 5,000 of them were killed or died of wounds and are buried in the Canadian cemeteries in Italy.
I am sure I do not have to remind hon. members of this House of the significance to Canada of names like Ortona, the Moro River, Rimini, the Liri Valley and the Gothic Line. These are names that will be remembered forever in our history with both pride and sorrow.
We will be holding memorial services at most of our war cemeteries in that country and, in addition, wreaths will be laid in a number of Italian war cemeteries, as the proposed dates for this visit include the thirtieth anniversary of the liberation of Italy.
My departmental officials will be contacting the commanding officers of the perpetuating units of the 1st Canadian Corps through their regimental and corps' asso-

ciations for the names of those who will be included in the survivor's portion of the delegation.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is one statement on motions on which members of the House will hear no controversy. My only comment is that members from all opposition parties, especially those who served in Italy, could have been included in the delegation. However, I commend the minister on what I think is a significant happening, a memorial service in Italy as an extension to our Remembrance Day ceremony here in Ottawa and across Canada. In view of the fact that 5,000 of our war heroes died of wounds in Italy, this ceremony may be able to reflect their memory for their parents or loved ones who remain in Canada. I commend the minister for the thought behind this visit and I wish him and his colleagues well on their voyage.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the spokesman of the official opposition in commending the minister for leading this delegation to Italy on behalf of his department and these survivors. I am glad he included survivors of the liberation of Italy. I think all those who had the opportunity of attending memorial services which were held several years ago on a similar expedition to northern Europe came back with a better understanding and certainly an appreciation of the job that is being done, not only by Canada and some of the countries with which we were associated, but by all countries belonging to the war graves protocol.
Seeing the care that has been given some of the graves of the fallen provokes a sympathetic sentiment in the minds of loved ones toward that ceremony. I, too, also hope that the representation is made as broad as possible, particularly the representation of those who participated in the Italian campaign, and that as many as possible are given the opportunity to join the minister.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, doubtless our military personnel who risked their lives on the Italian battlefield during that World War, who are still living today, as well as the families of those who gave up their lives to liberate Italy, will be happy to hear today that the minister has decided to organize a delegation to commemorate the 30th anniversary of that liberation.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that during those demonstrations, it will not be necessary to set up police security of the same magnitude as that we are now witnessing in Rome during the World Food Conference. Our delegation will be much more welcomed, and accepted, I am sure, under those circumstances.
I would like to add, however, that the minister should consider, if he has not already done so, the possibility of including in that delegation the Standing Committee of the House on Veterans Affairs which study those matters.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced all Canadians would willingly accept that decision. We wish the delegation a good trip and express the hope that it will help somehow to improve our relations with Italy, though they have always been good.
November 14, 1974


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the shocking revelation made last night that the RCMP has been using a travel agency in Saskatoon to keep under surveillance the president of the National Farmers' Union, Roy Atkinson, as well as some leaders of Saskatchewan's native peoples.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That the incident involving RCMP surveillance of Roy Atkinson and leaders of the Saskatchewan native people, as well as the extent, the nature of, the reasons why, and the methods employed for such surveillance be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for an investigation and subsequent report to this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: 
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely the disclosure that federal government officials are meeting with representatives of the air industry to discuss proposals for the establishment of a chain of federally subsidized air maintenance bases known in the Department of Supply and Services as "centres of excellence".
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin:
That this matter be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications so that a thorough investigation can be made of these proposals and their effects on present and planned bases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Petition-Nuclear Weapons Stockpiling MANPOWER


INFORMATION SUPPLIED ON WORKING CONDITIONS OF ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM MINES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the working conditions in the uranium mines at Elliot Lake in northern Ontario. Whereas the Ontario ministry of natural resources has released statistical information that the national average of lung cancer incidence is 13.1 per cent in comparison to a 41 per cent lung cancer incidence among uranium miners at Elliot Lake; and whereas the Canada Manpower office at Elliot Lake has undertaken a massive drive to provide new employees for the uranium mines at Elliot Lake; and whereas this same office does not inform prospective employees of the dangerous working conditions which prevail in these mines; and whereas 50 per cent of the people working in the Elliot Lake mines at the moment are adversely affected by the working environment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie:
That this House instruct the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to immediately order the Elliot Lake manpower office and all other manpower offices to inform prospective employees of the Elliot Lake uranium mines of the high rate of lung cancer as well as the massive number of individuals suffering from silicosis caused by working conditions in these mines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say that the problem to which the hon. member refers in his motion is certainly not a new problem. While there is great importance attached to the motion I have very grave difficulty in accepting the fact that the simple release of some statistical information about a national average takes it out of the class of continuing problem and converts it into the class of an urgent and pressing necessity. However, because of the very grave and serious content of the motion I intend to resolve the matter in favour of the hon. member, but I serve notice on hon. members that in respect of Standing Order 43 they should make abundantly clear that the matter they are discussing is not only important but is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity rather than of continuing importance.
The motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, this is not a motion under Standing Order 43 so I hope it will receive favourable consideration. I have the honour to present to the House a petition under the provisions of

November 14, 1974
Oral Questions
Standing Order 67. Very briefly the petition prays that Canada should host a conference of Pacific rim nations immediately to gain a genuine commitment from them to act with unity to stop all further nuclear weapons stockpiling and both atmospheric and underground testing, and to achieve a necessary first step in the pressuring of China and France to sign the partial nuclear test ban treaty.
This petition contains over 1,000 signatures. If it is found to be in order it is my hope that by agreement the subject matter of the petition or the petition itself can be referred to the Standing Committee for External Affairs and National Defence.


IMMIGRATION ACT
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: the first reading of Bill S-12 (from the Senate), to amend the Immigration Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report that the Minister of Agriculture has taken the position that paying for the full one million tons of food aid in the current year in addition to the 650,000 tons to which Canada allegedly is already committed would be too costly for Canada to bear alone, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Government of Canada now proposes to contribute one million tons in the current year on top of the alleged 650,000 tons already committed or whether the pledge made in respect of the commitment by the minister of one million tons this year and in each of the following two years, a total of three years, is now conditional in some way upon foreign financial support in meeting part of this cost to Canada or whether the commitment for that one million tons in each of the three years is still unconditional as we were led to believe last week.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the commitment with regard to the three year period is unconditional. It applies not to the current year but to the subsequent three years. That commitment is firm and involves an amount of one million tons per year. Under discussion at the present time

at the World Food Conference is the apparent shortfall in the present supply of grain to meet current requirements. There is some doubt, some uncertainty at present, as to the extent of that shortfall. The range of uncertainty is in the millions of tons, and discussions are continuing to determine exactly what the shortfall will be. We have already committed 650,000 tons for the current year, and the proposals coming forward are for an additional commitment. We have not yet made a specific response to that. What we have said is that Canada, in concert with other nations, would do its share to meet the current shortfall. We believe that it is appropriate at this point that other nations put money on the table in line with the very extensive commitments which Canada has already made. When nations are ready to move in concert, Canada's response will be immediate and positive.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government of Canada has not made any additional commitments for the current year, I understand, over and above what has already been committed, namely, some 650,000 tons. The government of Canada has not committed an additional bushel or ton of grain in the current year. I should like to ask the minister whether, when he speaks of other countries putting forward some concrete, tangible proposal of aid themselves, he has in mind a contribution toward meeting Canada's additional costs, if Canada contributes additional wheat, which seems to have been suggested by the Minister of Agriculture in Rome. Has the minister in mind that Canada will not make an additional commitment for the current year until other countries, perhaps the oil rich countries, make a firm commitment in some other areas, for food but not related to Canada's grain?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are a number of separate proposals before the conference. One is with respect to the fund for agricultural development. There has been some expectation, not yet realized in the form of concrete amounts, that the oil producing countries might undertake participation in such an agricultural development fund. Canada stands ready to participate in that as well. It stands ready to participate in additional food commitments for this year. But in the light of the very substantial commitments which Canada has already made into the future, it seems to me that it is wise not to commit ourselves to an additional $200 million this year, in line with the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition, until we exert every possible persuasive effort on other countries to come forward and assist in the resolution of the world food crisis. On both fronts Canada is taking a very positive attitude.
I have already indicated in my statement in Rome that there was an additional commitment of $50 million for the current year that would be made available-


Mr. Fairweather:: It has been committed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It has been committed but it has not been designated, and it stands ready to be designated in concert with other nations when the conference is ready to move as a unit.
November 14, 1974


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Knowing the hon. gentleman as I do, I know that when he speaks at such great length he is in some trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You ought to know.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would he please inform the House whether it is not correct that Canada has not yet committed an additional bushel of grain in the current year to feed the world's hungry? I should like to ask the minister whether Canada's willingness to make an additional commitment hinges on other countries being prepared to do something tangible with regard to some other food program or whether Canada is looking for a contribution from some other country toward meeting the cost of any additional grain that Canada may commit in the current year, which is the impression that the Minister of Agriculture has left in the statement he made in Rome?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the statement already made that Canada stands ready to make a positive response to the current emergency situation. We have not determined the amount. We have already committed an additional $50 million for the current year that can be made available for that purpose upon government decision. We are ready to make a positive response. We are not ready to commit at this point, along the lines suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, an additional $200 million on food aid until we are satisfied that other nations accept their responsibilities and move in concert with Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: So much for leadership!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I regret asking an additional supplementary question, but I put the question very clearly and I think it is important that we get a clear answer from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Canada looking for a contribution from other countries toward the cost of any additional wheat that we might commit, which is the impression that has been given by the Minister of Agriculture? Is this Canada's position, that Canada wants a contribution from other countries before we commit any more bushels of wheat for the current year, or will Canada be satisfied provided other countries become involved in some other program quite distinct but supplementary to the additional grain coming from Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is no way in which Canada, by itself, can meet the current shortfall in wheat, either financially or by way of supply.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The shortfall ranges from eight million to twelve million tons. Canada is ready to participate in meeting the current shortage in concert with other nations. I believe that at this point that is a very prudent position for Canada to take, and more in the interest of feeding the hungry than the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition.
Oral Questions


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLY OF GRAIN IF CANADA WERE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENT FOR THIS YEAR
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What he appears to be doing at present is hedging in his statement. If Canada were to commit itself for this year to the supply of additional grain, have we here the grain available to ship to the underdeveloped countries at this time? Do we have enough grain on hand that has not yet been committed that some could be made available for this kind of food program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of the efforts that is being undertaken is to assess the supply situation throughout the world. In so far as Canada is concerned, the grains group has indicated to the conference that it might be possible to supply from Canadian sources an additional one million to one million three hundred thousand tons.
+ * *


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It has to do with the report yesterday that the RCMP had been using a travel agency in Saskatoon to keep under surveillance the national president of the farmers' union. I understand that this has been confirmed by an official within the RCMP. Can the Solicitor General say whether the RCMP were acting on his instructions? If so, why did he order the surveillance? If he did not order it, will he investigate this incident and report back to this House?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by the RCMP that there is no truth to the allegation that they are using a travel agency to monitor the movements of Mr. Atkinson.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As last night's item referred to some leaders of the Saskatchewan Indian and Metis communities as well, will the Solicitor General look into that allegation and inform the House whether it is normal practice to use a travel agency or business firm for surveillance, so that someone can be reported to the RCMP.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, following the broadcast last night I checked into the allegations with respect to Mr. Atkinson but did not check into allegations with respect to the Metis people. I will do that. I can say that from time to time for investigation purposes these types of monitoring agents are used.

November 14, 1974
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE SURVEILLANCE OF UNION LEADERS OR POLITICIANS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary? Will the Solicitor General inform the House whether the ROMP has under surveillance other union leaders or community leaders, or, indeed, any politician in this country at the federal or provincial level.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP would have under surveillance union leaders or members of parliament only if they are suspected of committing criminal offences or if there were serious suspicions about their committing breaches against the security of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking we use the criteria adopted by parliament in the Privacy Act as the basis for conducting investigations into breaches of security.


REQUEST THAT CANADA BUY SUGAR FROM EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could he tell the House whether his department is examining the possibility of Canada getting its supplies of sugar from the EEC countries rather than from the world market as it does currently, which could result in a 65 per cent decrease in the price of sugar?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this situation is under review, of course, from the point of view of the department.


Mr. Hees:: Yawn, yawn.


Alastair William Gillespie: However, I am not at all sure that there are plentiful supplies of sugar in Europe. Indeed, Great Britain at present faces severe shortages.


Léonel Beaudoin: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister advise us whether he or the government would be prepared to sign a long term agreement directly with a producer country in order to eliminate the middle men?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, the trade has been conducted well between members of the private sector and supplying agencies. However, the government to government aspect of the hon. member's question is a matter which will be considered.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Since the Secretary of State is being definitely informed that if certain changes are made in the income tax field at least one Canadian publication will be on the market in Canada on a weekly basis, can he explain the delay in arriving at a decision in this matter?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be exaggerating to say that I have been informed in such definite terms. However, any decision on the question which preoccupies the hon. member will be made in a broader context, and not necessarily at budget time as he has suggested.


PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
COWANSVILLE-ALLEGED FAILURE TO PUT OUT NATIONWIDE POLICE ALERT ON ESCAPE OF GAGNfi
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question and a possible supplementary are directed to the Solicitor General. They have to do with the case of Arthur Gagne, the convicted murderer who failed to return from a week-end pass from Cowans-ville penitentiary on August 18 and who is still at large, despite being accused of two killings on November 2. Is the Solicitor General aware of the fact that, although Cowansville penitentiary reported to the Quebec Provincial Police on August 19 that Gagne was wanted for escaping custody, CPIC, the RCMP computer system which is designed to alert police agencies throughout Canada about people wanted by the police, did not report that Gagne was wanted until September 28, thus giving this convicted murderer more than one month before the nation-wide police alert was issued.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, under the system we use in Quebec, when an inmate escapes-


An hon. Member:: You use smoke signals.


George Harris Hees: You've had lots of practice these days.


William Warren Allmand: -the penitentiary services advises the closest detachment of the Quebec Provincial Police, which is supposed to put the warning on the police network and inform other detachments in the province.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Solicitor General's answer was, no. As the QPP said that they entered this information into the CPIC system at 11.04 a.m. on the morning of August 19, and there was no print-out giving Gagne's name and the fact that he was wanted until September 28, can the minister explain how this happened? Will he assure the House that it has not happened on previous occasions or since then, so that convicted criminals who have escaped custody will not be allowed at
November 14, 1974

least one month's freedom before the police systems in Canada are alerted through CPIC.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that latter point. In the past, the procedure upon which we acted was that the penitentiary service would advise the closest provincial police detachment, which would put the news into their information system. I will check into the other part of the hon. member's question.
[DOT] * *


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's answers on Tuesday that all arrangements for his trip to Israel had been made by the Israeli Embassy, would the minister indicate if he had no previous knowledge of the proposed use of the Bronfman jet before the embassy made formal arrangements for his official visit to Israel; and, specifically, would the minister clarify if the suggestion to use the jet was first raised during discussions between himself and his officials and Mr. Bronfman or his officials some time before the embassy made the final arrangements for his Israel visit.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the first time it was raised both Mr. Bronfman and the Israeli Ambassador were present.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the minister present?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, that is what I said. I was present with the Israeli Ambassador and Mr. Bronfman.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to the question I raised with him on Tuesday concerning the approach of the group of 77 and the question of adopting certain trade resolutions, particularly those to do with the export of basic agricultural products to many underdeveloped countries. The minister indicated that he knew of no action on the part of Canada to block any serious consideration of these proposals, presented primarily by Mexico. Since then, the other resolutions have been the subject of negotiation with the contact group, so will the minister indicate what Canada's attitude is on coming to some decision on important trade questions which affect almost all underdeveloped countries.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to the question which was asked earlier in the week and was
Oral Questions
based, as I understand, on a newspaper report that the Canadian delegation was filibustering in committee 3, let me say that that is an inaccurate report. On the contrary, the Canadian delegation has been urging committee 3 to get on with its job and expedite its discussions.
As for the trade question, although I have not the particular resolutions in front of me, it came under discussion in that committee. The general attitude of the Canadian delegation is that the trade question should not be dealt with at the world food conference. The appropriate forum for that discussion will be the upcoming trade negotiations in Geneva. That is our general position. I have stated both at Rome and here that our attitude is sympathetic. We hope that the trade negotiations, when they do take place, will confer additional advantages on the developing countries at that time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. The minister's earlier replies indicated somewhat of an openness on the part of the Canadian position. In view of the fact more than 100 countries took the very strong view at the Rome food conference that the GATT is not the appropriate forum because of its past history in connection with agricultural products and the on-again off-again situation with respect to GATT's presence, is the minister conferring with his officials in the hope that Canada might take a more positive attitude toward the initiative of the underdeveloped countries in the hope we can make substantial progress with respect to a number of trade irritants for the underdeveloped countries and alleviate some of the causes of this continuing shortage of foodstuffs that is going to face us in the foreseeable future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the general philosophy of the hon. member's question. The point of difference is that it would not be possible to negotiate trade arrangements at the Rome conference. The place to do it is at the GATT. At that point we will justify the hon. member's confidence in the possible benefits that may accrue from these discussions.


APPROVAL BY CANADIAN DELEGATE OF SPEECH BY YASSER ARAFAT AS INDICATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister tell the House if the actions in the United Nations yesterday of the member of parliament for Montreal-Saint-Denis, an almost permanent member of the Canadian delegation, who ostensibly rose and greeted with heavy applause the speech of the Palestinian leader, truly reflect the approval of the Canadian government concerning the claims of Yasser Arafat, thus replacing the abstentionism which has prevailed to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not been aware of

November 14, 1974
Oral Questions
the results of the applause metre, but applause is not the method which we use to expose government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Claude Wagner: While we are waiting for the minister to check what happened at the United Nations and to be handed a report by his civil servants which he can table in this House, on the same subject-the United Nations-I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could he report to the House on the discussions he had this week at the United Nations when he met the members of the Haitian delegation, and could he tell us if he is personally capable of assuring this House that there will be no reprisals in Haiti against those who will be deported? If reprisals are possible, is the minister in a position to make special arrangements so that these Haitians can stay in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misinformed. I did not meet with the Haitian delegation at the United Nations in New York. I met with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who will be issuing a statement today indicating that our discussions on a whole range of matters concerning refugees, including the matter of Haitians, were extremely constructive. There was complete agreement as to the current handling of these cases on the basis of individual merit which is the standard practice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We also discussed other matters upon which I will be glad to inform the House on some other occasion. It was a very satisfactory meeting.
[DOT] * *



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the very high turnover in Northwest Territories territorial government staff in the past few years, roughly 27 per cent in both 1972 and 1973, will the minister explain to the House what plans he has to counteract this high rate of turnover?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have been distressed by this rate of turnover. Earlier this year we established a group within the Public Service Commission known as Northern Careers. It was charged with the

specific purpose of trying to reduce the turnover and to secure a more substantial number of native employees in the north, particularly in the middle and senior management positions.


Walter (Wally) Firth: As there is an extremely high rate of unemployment among the Indians and Innuits in the Northwest Territories at this time, will the minister explain why the territorial government has set a new target of 10 per cent northern staff by 1975, a cut-back of 65 per cent from targets set by the minister's predecessors? Is the minister admitting defeat in this area?


J. Judd Buchanan: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain of this figure. I know that within the federal service the figure is roughly 18 Vi per cent for native employees. I will have to look into the one for the territorial government.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Now that the chairman of the CRTC has taken over the authority to administer the CBC and is trying to take over the authority of parliament itself, will the minister refer the report entitled "Radio frequencies are public property" to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for study and recommendation?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, if I may offer a personal view on the premise, I do not think there is a shade of truth in either. I will have to look into the report which the hon. member mentioned and report back to the House or to him directly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister today advise if the government is any closer to deciding whether Canada is going to take part in the United Nations Middle East debate, especially in view of the speech given yesterday by the representative of the Palestinian Liberation Organization?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it is certain there will be a statement by a Canadian representative before the close of the debate. I am not sure when that statement will be made, but it will be made.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise whether Canadian participation in the debate will be directed, among other
November 14, 1974

things, to making it clear to the world that the Canadian position that Israel has the right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries is completely inconsistent with the PLO position, which was reaffirmed in June 1974 and again yesterday at the United Nations, that its aim is to establish a Palestinian state within the boundaries of the British mandate as of 1948 which will of course mean extinction of the state of Israel.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the statement is under consideration at the present time. I hope that when it is given it will satisfy the hon. member in at least a number of points he raised in his question.



WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLYING WHITE BEANS TO NEEDY COUNTRIES

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In answer to a question a few moments ago, after consultation with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the minister indicated that there may be trouble supplying the amount of grain Canada might like to commit to needy countries. Has the minister given consideration to using a considerable amount of white beans from the Ontario Bean Marketing Board which are presently available and waiting to be shipped?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that we committed ourselves at the Rome conference to increase our non-grain food commitment by 50 per cent for the three forthcoming years. Hopefully this item can be considered for inclusion as part of our food aid.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. When announcing the government's agreement to increase Bell telephone rates on September 6, the minister assured the House and the people of Canada that his department would consider monitoring the financial operations of that company. As the profits for Bell Canada under the old rates for the first nine months of this year represent a 24 per cent increase over the same period last year, will the minister inform the House whether his department has reached a conclusion that the previous agreement to increase rates might have been mistaken and some kind of roll-back should be brought into effect.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping a close watch on these developments. The figures that the hon. member has just given are probably exact, but are part of an average. They do not take into account the actual curve which might
Oral Questions
possibly lead us to conclusions that, to say the least, would be doubtful for the moment. However, we are still proceeding on this.


John Edward Broadbent: Most Canadians having reached the conclusion that profits are too high, would the minister inform the House at what level of profit his department would reach the conclusion that the rates charged by Bell Telephone were too high?


Gérard Pelletier: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the member should know that; the pertinent figures are given in a public paper. The decisions of the CTC deal with a certain percentage of revenue, but apart from that percentage, the CTC no doubt would feel that the profits have been either too low or too high. The percentage is defined in the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission.



SUGGESTED USE OF FORMULA FOR GRANTING RATE INCREASES TO BELL CANADA

John Edward Broadbent: My final supplementary relates to the comment made by the President of Bell Canada in a speech in Montreal yesterday to the effect that Bell would welcome a proposal that it be granted some kind of formula whereby it would not be obliged to seek approval for future rate increases from a public authority. Would the minister assure the House that the government has no intention of conceding a formula which would permit the automatic escalation of Bell Canada rates?


Gérard Pelletier: Such an assurance was given on September 6. For the time being, the government has absolutely no intention of moving to the indexation approach. At the same time it was, of course, pointed out that the government would not stifle the discussion of any subject and that if the CTC wished to hear people as to the merits or demerits of such a suggestion we would have no objection.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Now that it has been established in this House that Ministers of the Crown receive reports from Statistics Canada some days prior to their publication, is the minister in a position to table the report of Statistics Canada concerning the growth of the gross national product for the third quarter-a report which the hon. gentleman will use in the preparation of his budget-so that the House may better consider the budget in its true light?

Oral Questions


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I do not have that particular report in hand. In any case, I would not want to destroy the symmetry of what I have to say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to follow up by way of a supplementary the question addressed by one of my hon. friends to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On November 12, the minister told us that all the arrangements for his trip to Israel had been made by the Israeli embassy. Subsequently, he said he relied on arrangements made by them. Now, we find out that the minister was part and parcel of the arrangements with respect to the use of the plane. On what basis did the minister think the use of a private plane would be the correct manner to travel to Israel?


Marc Lalonde: What I have said does not change anything I have said previously on this subject. The matter was raised for the first time in the presence of the Israeli ambassador and since for several months I have had a standing invitation to go to Israel, I said that if the time were convenient to the Israeli Ambassador and the Israeli government, and if this means of transport was convenient I would leave the matter of the arrangements to the Israeli embassy. And the Israeli embassy took it from there.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am under the impression, and I think I am right, that the minister knew, sooner or later, and more particularly before he left-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -in the company of the Ambassador and Mr. Bronfman that he would be using a private plane. On what basis did he consent to travel in this way and on what basis did he believe it would be proper for him to use this private plane?


An hon. Member:: On the basis that he could not walk across the Atlantic!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the last type of subject on which I want to intervene. However, the minister has been asked several times on what basis he thought that this was proper and he has replied consistently, it seems to me, that the arrangements were made by the Israeli embassy. To ask the minister to repeat the same answer seems to me to be counterproductive.



SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF USE OF BRONFMAN JET BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE FOR TRIP TO ISRAEL TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: A supplementary to the Prime Minister. In this House on November 12, the right hon. gentleman, answering a question I had put to him, said that the trip by the Minister of National Health and Welfare was excepted from the prohibited kind because of the suggestion-and I quote the right hon. gentleman's words-that the trip had been "arranged by the host government." The minister concerned has now indicated to us that in fact he was present at and party to the decision to use a private jet for a public trip. Consequently, this trip was not in the category exempted according to the Prime Minister's answer. In the light of possible conflict of interest involved here would the Prime Minister agree to have this whole question referred to an appropriate standing committee of the House so that hon. members might consider in an official way all the arrangements connected with the trip and so that we could help establish guidelines which should prevail in the future in case other ministers show the kind of judgment displayed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, without conceding the premise of the question, one which I don't accept, may I say that I agree, of course, with the suggestion made by the hon. member. I would remind hon. members that the government has put to the House and to the standing committee the whole question of conflict of interest as it applies to all members and, of course, any member of the House could help to bring this particular matter before that committee. It would apply to all members, of course, as well as to ministers. I am not precluding any discussion, necessarily. I am just asking opposition members, particularly, to get on with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: A supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that he has made the trip to Israel and back again in the Bronfman plane, may we expect another blast against the brewing industry in the near future?



STRIKE OF PHARMACISTS IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT INTENTION WITH REGARD TO BILL S-9

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is one I was attempting to ask last week of the Prime Minister. But since the Minister of National Health and Welfare has now returned, I will ask him whether he has been made aware of the strike of a large group of pharmacists in Quebec last week and whether, knowing the background of this strike and its serious implications, he will indicate by withdrawing or revising Bill S-9 the federal intention to protect the interest of the consumer and deter restrictive and costly retail practices?


Marc Lalonde: Bill S-9, which I hope will be introduced in the
November 14, 1974

House very soon, is intended to protect consumers and to improve access by consumers to information on drugs sold over the counter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Since the papers tabled at the special committee on egg marketing at the request of the members of that committee are originally in English and that there is a much too long delay before we get the French copy, may I ask the minister whether translators are scarce and if so, can he also tell us whether additional staff will be hired to correct that condition?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire. I do not know whether there is a scarcity of translators, but it happens sometimes that the demand is heavy and that it is impossible to anticipate all circumstances, especially the tabling of papers. It is difficult to expect the Translation Bureau to produce instant French versions when they have not been advised a few weeks in advance.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Although I am willing to accept the minister's reasons, I should like to ask him whether, in the case of documents from an established agency, existing documents which are not new and which are necessary for the information of committee members, it would not be possible to strive to provide translations as soon as possible, I mean, within 24 hours.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have always asked, as well as the government, translation services to give priority to the documents of interest to the House of Commons.

Oral Questions
indeed in many cases what is simply junk mail, to persons having no desire to receive it?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be aware that this bill was brought before the House to be significantly amended. It has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and I should invite the hon. member to submit his representations to this committee where he will obtain all pertinent information either from me, my parliamentary secretary or a departmental official.



COAL SHORTAGE IN UNITED STATES-POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLY FROM MARITIMES AND WESTERN CANADA

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the serious coal shortage which is developing in the United States, will western Canada and the maritimes be requested to supply coal to central Canada?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, while arrangements
between the provincial government and the federal government have been underway regarding a longer term shipment of coal both for steaming and metallurgical purposes to central Canada, it is not likely that those arrangements will be completed within the very immediate future.
 * *



TRANSPORT


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can Canada's transportation system handle this extra coal that will have to be brought from the west and the east?



CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Why does the minister or his department allow the practice to continue whereby, under the Canada Corporations Act, chapter 10, section 111, subsection (1), any stockholder of a company can receive on request the names of all other stockholders, in view of the fact that some individuals or organizations are abusing this privilege by sending out propaganda unsolicited, and


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I missed the first part of the question; would the hon. gentleman please repeat it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that central Canada is going to run out of coal as a result of a shortage and a strike in the United States. In view of the fact that coal has to come from eastern and western Canada, I am wondering whether Canada's transportation system will be adequate to meet this extra requirement?


Jean Marchand: I hope so, Mr. Speaker. We have instituted a monitoring system so that we have all the rolling stock in the right place at the right moment, and I hope this will be the case here.
1318

November 14, 1974
Oral Questions



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On October 30 I posed some questions with regard to the Canstel study concerning a steel complex on the east coast. At that time the minister stated that translation difficulties were holding up the tabling of the report, and he said it might be tabled within a week or ten days. Has the minister any further information to give the House today about when the report will be tabled?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is precisely as the hon. member outlined; the report is ready except for translation. If I can make the necessary arrangements today I will be meeting with Premier Regan in Halifax, either tonight or tomorrow, and we will be discussing the report. I will not be giving him an official copy, as it were, but I will try and get the report into the House next week as soon as the translation is completed.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader. In view of the impression the Prime Minister gave that the question of conflict of interest has already been referred to committee, whereas in fact there has been no such reference in this parliament-I am sure the Prime Minister did not mean to mislead the House in any respect but he did create a wrong impression-would the government House leader give the House his assurance that he will move the reference of this question to the appropriate committee at the first opportunity?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that undertaking. I intend to move such a reference, just as a reference was proposed in the last session.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement in the Speech from the Throne that the government will propose a number of measures to increase food production, and in view of the statement made in Rome that world food production must be increased, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not the government is taking steps to enforce the federal-provincial agreement of 1958 requiring the government of Saskatchewan to place 50,000

acres under irrigation in the Diefenbaker Lake, Gardiner dam area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the answer given to me by the Solicitor General to the question that I raised earlier today. Since the reply to my question, my office has been in touch with the travel agency concerned, and I find that the Solicitor General has misinformed the House, giving us only part of the answer. The travel agency informs me that the RCMP have been in touch from time to time with various people. They have been in touch with the travel agency some time ago regarding a trip by Mr. Atkinson to Prince Edward Island.
My question of privilege is that I think the Solicitor General should clarify some of the statements that he made. For example, he referred to the fact that the RCMP would not be checking on anyone unless they were suspected of subversive or criminal activity. Since they have been checking on Mr. Atkinson on at least one occasion and on other people, I wonder whether or not the Solicitor General does suspect him or anybody else of subversive activity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must realize that he is pursuing, after the conclusion of the question period, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. While this may be desirable on the basis of information that he has, the matter may be worth pursuing on another question period, perhaps tomorrow. I really cannot see that further questioning of the Solicitor General at this moment under the guise of a question of privilege is permissible under the rules.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I think the question that was put to me was whether or not Mr. Atkinson had recently been subject to surveillance by the RCMP, and the answer to the question is no. Whether at some time in the past he was subject to surveillance I did not inquire of the RCMP. I think reference was made to 1971 or 1972 so I would have to check back.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the House leader whether he would make his usual statement regarding business that the government proposes to place before the House in the coming week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-32. If we finish that today we shall proceed to Bill C-25, followed by Bill C-10. Tomorrow, of course, will be an allotted day pursuant to Standing Order 58.
On Monday evening at eight o'clock the Minister of Finance will present his budget, and in accordance with
November 14, 1974

Standing Order 60 I request that the appropriate order of the day be designated. The budget debate will be resumed on Wednesday, November 20, and unless otherwise announced will be continued without interruption on consecutive days.
On Monday afternoon and on Tuesday we will be dealing with legislation. The report stage and third reading of Bill C-14 is of high priority, since it may be best to send this bill to the other place before we become involved in the budget debate. Another urgent item is Bill S-7 which is now at the report stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the order requested by the President of the Privy Council during the course of his remarks agreed to by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, regarding the business of the House for the ensuing week, may I ask the government House leader whether he is in a position to report further on the answer he gave me a week ago today concerning the giving of a special term of reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter with my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and we have just about agreed upon a reference.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 13, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening, clause 2 of the bill was under consideration and it was agreed that we would have some kind of general debate on it.
On clause 2-Definitions.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, just before six o'clock last night, in an effort to illustrate the point I was trying to make, I read into the record an amendment I wanted to propose on behalf of the official opposition. To keep the matter coherent, I would suggest I read the four amendments I am going to propose
Oil and Petroleum
so they will be on the record and available to hon. members for their consideration before we reach the clauses in question. If I have your permission, Mr. Chairman, to read the amendments I should like to put forward in respect of clauses 3, 36, 49 and 52,1 will do so now.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member can do that during the course of his remarks. I do not see any difficulty in doing that if he wants to put the amendments on the record. Otherwise, he might distribute them to hon. members so they can take them into consideration. The Chair really has no objection to the procedure the hon. member wishes to follow.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In
attempting to keep this subject within some orderly form of debate, I think the responsibility falls on the official opposition to make known to the committee of the whole the general thrust of our intent. In my opening remarks yesterday on clause 2, I indicated my concern about the position of the prerogatives of the Crown. I asked the minister if he would take up this subject with the law officers of the Crown, not on the basis of examining constitutional legislative authority but on the narrow question of the prerogatives of the Crown in right of the federal authority and the prerogatives of the Crown in right of the provinces. He promised to do so. As part of that discussion, I wish to move into the question of how, as members of this House, we can protect the Queen from harm. The amendments we wish to put forward are to clause 3, clause 36, clause 49 and clause 52(1).
We want to enshrine in the legislation the principle of consultation before any policy is determined. If one accepts the principle of consultation and agreement by enshrining it into the legislation, then there can be no question about the Queen in right of the province being harmed. In other words, if the provinces, on the advice of the Queen, accept this agreement after consultation with the federal government, then the interest of the Crown at both levels is the same.
I should like now to read the amendments I intend to put forward at the appropriate time, in order that members, by reading Hansard, can follow these proposals and consider them as a unified approach by Her Majesty's Official Opposition in its attempt to protect the Crown on the matter of prerogatives. Having read the proposed amendment to clause 3 last night, I would now read our further amendments into the record and then direct my remarks to the proposed amendment to clause 3.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. gentleman whether there is any particular reason, since he is proposing the amendments seriatim, for not putting them forward when we reach the appropriate clauses, rather than during our discussion on clause 2.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have no objection to that. I was actually trying to facilitate the discussion. The minister and each of the party leaders have these amendments, so I would be quite prepared to propose them seriatim.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member is prepared to put them on the record, I suggest
28543 - 1514

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
that we can debate each one as the appropriate clause comes up for discussion, rather than debating each of them under clause 2. Perhaps I misunderstood the suggested procedure.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is, in fact, what I propose to do. Since I have already read the proposed amendment to clause 3,1 should now like to read the proposed amendment to clause 36, as follows:
That clause 36 of the bill on page 15 be amended by deleting lines 10 to 16 and substituting therefor the following:
"Governor in Council may, by regulation, subject to confirmation by order in council issued by the government of the producer-province concerned, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province (hereinafter in this division called the 'exporting province')."
The next proposed amendment is to clause 49, as follows: That clause 49 on page 20 be amended by deleting line 25 and substituting therefore the following:
"prices of alternative fuels in Canada, in co-operation at all times with the province of production which, in the interests and for the protection of consumers in other provinces, has forgone to the degree necessary to this purpose its constitutional autonomy over gas as a natural resource."
The next amendment we propose to move on the question of enshrining the consultation process into the legislation is to clause 52(1), as follows:
That clause 52(1) of the bill on page 21 be amended by deleting lines 28 to 34 and substituting therefore the following:
"Governor in Council may, by regulation, subject to confirmation by order in council issued by the government of the producer-province concerned and having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection 51(2), prescribe prices for the various kinds of gas to which this part applies that are produced, extracted, recovered or manufactured in that province."
I should like to close my remarks at this time on clause 3, which reads:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province.
As a layman, I say frankly that I am concerned about how this legislature, at the federal level, can combine the Queen both in right of the federal government and in right of several provinces in the same clause. Surely it is selfevident to a layman that before you can bind Her Majesty in right of the federal government, there should be some indication by the minister that this matter has been brought before the Governor General, who has given the consent of the Queen in respect of the right to discuss the terms of this bill. The minister has not yet indicated that he intends to present the consent of the Crown to this House, which is traditional when dealing with the prerogatives of the Queen.
The second question is even more dubious. How can this legislature, without any evidence before it that the Queen in right of any province has given her consent, give to our executive the powers which some of these clauses do which materially affect, directly or by incidence, the property of the Queen in right of any of the provinces? I think these questions are an indication of our legitimate concern and must be answered by the minister with evidence that he has consulted the law officers of the Crown as to

whether it is possible to bind Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of the provinces, at the same time in the same bill, without any evidence of consent from Her Majesty being given either to this House or to the provinces.
I hope I have made it clear that it is beyond the capacity of most of us in this House to give a clear answer to this type of question. I simply point out to the minister, as I did yesterday, that if we passed this legislation as it is drafted and a province or an individual took it to court and the court ruled the legislation to be ultra vires in respect of some of its clauses regarding the prerogatives of Her Majesty, then this legislature would be the laughingstock of the country.
Yesterday I used an example which the minister was not sure was relevant. In that case, the federal legislature proceeded on the assumption of certain rights which it had in respect of Indian lands, and 40 years later a court decision ruled that the federal government was wrong, that it did not have the full right to alienate these lands and these lands should revert back according to the law and the prerogatives of the Queen in right of the province.
I suggest that it would be prudent for us to take a good, hard look at clause 3. Last night I read to the committee a proposed amendment to this clause which could make this legislation binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province. I repeat that we have had no evidence in the House that the Queen has given her consent to this legislation in right of any province. To make sure that we do not blunder on this point, I will repeat the amendment we propose to make sure that the federal legislation is sound.
That clause 3 of the bill on page 2 be amended by deleting line 9 and substituting therefor the following:
"province; and, where the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province, then to the extent that Her Majesty in right of a province consents thereto."
I think what I am trying to do is clear. I would like the reaction of the minister on this point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to the hon. gentleman yesterday and as he may recall from experience, the tendering of a bill to the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown is undertaken only after taking the advice of the law officers of the Crown- of course, the law officers of the Crown are the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General-not only with regard to the legal efficacy of the words of the legislation but also their constitutionality. I heard that the hon. gentleman said outside the House there had not been consultation with the Department of Justice. I can assure him that in this case the bill was considered by the representatives of the department from the standpoint of the effectiveness of what is proposed and constitutionality.
The hon. gentleman raised the question of the consent of Her Majesty the Queen. In a measure of this kind, the consent of Her Majesty the Queen is given in this House in not one, but two ways. It is given, first, by the recommendation in this bill. His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to this House of Commons the present measure respecting the administration of inter-provincial, export and import trade in pretroleum and petroleum
November 14, 1974

products. So Her Majesty the Queen, by her legal representative here, has in effect recommended this bill.
Further, in respect of this, as in respect of other legislation, parliament is a trinity made up of this House of Commons, the Senate and the Queen in parliament. So the act of royal assents which so many members have often regarded as a formality, really is assent by Her Majesty the Queen, through her representative in the other place, indicating that she consents, as one of the three parts of parliament, to the legislative measure being enacted. In this regard, the royal assent in relation to the Queen in right of Canada is given in that way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would tell us if the counter-proposition applies, that Her Majesty in right of a province, in other words, being the legislature and the Crown, gives assent to a bill binding the Crown of Canada, and by doing so Her Majesty agrees that the Crown of Canada in right of Canada shall be bound.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This is the question raised by the hon. gentleman yesterday. Of course, under our constitutional system, as the hon. member may not be aware, we have responsibility for distribution of the overall sovereignty of the country into provincial and federal governments. With regard to the rights extended to the Crown in right of Canada by the British North America Act, of course the royal assent is given to acts which fall within the competency of this parliament, in this particular case by the attendance of Her Majesty's representative in the other place.
The procedure followed in the legislature of a province would, of course, relate and be confined to its power and the constitutional authority given to the provincial government. Of course, the next question to be raised is, what about the interface between the two? The hon. member has asked to what extent the Queen in right of a province can be bound by this kind of a measure. That important constitutional question was decided long ago by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, for the reasons I indicated in response to the hon. member yesterday. It has been decided in relation to that commodity, both in relation to Canadian political history and Canadian constitutional history, which has been of such fundamental importance, namely, liquor.
I refer to the case of The Attorney General of British Columbia v. The Attorney General of Canada, reported in 1924 Appeal Cases at page 222. In that case the judicial committee pointed out that indeed the Crown in right of Canada could impose taxation on provincial property, as it could on the property of a private individual. In this particular case-I think this is the point the hon. member was raising-the Crown in right of Canada, when acting within the legislative powers conferred upon it by the B.N.A. act, can indeed bind and affect the property of the provincial government acting as a provincial government in the same way as with the property of a private individual in any province. In that sense we, by royal assent in this parliament-through the assent given on behalf of Her Majesty by her vice regal representative-
Oil and Petroleum
have the assent required for legislation here; and that assent, extending as it does to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, would bind the Crown in right of the province.


Mr. Schumacher:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are permitted to speak on clause 2 even though there have been some interjections on clause 3 and other clauses. I should like to make a few remarks in a general way at this stage concerning Bill C-32 which, as I have said before, proposes a quartet of government of Canada proposals governing the petroleum industry in Canada which I feel is part of a general program which will create a shortage of oil and natural gas in this country before too long.
Questions were put to the minister yesterday regarding the supply situation in Canada. The minister could not answer them because he had not cleared the matter with some of the producing provinces or had not received any reaction from them. I believe the report of the National Energy Board will show that we have already reached the peak of our ability to produce and that we will be facing a period of shortage commencing in three or four years. I think this is a very serious matter for Canada. The government is adopting a sort of "fat cat" approach to the problem; it is taking a very short-sighted and short-term approach. The government is trying to appeal to the consumers of the country on a short-term basis by keeping prices in tight restraint, without giving any indication whether there will be any incentives for the producers or finders of petroleum to enable them to make a profit. I am very sorry that the government is attacking the profit motive in this area of our endeavours because, in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with making a decent, honest profit, particularly after many years of investment with very little return.
The second part of the proposals will be in the budget which we will hear next Monday night. The third part will be in the PetroCan legislation which will be coming in the new year. The fact is that the government does not seem to be able to make up its mind regarding the ground rules for the development of petroleum and petroleum products off our shores and in the Arctic area of the country. I refer to the land use regulations. It appears that over-all we have a package of proposals that creates a great deal of uncertainty.
The measure before us deals with price restraint and price control which, if it is allowed to continue, can only lead to a shortage of oil. That brings to mind the fact that this legislation results primarily from the so-called agreement of March 27 in which the first ministers of this country agreed to a limited period of price control for crude oil. This government, however, has seen fit to bring forth a document, Bill C-32, which flies in the face of that agreement by seeking to give the government power to control the price of crude oil and natural gas for an indefinite period, on a permanent basis. This is being done under the guise of powers granted under the B.N.A. Act in the area of regulation of trade and commerce.
However, I suggest that this grasping for power demonstrates the poor bona fides of the government and the actual dishonesty of its approach when it attempts to set the wellhead price of crude oil and natural gas under this legislation. I think the government would have more cred-

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
ibility if its power was restricted to interprovincial trade in oil and natural gas, but when it reaches inside the producing provinces to control the wellhead price I think it goes well beyond its constitutional powers.
This bill deals with many other aspects than just fixing and controlling the price of natural gas and crude oil. The powers which the federal government seeks would allow its agents or officers to enter the offices of provincial governments to conduct searches and seize documents. I do not believe that this can be considered a power granted to the federal government under the guise of regulating interprovincial trade. That is why I think the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain have merit and should be considered by the minister more seriously than they have to date.
It seems to me that the minister justifies price control under this bill as being a power granted to the government in respect of the regulation of trade and commerce. However, under that umbrella the minister brings in all sorts of other things. Here I differ somewhat from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, in that he wishes to make this a better bill, while I do not think it is a good bill, nor do I think it can be made better so long as the federal government wishes to use it as a tool to discriminate against and penalize the oil producing areas of this country.
As I said before, this bill represents a continuation of the government's "fat cat" approach. It may be very popular and it may make the government appear to be a hero in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, but I wonder how popular the government will be four or five years from now when those areas will suffer from a shortage of petroleum products-because that shortage will come just as sure as night follows day, if we do not have a proper price and some certainty injected into the industry. If the price is not right, we will not have the power.
I think the possible consequence of the present figures should filter through the skulls of members across the aisle who are responsible in this area. All figures indicate that drilling and exploration activity has decreased, largely because of the prospect of this legislation and the government's budgetary proposals which will be revealed on Monday. For example, drilling activity is down by 7 per cent in Alberta and 75 per cent or 76 per cent in Saskatchewan. In the United States, drilling activity has increased by more than 20 per cent. These figures show what is happening in this country. Clearly, the aims of this bill should be changed; it should be amended. This law must be so administered as to ensure adequate supplies for Canada. The bill as presently worded will not assure adequate supplies. Its main thrust is keeping prices at a minimum level, and that policy is short-sighted.
As I said earlier, the agreement made by the first ministers on March 27 was to expire at the end of June, 1975. In conformity with that agreement, should not controls envisaged under this bill also expire at the end of June, 1975, because that was the time limit for the original agreement? There should be a new agreement to take care of provincial rights. The government would be more credible if it included in the bill a schedule showing the level

to which prices shall rise. I understand that the government supports a policy of staged price increases for the foreseeable future. Oil prices are to approach world commodity price levels. It is government policy to prevent this from happening suddenly. The government wants a cushion which will allow the Canadian economy to adapt gradually to price increases. If that is the government's intention, it is not evident from the language of this bill. Instead, the bill seems designed to keep prices at the lowest possible level.
If the government intends to increase prices, it should say so now in order to clear away uncertainties and show its thinking. As the hon. member for Calgary Centre said, we would all feel more comfortable if we could see the minister's intentions in writing. Let me add, I would feel more comfortable if they were in sworn form, as he has been fast and loose with promises he has made to various people in this field, both in the provinces and in industry, during past months. In my view, the bill should distinguish between old and new oil. I contend that if old and new oil are treated in the same way, any incentive for finding new oil will be lacking. Those who drill wells at great risk and find new oil should be allowed a greater return on their investment. That would encourage exploration for oil. Of course, at present that incentive is lacking.
The people in my area doubt the government's ability to deal with our difficulties. If you consider our history, you will see that until 1930 the oil producing areas of this country were under federal control. Not until 1930 did Alberta and Saskatchewan acquire jurisdiction over and ownership of their oil resources. During the first 63 years of our history there was no great development of oil resources in this country and any development which took place was accompanied with great economic waste. Millions of cubic feet of natural gas were lost in Alberta because of faulty or negligently drawn federal conservation measures. Once the provinces gained control of their resource it did not take them long to introduce sensible and useful conservation measures which, according to many, are the best in the world. These measures were not drawn up by some Big Daddy in Ottawa. The federal government is now trying to take back what it gave 44 years ago. I find that discouraging.
Logically, the government's policies will force the provinces to nationalize their petroleum industries. I notice that Eric Kierans, in his speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation in Toronto the other day suggested this. I do not often agree with that gentleman, but I must agree with what he said. It seems to me that the only alternative left to the rightful owners of this resource is nationalization of the industry. The federal government then will not be in a position to levy taxes on the industry, as it is now.
What I am suggesting is not without precedent. In the last 15 years, practically all private electrical generating plants have come under provincial ownership. The only exception is the electrical industry in Alberta, and this exception was made possible because the federal government, in 1965 or 1966, changed its tax policies and allowed a portion of corporate taxes which would be paid by such private electrical generating companies to be returned to the consumers. Without that concession such companies
November 14, 1974

could not be economically viable; they could not compete with provincial companies which do not have to pay income tax. So one can see the influence of federal government budgetary and fiscal policies upon certain private industries in the provinces.
I suppose the present measure is an outgrowth of the Prime Minister's outlook. He has written somewhere, I think, that provincial governments are useful for establishing the beachheads of socialism in this country. He now leads the federal government, and I suppose he wants to make sure this bill will be instrumental in the establishment of beachheads at the provincial level. That would appear to be the practical result of this major federal government policy.
During the clause by clause study the constitutionality of this bill should be put to the test. The minister should explain why the consent of the provincial Crown representatives is not necessary. I heard his explanation a few minutes ago; it certainly does not satisfy me. It may become apparent that this bill is not as constitutionally valid as the minister thinks. During the clause by clause study we should pay particular attention to writing into this bill the provision that it must be concerned with creating and maintaining a supply of petroleum products for the whole country. We must get away from the restrictive approach that is now in the bill, as it can only result in a man-made shortage of oil and natural gas in our country by the end of this decade.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister two questions. If Your Honour agrees, I will ask them separately. Yesterday the minister made reference to the fact that reductions in the export of oil to the United States would, of necessity, reduce the amount of revenue which would accrue to the export tax fund, but that this might not be offset by a reduction in imports because it would not be possible to ship oil to the area east of the Ottawa Valley until the pipeline was completed. In consequence, there would be a period of time when the surplus oil in western Canada would have to be stored or left in the ground. We could be importing almost as much as we would be exporting. Consequently, the compensation payments would be very heavy in view of the fact that revenue from the export tax would be reduced.
We will be able to discuss this bill much better if the minister will give us some information about the proposed pipeline to eastern Canada. It is almost a year since the Prime Minister announced that the government intended to have the pipeline built so that western Canadian crude could find its way into the Montreal market. I notice from a press report in this morning's newspaper that discussions have apparently been completed between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Interprovincial Pipe Line. It is suggested that a number of options are being examined. Apparently Interprovincial Pipe Line wants a guarantee that there will be sufficient throughput in the line to meet their operating costs and to retire their capital investment.
A number of suggestions have been made. First, the government should guarantee a specific amount of reve-
Oil and Petroleum
nue to Interprovincial Pipe Line. Second, there should be a change in the tariff structure for the whole of the existing pipeline from Edmonton to Toronto and Sarnia. Third, the federal government might build the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal and operate it, or a northern pipeline through northern Ontario and northern Quebec. Fourth, federal government might build a pipeline and lease it back to Interprovincial Pipe Line. Interprovincial, in turn, would buy the pipeline out of payments for the oil throughput. In that way the pipeline would eventually become the property of Interprovincial Pipe Line.
In view of the urgency of this matter, I would ask the minister whether the cabinet has made any decision as to which of these or any other propositions have been agreed upon. If a decision has not been reached, can the minister give us some idea as to how soon a decision will be reached? Can the minister give the committee any timeframe with regard to the earliest possible date for commencement of construction, and an approximate date when the pipeline is expected to be completed? This information will certainly have an effect on the compensation payments and the export charge fund. If the minister could give us some idea, it would be helpful. It would also be helpful to those who live east of the Ottawa Valley. If there is any embargo this winter, there will certainly be a good deal of fear and apprehension on the part of people who live in eastern Canada regarding assured supplies of oil. Therefore, any statement the minister can make on this point will be helpful. I would like to ask the minister that question now and then, if I may, Mr. Chairman, ask my second question later.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the pipeline and the hon. member's request that I review the record and give a current statement, he will recall the government indicated its wish that the pipeline be extended to Montreal in September of last year. Following that indication and discussions with Interprovincial Pipe Line, the company engaged in a study of the route, a survey of the route and an analysis of the requirements. In due course it presented an application to the National Energy Board as it is required to do by law. That application, which was made this spring, had to be adjourned because of the intervention of the government of Quebec which objected to the route the company proposed to follow for the pipeline as it approached within 50 miles of the island of Montreal, particularly with relation to environmental risks created in this regard.
I think I would be correct in saying that the view of the board was that the environmental concerns were appropriately expressed. The company thereupon went back to work and planned a new route which would meet the objections of the Quebec government. It came forward to the board again in the autumn with a new plan for a changed route to meet the environmental requirements. The hope had been that the original planning provided adequate time for the planning stage and approval. However, the intervention of the government of Quebec set that timetable back to this fall. In the meantime, opinions-expressed primarily by the industry-caused the company to be concerned about the possibility, not so much in the seventies but in the early eighties when the pipeline would be in operation, that depletion of the reser-

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
voir in western Canada might have reached a point where there would not be adequate throughput. The servicing of both the existing Canadian demand west of the Ottawa Valley line and the additional demand would be taken care of by the pipeline east of the Ottawa Valley line.
The company at that stage sought assurance that, having undertaken the financing and construction of the line, it would not find itself in financial difficulties if it had to bear the fixed operating costs of a project which, for the time being at least, might not be producing revenue. The government has been discussing this question with the company. I saw the report to which the hon. member referred and I can say that the statement that discussions have been completed is not true. In fact, there have been exchanges very recently concerning a possible solution to the difficulty about which the company has expressed concern. It is, of course, desirable to complete this line as soon as possible, but as well as security of supply we must take into account the element of the exposure of the consolidated revenue fund, in addition to the time necessary to investigate the environmental aspect involved.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
agree with the minister that the matters raised with respect to possible environmental difficulties should be investigated and proper action taken. However, I cannot understand why, when the government and the company were discussing the construction of the line, and when the survey of the route was being made, these financial aspects were not considered at the same time. It was the company which asked for an adjournment sine die because there was no assurance as to its financial obligations in certain circumstances. It seems to me this question should have been attended to at some point during the last 12 months and a conclusion reached.
In my opinion, Interprovincial Pipe Line has never been keen about this line. It was very much opposed to constructing it back in 1961 and I doubt whether it is any more enthusiastic about it today. I would have thought that by this time the government would either have told the company that it was prepared to offer some assurance regarding throughput, or was prepared to build the line itself. The fact that the minister cannot give us any timeframe within which construction will begin or be completed is bound to cause a great deal of dismay in the eastern part of Canada.
There is a second question I should like to ask. It has to do with a report that the Norwegian minister of foreign affairs has informed the International Energy Group in Brussels that Norway does not intend to sign the international energy agreement which is now before a committee of this House for discussion. Can the minister tell us whether or not this amounts to a complete rejection, or whether Norway is seeking some kind of associate status in the 12-nation group, as newspaper reports have indicated? Is it true that Norway does not favour the agreement because she expects soon to become an exporter of oil herself and does not, therefore, consider it appropriate for her to be a member of a group which, except for Canada, is made up entirely of oil importing countries? If that is the

reason, then it should surely make us pause and think about whether Canada should become a party to that agreement.
I do not wish to discuss the agreement now; there will be plenty of opportunity to do so when the committee reports back to the House. My own feeling is that the agreement is not a good one for Canada. All hon. members may not be of this opinion. However, the arguments I have been advancing in committee are strengthened by the fact that Norway does not feel she should be required to restrict her own consumption while at the same time continuing to export to other countries. I think time will show that the concern of those of us who have questioned the value of this agreement is fully justified. I do not think the Canadian people will ever be content with a situation in which they are asked to ration gasoline in this country while we continue to maintain normal exports of oil to the United States. This could happen under the agreement to which I have referred.
The minister has undertaken that the government will not sign this agreement until the report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works is dealt with in the House. That report may not come back to us for some time, so it would be useful if we could obtain this information. The minister may want to tell the committee what position the government is taking in light of the Norwegian government's stand and in light of the fact that the International Energy Group is pressing very hard for an immediate decision by Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. gentleman for raising the question. First, with regard to the Norwegian decision I can confirm that the Norwegians have decided not to adhere to the agreement. One could perhaps speculate that this decision is not unconnected with the trauma they feel generally concerning their economic relations with other western European countries. I am referring to the discussions held with regard to their membership in the EEC. Specifically, though, their decision might have been taken because they anticipate that in the near future they will become net exporters of oil. Norway's position as a net exporter would, of course, be substantially different from that of Canada. Canada is a net exporter at the moment but we depend, of course, on imports from overseas to supply the eastern market, and this position is not likely to change for at least a decade.
So although Norway will be able to take care of its own needs from its offshore production, according to present expectation, there is no real prospect of this in Canada until 1988. In this sense our position is quite different from that of Norway. It is therefore important that we take steps to secure for the eastern half of Canada supplies which must enter this country from overseas, and for this reason we think we should become party to the agreement respecting the international quota program.
It has been suggested from time to time that there is a quality of belligerence in confrontation about membership in the IEG. I would just mention that while the Norwegians are not in, some of the traditional non-belligerents like Switzerland, Sweden and Austria have decided to come in, even though they were not originally participants in the ECG discussions.
November 14, 1974

The second comment I would make in answering the question as to where we stand is this: Because this matter is before parliament at the present time, because we have sought the response of the provincial governments, and because we have not yet received either the committee's reaction or the response of the provincial governments to the proposals, we are naturally reluctant to go ahead. Indeed, it would be improper to go ahead and commit ourselves to a definite adherence to the agreement. On the other hand, if the rhythm of participating in these discussions is dictated by states which, perhaps, do not have the constitutional complexity of Canada is that provisional adherence will be required in the very near future so that the discussions can continue, I have indicated to my colleagues, and they have agreed, that we should provisionally participate in the agreement, subject specifically to the proviso that Canada's participation is contingent upon constitutional requirements, and particularly upon parliament's reaction to the proposal.
One other comment I think I should make regarding the question of exports is this. I have been advised in this respect that the accurate description of the program is somewhat different from that given by one of my officials in committee. The opinion was advanced by an official before the committee that in the event of an emergency Canada would be proscribed from decreasing its exports to the United States. In a practical sense that would probably be the effect. However, I am now advised that Canada could indeed decide to reduce exports to the United States further, even in the event of an emergency, to meet its own needs; but the amount of such reduction in exports to the United States during the emergency would thereupon be deducted from the amount of oil we are entitled to receive from overseas. Thus, in those circumstances, since the matter would balance out, it is very likely that we would decide to keep the flow of oil continuing, in the expectation that oil would be delivered on the east coast. I think that is the only important change that I would make to the general presentation made in committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question before he sits down? The minister talks about entering into a provisional agreement. I take it this would not be binding on Canada. Could not the government at any time up until May 1 next, if it so chose, indicate that it is not its intention to become party to the agreement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly it. It would not amount to definitive acceptance of the agreement which, as the hon. member mentions, is required to be entered into by May 1, 1975. Therefore, if the government decided that it should not ratify the agreement, it could do so without any adverse international legal consequences.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say a few words on the general terms of the bill and, in the time allotted to me, pose a few questions to the minister. I might say at the outset, though, that I find it very strange that we are debating this bill, studying it clause by clause, when so many uncertainties need to be cleared up. In reply to a question from a member in the House, the
Oil and Petroleum
minister said: "We are going to make a decision. We have until 1975 to decide whether or not we are going to enter into this agreement with 12 other countries regarding some kind of common front for the exportation of oil". To my mind, that is a very easy question to clear up. The minister should have reached that decision before presenting this bill to the House.
This bill is supposed to answer some of the uncertainties existing in the energy field in Canada, particularly uncertainties relating to oil and gas supply. For the last two years, countries of the world have been stepping up exploration of oil and gas but we have seen the direct opposite take place in Canada. Something like 50 per cent of Canada's potential drilling capacity has been withdrawn. Thirty-two rigs out of 320 can be equated with a rate of 10 per cent, but actually 50 per cent of our potential drilling capacity has been lost. A lot of smaller rigs have remained. Nevertheless, this situation is a shame. My first question is this: Will this bill right that shame? Will it bring about more certainty by bringing back into the oil and gas industry some degree of confidence and encouragement regarding further exploration?
I was not in the chamber yesterday afternoon when the minister made his speech; I was working in the agricultural committee studying a bill having to do with government intervention in the field of marketing grain, but I did read this afternoon the remarks the minister made and found no answer to that question. I think the minister owes it to the House, before we pass this bill, to give us an answer to the question: Will the bill in any way encourage further exploration for oil and gas in Canada? If so, what particular features of the bill will do this? In this regard I should like to quote from a telegram sent by the president of Imperial Oil. He says:
In its language and intent, the bill must reflect its transitional purpose. A specific expiry date-
In other words, the oil companies want to know when this bill will cease to have effect. In their minds, the provisions of this bill should only be temporary, as was Bill C-18. But the minister puts no expiry date in the bill. I continue:
A specific expiry date, which would ensure reconsideration of all sections of the bill, is essential.
Without these, Bill C-32 can only be read as a major obstacle facing the job of providing oil and gas for future Canadian needs.
That language is pretty clear, Mr. Chairman. This is one of the major oil exploration companies operating in Canada. In fact, this is the company that discovered Leduc No. 1, a company that is exploring for oil entirely on its own in the Mackenzie delta, a company that has done a great deal of what might be called wildcat drilling, which is really what we should ask oil companies to do, whether Imperial Oil or Canadian-owned companies like Home. This would enable us to discover oil and gas potential anywhere in Canada. Here we have one of the major wildcatters, a company that has had great experience, and I might say success, saying that this bill will be a major obstacle to providing Canada with its future oil and gas requirements.
I do not know how secure our reserves are, because the National Energy Board has not reported on them. We are being asked to deal with this bill with suspicion, with
1326

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
hunches, with intuition-not with knowledge. The bill should not be before parliament until the National Energy Board report on reserves has been printed in both French and English, and until we have had a report from the producing areas of Canada, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. We want to know whether they agree with the National Energy Board's finding regarding the extent of Canada's reserves.
I listened this afternoon to the House leader dealing at great length after the question period with bills that had priority and bills that did not have priority, and with how far the government wanted to proceed with other pieces of legislation, including the budget, before Chirstmas. Why the urgency in proceeding with this bill? Why ask members of this House to deal with the subject when the National Energy Board has already tabulated the facts? Members of parliament should be allowed to take an ordinary, common sense approach: they should be allowed to read the Energy Board's report on our reserves. Why should we be asked to deal with this bill in a hasty way, from suspicion and intuition rather than on the basis of facts which the National Energy Board has already compiled? That is the second question the minister should answer. I have seen no evidence of an answer in his remarks. In fact, at page 1297 of Hansard for yesterday the minister is reported as having said:
With regard to the agreement with the affected provinces on gas prices, I think I would have to say that the returns are not yet all in as to whether or not it would be possible to achieve some kind of agreement.
So, again, in his own words he has said the returns are not all in as to whether the provinces will agree to some kind of condition in respect of the pricing of natural gas. Why are we being asked to give authority in respect of price, supply and movement of oil and gas under this piece of legislation to the commission which the minister wants to set up, before we know whether the provinces have come to an agreement on gas pricing? That it the third question the minister should answer as to how this bill will enable the federal government and the provinces to reach such an agreement.
We then come to the question of supply. When I began my remarks I said that in all the world, Canada is the only country which has been so foolish in the last two years to in fact turn off exploration for oil and gas. How will this bill increase our supply? I read in the newspapers that the minister said we were going to establish PetroCan, and PetroCan does not want to displace any exploration companies but wants to give them greater participation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: "Wildcat" Macdonald.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He has been referred to as an animal in Alberta, but not a wildcat. I think it was something like a mule, because of his stubbornness.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is one of the more complimentary remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: One can be called a name for a day or two days, but after being called a name for a year and a half one should look in the mirror and reassess his image.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Or reassess the name callers.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Reassess the name callers if you want. If one has disregard for a certain area, a certain region or a certain province, one can reassess the name callers and forget about it. If one is in an exalted position, I suppose that is fine; but when one is trying to get a piece of legislation through parliament he should treat representatives from the areas involved with a degree of respect or his bill might bog down.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Who has been disrespectful?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would take the minister's remarks in respect of the province of Alberta as being slightly disrespectful, and as an individual who is here from a part of Alberta to represent Alberta, I react to that disrespect as I should if I am to serve that area well. The prairie provinces have fought long and hard for constitutional acceptance of the fact that resources belong to the provinces. That decision was made some time ago, as far back as 1930. A royal commission was set up to study the matter, and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were awarded $5 million for the expenditure of their resources which had taken place prior to that date. That constitutional question has been settled.
Does the minister now feel that he can move in with this bill and arbitrarily set gas prices, deciding that Tran-sCanada PipeLines shall be the common carrier, maintaining a monopoly, with the price of gas set at whatever he wants? Does he really feel he can do that without destroying the constitutional arrangement decided on in 1930 in favour of the prairie provinces? I do not think he can really do so without first reaching some kind of agreement with the provinces. The minister clearly states at page 1297 of Hansard that he has not yet reached agreement with the provinces. Parliament would be making a colossal error in passing this bill without first allowing the provinces to reach agreement with this government, because constitutionally the matter of resources remains solely with the provinces.
Just recently Quebec announced its complete support for the Alberta position, and Newfoundland has always maintained the position that Alberta was right in this constitutional fight in respect of control of natural resources. One cannot dispute the fact that the minister, by clauses 3, 36, 38, 39 and 42 of this bill, does go against the constitutional position of the provinces. I have read what the minister said and he obviously refuses to face that question squarely. Apparently he believes this government is all-powerful and can move into the control of resources. The minister said in his remarks that by the establishment of the National Energy Board in 1959 the government in fact set the precedent which allowed him to move in. However, I suggest that no such power followed the establishment of the National Energy Board. The job of the National Energy Board is to assess and recommend to parliament certain action in respect of energy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To the government.
November 14, 1974


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, to the government. But that does not mean the board is responsible for what is contemplated under this legislation. The government is responsible for this legislation, and the National Energy Board's recommendations can be accepted or rejected by the government. We in this House have not seen the most recent report of that board, although the minister has informed the House it has been tabulated, compiled and is now in the process of being translated from English into French. I suggest that is all the more reason this legislation should not proceed, so that members of the House have an opportunity to study it. I have a hunch, an intuition or a suspicion that the National Energy Board's report will clearly substantiate the case Alberta has been attempting to make, namely, that we require further exploration because our known reserves of gas and oil are not as great as one might expect.
We must ask ourselves how this bill will encourage further exploration. One need only read the telegram from Mr. Armstrong, president of Imperial Oil, to realize that this bill is harmful. The minister can say that as a result of this bill he will be able to price oil cheaply in all regions of Canada. I suppose that is true as long as there is oil available, but there is no more heavy oil coming from Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta. The industry has stopped producing heavy oil in those areas because refining costs are so high that it is not economical. Production is being turned off and further exploration for heavy oil is being turned off because of the minister's arbitrary pricing policy.
One can question the whole area of distribution. The minister is involved in discussions with Interprovincial Pipe Line on the question of assistance in building the pipeline to Montreal. The minister should inform the House of the reason the government is not prepared to put itself in the position of guarantor with regard to the building of that pipeline. The oil companies, no matter who they may be, which own Interprovincial Pipe Line say they will build the pipeline provided they are given a guarantee that the distribution of oil will rest solely in the hands of the government, particularly after the bill is passed. They said they could build the pipeline, but then suddenly the government, with the stroke of a pen, could cut off the distribution of western oil to the Montreal market. So they say they want some kind of guarantee that a certain volume will continue to move through that pipeline.
The minister is presenting to Parliament a bill which gives this commission exclusive power to control the distribution of oil. Why does he not give Interprovincial Pipe Line the guarantee it is asking for, because this bill could make that pipeline economically sound or it could make it the worst venture any oil company has entered into-and they have entered into many poor ones, which is evident when one studies their past in respect of drilling and exploration. I believe there should be no hesitation on the part of the minister in this regard. He will be all-powerful if this bill is passed. What is the problem? What is in the back of his mind which will not allow him to guarantee the company a financial return equal to the financial return of the oil companies? If the pipeline is to be built as
Oil and Petroleum
a government project, I would like to think there would be some guarantee that it would be an economically sound project and not some pipe dream of the minister.
From reading the minister's remarks and listening to his answers to questions, it would seem that he has avoided more questions than he has answered. Even in respect of the questions I heard him answer this afternoon he failed to really pin down the problems or offer any concrete solutions. I understand that with regard to this bill he is suggesting in the order of 15 pages of amendments. These he has sent to members on this side of the House with the suggestion that at the appropriate time he will be presenting them. Surely we need a better explanation than has been given in this regard.
Since the bill contains 39 pages, 15 pages of amendments represents nearly one amendment for every two pages of the bill. Surely the minister should reassess his desire for haste in passing this bill. The passage of the bill this afternoon or next week will not in any way change the market situation. The price of oil is set at $6.50 per barrel. The oil companies are accepting that price and have accepted it for six months now, voluntarily. They accepted the price of $4 a barrel in the early part of January and February, voluntarily, after what might be referred to as moral suasion on the part of the government. Really, there is no haste in respect of the passage of this bill. 1 would advise parliament not to be in any hurry to pass it until we have received some answers. We have seen government action, with regard to the energy question, based upon a short-term solution. One could almost say that in the past year and a half the whole concern of the government has been to satisfy the consumer on a very short-term basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a political basis.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone mentioned politics. Certainly politics were played. I believe Canada suffered a great deal in the long term. This is the only country in the world which has been so foolish as to turn off exploration in the past two years. I think that when the National Energy Board's report is released it will be proven that we have been rather foolish because technical help and technical skills have left Canada and gone either to the North Sea area, the United States, Indonesia or somewhere else in search of oil and gas. It will take at least three or four years to entice back to Canada the technical skills required to gear Canada for further exploration.
It will not matter whether the minister establishes PetroCan. He will then have to rely on the private sector to obtain the technical skills required in Canada. He will not have very much success. There is much evidence to back up my statement in this regard. In the newspapers one can find a long list of ads for engineers, geologists and other people required by the oil and gas industry in Canada and throughout the world. In the past year we have seen short-term action by the government. Now we must take a long-term look at the producing capacity of this country. For instance, we must decide whether we are to encourage further exploration off the east coast.
There have been some interesting finds of natural gas north of Newfoundland, south of Newfoundland and around Prince Edward Island. More equipment will be required. In fact the Hudson Bay Oil and Gas Company
28543- 1614

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
required seven months to prove out its one find off the coast of Prince Edward Island. That gives the House an idea of the problem we are dealing with. The minister has not said that in the next four to ten years we will get on with the job of proving our reserves or proving our capability to obtain oil from the tar sands. He has not said that, and this bill does not say it. This bill in many respects has a tendency to turn off many companies, whether they be multinational, Canadian or otherwise, in respect of further exploration in Canada.
In ending my brief remarks I should like to re-emphasize few questions which I put to the minister. Why does he believe that further exploration would be encouraged under this legislation? Can he give the House and the country any idea of the formula that will be used to reach a price that will be satisfactory from the viewpoint of encouraging further exploration? You can take an arbitrary price of $6.50 until next July. Of course, some people will say that it is too low, and others that it is too high. Each person will reach his own decision. But it will only last until July 1, 1975. However, this bill will go on and on: there is no limit to it; the government will retain control over energy indefinitely. What formula will the minister use in setting the price of oil and natural gas?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Does he seek agreement to continue?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the minister would answer my questions, I might say a word or two about his reply; but he will probably have satisfactory answers since he is so knowledgeable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman has raised a number of interesting questions about this bill and about the oil scene generally. Perhaps first I should bring this fact to his attention, and indeed to that of other hon. members on that side of the House who have commented that Bill C-18 was a temporary measure, that it contained an expiry date: if they will look at it, they will see that it had no such expiry limit. The bill anticipated a dramatic change in the pricing of international oil which has had so much impact on Canada that we can anticipate for the future, and I suspect for a long time in the future, that the governments of oil producing states will be commanding the price of this commodity, and therefore there will be a continuing necessity on the part of the government of Canada to protect Canadians against the kind of oil prices that may be imposed on them from time to time with measures such as the ones put forward in the bill and such others as may be appropriate.
The hon. member referred to the stand taken, both in telegrams and in public statements, by Imperial Oil Limited, comparable to the stand taken by Gulf, one of the major international companies, to the effect that there should be a time limit. One cannot blame Imperial Oil and Gulf. Of course they would like to go to international prices as soon as possible. They will make a bonanza on their Canadian oil if they can go to international prices. It is fair enough for them to make the effort, but it is

incumbent upon the government and this parliament to have some regard for the interests of Canadians generally when we have the ability to protect ourselves against such a dramatic increase as $5 a barrel and when we can take action through this kind of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You don't have to do all this. It is not for gas, nor for the tar sands.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly, the position of this government-and I thought it was the position of the official opposition, but it may not be-is that we should have such an arrangement. Indeed, the provincial premiers agreed on the fact that there should be an agreement-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With a club over their heads.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -with regard to oil pricing in Canada and that, to put it in the vernacular, the producing areas of Canada should not "sock it" to the consuming areas: indeed, that they should render assistance. That was the principle established on March 27 and it is one to which we adhere in the bill. As I said, of course Imperial Oil would like to be able to dictate prices; They would like to have international prices. If we have the ability in Canada, as we do, to protect Canadians generally, we should do it.
The hon. gentlemen made some comments about the report of the National Energy Board and he objected to the fact that the report had not yet been made public. The position is that, just as with the export gas pricing report, it is the advisory opinion of the board, reached after public hearings and made known to the minister under the provisions of the National Energy Board Act. It is in relation to a formula that the board will apply in deciding from time to time on the appropriate level of exports from Canada. The kind of question which the government should state in the form of a request to the National Energy Board should be: What should the appropriate export levels be over a period of years?
It is also the government's judgment that since this will actively affect production in the provinces if, for example, it is decided that the level of exports should be lower than at present, there will be some shut-in capacity which will have an impact on the revenues of both the producing companies and the producing provinces. It is for that reason we have put that report into the hands of the two major producing provinces in terms of oil export and we have sought their response to it so that their views as to the kind of scheme proposed in the report can be taken into account in the government's decision.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The conservation responsibility is theirs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is indeed theirs, but the export responsibility is clearly ours. But before exercising our responsibility we will consider at their comments, which at the moment have not been received. The hon. member referred, also, to the question of gas pricing. As I said, we have had no final response from either Ontario, the major consuming province, or Alberta, the major pro-
November 14, 1974

ducing province, to proposals with regard to the appropriate pricing of natural gas, proposals which we put to them over a month ago.


Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre):: How many days elapsed before the bill was given first reading?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was some days before the bill was given first reading. I do not have the actual record here. The proposal has been made to them, but we have had no response as to what they would consider to be the appropriate price level for gas. The hon. member says we should not act until the province responds. Again, as with Imperial Oil, the province has special interests which it has been effectively pressing here. It would like to get the gas price as high as it can, and for that purpose it has created the entity of PanAlberta. It was created for the purpose of acquiring and selling gas at higher prices to utilities in Ontario, on the threat of withholding gas from Ontario users.
In the same way, it is in the province's interest, of course, under the Alberta arbitration act, that no decision should be made on this matter so that the arbitration procedure can take over and gas can move to commodity value. The government does not happen to agree with that stand. As in the case of oil, we take the position that, while we think natural gas should be phased over a period of time to commodity value, it is in the national interest to try to minimize the impact on consumers. May I remind the House that minimizing the impact on consumers is keeping the price down to the cost of living index.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. gentlemen on the other side make regular complaints about the high consumer price index and then insist that oil and gas prices should be world prices, that gas prices should be related to oil prices and that we should "sock it" to the Canadian consumers.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the Montreal pipeline, I made a general statement in that regard.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but, it being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business in accordance with section 4 of Standing Order 15.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that
Electoral Boundaries
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Consumer affairs- Increase in price of personal health care products-Suggested investigation; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Consumer affairs-Price of anti-freeze- Reason for increased markup and possibility of profiteering; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) - Health-Pharmacists' strike in Quebec-Government position.


Robert Elgin McKinley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we understand that there is agreement that item No. 14 under public bills be considered during private members' hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been agreed that we should consider item No. 14, Bill C-214, during private members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: that Bill C-214, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a hardy veteran, this being the fourth or fifth time I have presented it. The idea first was brought forward as a notice of motion.
The bill is short.- It calls on Electoral Boundaries Commissions to give reasons for recommendations concerning changes in electoral boundaries. Recommendations for changes in constituency boundaries have not contained the reasons why commissioners made such changes.
If hon. members will cast their minds back, they will no doubt remember the last two occasions on which the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act were to be invoked. Frankly, I can only say of that act that it is a minor, mitigated disaster. In many instances redistribution proposals were not satisfactory, and created a great deal of dissatisfaction. Actually the last attempt at redistribution created so much dissatisfaction on the part of members of the House that it was agreed to suspend the effects of redistribution until December 31, 1974. The recommendations of the past cannot be reinstituted. The commissions have changed, circumstances have changed, and it would be necessary to start all over again.

November 14, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
I want to see reasons attached to commission recommendations. At present members may comment upon recommendations but cannot amend those recommendations. Members may comment on those recommendations in this House, and then the commissioners may read what has been said and possibly amend their recommendations. However, experience shows that we wasted our time. The odd name has been changed, but that is about all, even though the general distribution scheme involved the wildest abortion, or totally unjust concepts, or an entirely false premise about the propriety of the suggested area of representation. I am speaking of the representation of people by representatives. The reports are almost always returned in their original form; sometimes they are mildly changed.
All members, I think, have had the opportunity of seeing preliminary reports and appearing at public hearings. I will not repeat what went on in Alberta in the last redistribution but there was universal condemnation of the proposals of the commissioners. I cannot see how these so-called independent commissions are protecting anything. They are doing a worse job than members themselves did in the past.
Be that as it may, I think the commissions can do a better job. But they could do a far better job if they would spell out the reasons for recommending particular changes. Let us know the principles which they apply within each province. I maintain that far too few commissions pay attention to demographic circumstance. Some of them tend to think in terms of numbers of votes, which has resulted in intolerable injustices.
In the last proposal in Alberta we saw rural constituencies with populations far larger than in urban constituencies. The results were fantastic and violated the principle of good representation. In other words, the public must have ready access to the member who represents them and he, in his turn, must have ready access to his constituents.
I am not talking about the difficulty of conducting elections. I wish that commissioners would occasionally become involved in election campaigns because then they would see how wrong are academic writers who blindly support the principles of the act, and how wrong headed are some newspaper editors who piously agree with some of the garbage written about the workings of the act. Only by fighting an election would they realize how stupid is our redistribution system.
As well, I think commissioners should be punished for some of their decisions by being made to service the constituencies they have drawn. In many cases that would be virtually impossible.


Thomas Lefebvre: That is quite true.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am trying to improve the workings of the act. I am not saying that members of parliament should again determine constituency boundaries, although I think they could do a far better job than many so-called independent commissions.


An hon. Member:: But parliament passed the act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right; parliament passed that act, and there it is. But I want to see it

improved. I want specific reasons to accompany recommendations. Members of parliament could then direct their attention to specific comments. At present nothing specific accompanies recommendations. There is merely a map with lines on it, but no indication why any boundary was changed. Therefore I have brought forward this simple amending bill and ask the House to support it.
The motion before the House calls for this bill to be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I believe it should be sent to that committee, where the bill can be discussed at greater length than in the House. I believe the House is disposed to send the bill to that committee. Actually, it was suggested to me through the usual channels that, in order to allow as many members as possible to participate in the present debate, speeches in the House should be limited to 10 minutes. Either at six o'clock, or after the last member has spoken, I think there will be a disposition to send the bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I recommend it to the House.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise with pleasure to talk on this bill as, for the first time, I am in complete agreement with a member of the opposition. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) argues persuasively.
The bill, which the hon. member indicated has been before the House on three previous occasions, is timely as the government has announced its intention to present new legislation which will affect electoral boundaries readjustment and redistribution. The bill which the government will be presenting will, of course, affect only the British North America Act. It will not deal specifically with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
This bill is timely because the amendment which the hon. member for Edmonton West is presenting draws attention to the latter act. I would like to see this bill go to committee because I have a direct interest in the question of amending that act. Indeed, I intend to present a private member's bill which will seek to amend Section 13 of that act which, by reference, is the one in which the hon. member for Edmonton West is interested.
When the hon. member speaks of getting the commissioners to affix reasons to the readjustment they propose, he is in effect referring to Section 13 where the reasons are set down and the criteria are determined. These are the criteria that interest me as a member from Northern Ontario.
Section 13 sets down the subdivision or quotient for any given province, based upon the total population within that province and the number of seats allocated to it according to the provisions of the British North America Act. The amalgam method, which will be the subject matter of the proposed government bill, sets down the formula by which the numbers of seats in various provinces are to be amended. However, that bill does not deal with the division of these particular seats within any given province. As I understand it, there is no proposed amendment in the government legislation which will deal

with this provision of seats within a province. That is why I will be presenting a private member's bill.
Section 13 permits the commissioners under certain circumstances to augment the number of seats within a constituency, or reduce it, by 25 per cent from the provincial quotient. I will be presenting an amendment whereby the number of electors within a particular proposed boundary could be as much as 35 per cent less than the normal quotient within that province.
The reasons 1 will be presenting a bill is because I feel the present situation in the province of Ontario is very unfair to a certain portion of this province, that is, the northern one half or two thirds of the province of Ontario.
Under the redistribution which was presented to this House in June of last year there was a proposal to increase the number of seats in Ontario by three. However, there was a contemporaneous reduction in the number of northern Ontario seats by two, reducing the number of seats in northern Ontario from 12 to 10. Paradoxically, the whole of Ontario was to gain three seats, the net result being that the southern portion of the province would gain five additional seats over what it had prior to 1972. I objected to that position for very valid reasons.
I made a speech on this particular topic on July 5, and continued it on July 6, 1973. During that speech I stated the reasons why I felt consideration ought to be given by the commissioners to my proposal. I stated they should be permitted to increase or decrease the number of electors in one area up to 35 per cent below the normal quotient. I indicated that the provisions within the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act were very astute and complete in their consideration of the special factors that affect northern Ontario seats. I quote that particular section:
the commission may depart from the strict application of rules (a) and (b) in any case where
(i)	special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity, density or relative rate of growth of population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of such regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or
(ii)	any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable,
The northern portion of Ontario represents roughly two thirds of the total area of the province. Since World War II there has been a tendency toward greater centralization within urban areas. On information which is now available it is projected that by the year 2000, 90 per cent of the total Canadian population will be concentrated within urban centres.
Although we in this House may pride ourselves on being able to govern the affairs of this nation, the whole power of the body politic within Canada is subdivided. Jurisdictionally and constitutionally, we have the provinces and the federal government. No one will deny those governments are located in large urban centres and their deliberations and concerns are influenced by those centres.
Economic activities within a country have a great deal of influence on the government of that country. In turn, its economic activity is guided to a considerable extent by the corporate entities within the country. Those corporate entities are predominantly located in the large urban cen-
Electoral Boundaries
tres. That is where they have their head offices. They are motivated by the feelings generated within those large urban centres.
The press, which has a great deal of influence on the development of a country and on the opinion of the electorate, is primarily located in large urban centres. One need only listen to the complaints from western Canada relating to CBC newscasts. All news coverage is concentrated toward Toronto. The net effect is that a direction is given to our country which is really an urban direction.
The paradox is that we have four million square miles of territory. This four million square miles is, but for a very small percentage, occupied. If we are to encourage the development of this area we ought not to start by reducing the number of representatives which flow from it into the central locations. I would be very sorry to find that northern Ontario, which is rich in all that is now in demand on the international market, would find itself without representation. I would not like to see the exploitation of that area directed from the large urban centres.
I am looking at the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling). Although he is considered to be in southern Ontario, his problems are very similar to those being experienced in northern Ontario. He understands very well of what I speak, and is very sympathetic with the position I have taken.
I will conclude my remarks and hope this bill will pass with all dispatch. I will cite one of my early childhood heroes, the Prime Minister of this country in 1946, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, when dealing with redistribution during the 1946 debate. He said:
Do we always realize that the area of this country is enormous-from one ocean to the other, from the boundaries of the United States to the North Pole, an area scarcely smaller than the whole of Europe and somewhat larger than the whole of the United States? Of course, were it not for the fact that only a relatively small fraction of it is regarded as potentially valuable for agricultural purposes, it would be difficult to explain why there are only twelve million people in that vast area; but the representation is territorial and the territory is very large.
He places this comment in the context of the criteria which should guide redistribution, and in his mind, a very lucid and far-seeing mind, he maintains that the primary consideration should be representation on the basis of territory. Representation by population is essential, and I agree we should keep as close as possible to that standard if we are to maintain our democratic principles. Nevertheless the element of territory is very real in Canadian history and it will become even more important in the future as we accept increasing numbers of immigrants, as our own population grows, and as we occupy territories which will then be ready for more intensive development.
I am pleased to support the hon. member for Edmonton-West. There may be other occasions upon which I shall be pleased to do so, though I cannot for the moment think of any.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting afternoon. First of all I am in the position of being able to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on what appears to be the second occasion within a couple of years

November 14, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
when he is winning something in private members' hour. A year to two ago a private member's resolution he introduced was referred to a committee, which was in itself a success, though I do not think it went any further.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At least they reported it back unanimously.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And was that as far as it went?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, there is legislation coming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now here again the hon. member has a bill which has a good chance of receiving second reading, provided some of us do not exercise our right to talk it out, and I have no intention of doing that.
The other thing I find interesting this afternoon, something which almost leaves me speechless, is to hear the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) supporting a bill brought in by a private member on the opposite side of the House. His usual role in private members' hour is to oppose or talk out anything which comes from this side. Mind you, though, when the hon. member from Edmonton West and the hon. member for Nipissing are agreed, I feel I should read the legislation again and make sure that something is not being put over on us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Actually, Your Honour, I do not object to this bill. I am not wildly enthusiastic about it, but I do not object to it and I am prepared to go along with it on the understanding that it be given second reading and that the bill itself, not just the subject matter, be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Because there are one or two things I would like to say in reply to remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West, I thought I would like to make it clear at the outset that I am prepared to support the bill.
I would like to say, Mr, Speaker, that I am unrepentant over the issue of redistribution by an independent commission. I have had plenty of experience of the old regime under which redistribution was done by a committee of this House. In effect, this meant it was done in the offices of some of the ministers-the key minister for each province really drew the map for that province, and the committee just went through the motions. I do not want to see us go back to that system and I am sure that nobody else does, either. Even those who are critical of the present method do not suggest we return to redistribution by the members of the House.
The constituencies belong to the people, to the country, and they are not ours to draw up or carve out, whichever figure of speech you want to use. For this reason, I wish to take a close look at the bill before us and be sure that it will not stymie or hurt the process of redistribution by an independent commission. I do not believe it does and, therefore, as I said before, I am prepared to go along with it. But I do not think this is an occasion for blasting away at the things the commissions have done.

The hon. member for Edmonton West said that the redistribution boundaries produced last time, the maps for which we received in 1973 or in 1974, created almost a rebellion on the part of hon. members. I know that in one or two provinces there were pretty strong feelings about the way the lines had been drawn, but for the most part the complaints made against that redistribution, and the complaints which resulted in legislation being introduced to postpone it, were not against the way the lines had been drawn by the commissioners it was because of the apportioning of the number of seats to each province as determined by the terms of the British North America Act.
So what members really were saying when they wished to put off redistribution at that time, was that they wished to look again at the formula for dividing the number of seats among the various provinces. I, too, think that the time has come when we should consider, if we retain a redistribution formula in which a floor is provided for areas such as the Yukon and Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, whether there are now other areas in this country which should also be protected.
However, I should not dwell on this issue because it is not the issue which is really before us today. I also want to affirm my belief that to have an independent commission do the job of redistribution is a much better way. I know that in the case of Alberta there has, in the past, been a good deal of feeling about the boundaries, but generally speaking I think the commissioners have done a pretty reasonable job. The last one, the one that has been put off, hurt me as far as my own constituency was concerned. As a matter of fact, it wiped it right out by name.
I am glad to see the hon. member for Edmonton West shaking his head at that remark.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They can't wipe you out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member suggests that they won't wipe me out. They haven't wiped me out. Those boundaries carve up the city in a different way, that is all; it would probably be represented by this same member. But even if the commissioners have done things which some of us do not like, I still think this work should be carried out on an independent basis and that we should not snipe at them. I myself have had bitter experiences in two or three cases of redistribution by a committee of this House.
And now, having declared my faith, having said that I believe in the principle of redistribution by independent commissioners, I want to say a few words about the particular proposals in the bill presented to us this afternoon. The hon. member is asking that when the commissions make their reports to the House-reports which result in our having a chance to discuss them, though I am not sure about that; at least it is in the law-they should append explanations or justifications for the lines they have drawn. He says, and I think quite rightly, that this would make for better debate in the House. Indeed, it might in some cases do away with necessity for debate altogether.
My only concern, and I think it is probably met by the way the bill is drafted, is that the commissioners should
November 14, 1974

not be made responsible for producing unnecessary explanations. Out of 264 seats, or however many there may be, decisions in the cases of 200, or 225, are likely to be so obvious that no explanation would be required. But there will be occasions on which such drastic changes are made that hon. members will be justified in asking for an explanation. The way the bill is worded, or may be worded when it comes out of committee, can take care of that.
I hope, as I say, that the interpretation would be that in cases where an explanation is obviously called for, that explanation should be forthcoming, but that we would not put on the commissioners the responsibility of writing a long treatise in explanation of every constituency's boundaries in view of the fact that in many cases they would be quite understandable.
So, Mr. Speaker, let me stick to the unofficial agreement that we made about keeping speeches short and say that, with these comments on the part of one who firmly believes in redistribution by an independent commission, I am happy to see the bill before the House today, and I trust that it will go to committee not later than six o'clock.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to exceed the ten minutes allowed to me, but first I would like to thank the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for having introduced that bill. He said a while ago that he was bringing it in for the third or fourth time. I suppose he believes in the saying: Practice makes perfect. This evening, he deserves our congratulations, because he prevented the government from killing his bill, since all members stated their views when the new legislation on the electoral boundaries readjustment was introduced. This legislation was not supported by all members. I think that the Electoral Boundaries Commission was blamed for its work.
A while ago I heard the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say that he would still prefer to entrust the work to an independent commission rather than to hon. members, even if it should indeed be assigned to them. If hon. members wish to give up that work and leave it to an independent organization, we will have to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that this commission acts with full knowledge of the facts.
Insofar as my area is concerned, I daresay I believed for a moment in this commission and I went along with the others in saying that we could give this work to an independent commission. But today, I am less of a dupe and I say that we need responsible people and the responsible people in this House are the Members of Parliament chosen by the people. When one has serious work to do it is not time to give it to others, it is time to take one's responsibilities.
When I finally got to know what the limits of Roberval riding were, I tried to discuss things with the commissioners and I was told it was too late, that everything had been done and that the act was about to become law. If a Member of Parliament does not have more authority than that in this House and if such an important matter as electoral limits is left up to a dictatorial organism, I
Electoral Boundaries
believe it is time for us to make a stand. We should not forget-and the commissioners seem to have done just that-that to trace the limits of a riding, it is not sufficient to take a piece of paper, to draw a line on it and say: "We are not going there". When a rural riding has a population of 50,000 to 60,000 with distances of 120 to 150 miles, this population is brought up to city levels, say 90,000, by taking two rural ridings and melting them into one; in the towns, it is easy, Mr. Speaker. Take four blocks and you get 90,000 or 95,000 population.
But in a rural area it is not the same thing and that is what I noticed when I examined the electoral act. I noticed that no account had been taken of the riding's demography or of the social or economic contacts of its population but these are essentials that cannot be ignored in a riding. For example, cutting up a small town of 10,000 or a parish in two and making the people go 150 miles on one side and those in the other part of the parish another 150 miles on the other side, just is not practical.
If we cannot find commissioners who are knowledgeable enough in their areas in each province and especially in Quebec to see that justice is done for the citizens of Quebec, I believe we will simply have to, not only improve the act, as proposed in Bill C-214, but repeal it and start all over again. If we can do otherwise, all the better. The government seems well disposed, but I for one was looking forward to December 31 with fear. I thought that, if the act was to be in force on December 31, and if no one did anything, it would have been a disaster, a revolution in my region. I have always thought the role of an MP was to serve his riding. At the present time, it would be physically impossible to serve a riding as big as that of Roberval that is to be created by the fusion of two ridings, those of Lac-Saint-Jean and Roberval. It is impossible and it took totally ignorant commissioners to propose such a thing.
I did not have the opportunity of appearing before the commission because I was not here at the time, but today I can say to the commissioners that they acted like dunces. If people cannot be found who are competent enough to do justice to the people, then let the job be entrusted to hon. members: they will do the job.
Of course, the Canadian population is growing. It is not absolutely necessary for Quebec to have 74 ridings. If the population increases, it is much easier, to my mind, to increase the number of ridings. Their number was increased in order to have all the Liberals on the same side. It would be much easier to increase the number of ridings, to do justice to the people, than to extend the limits of the ridings and thus make the members' task impossible to perform.
That, then, is what I wanted to say about the subject. I trust the bill will be sent to committee where it can be studied further. I am not a member of that committee, but I sincerely hope that its members will try to amend it; if need be, let them assume their responsibilities and present a bill that takes into account the needs of the people.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for presenting this bill. I

November 14, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
might say I enjoyed the remarks of my neighbouring colleague, the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), and was delighted that he also supports the bill. Certainly we both represent rural ridings, and along with a great many other members of parliament in this great country we want to see that rural areas are represented in the best way possible.
The previous bill before this House received a great deal of input from a great many of our sitting members of parliament who came out with the philosophy, "One man; one vote", and said this was how it was supposed to be. They asked why a rural elector should have a vote worth twice, or even more, that of a city elector? I am well aware of the great populations in our cities, especially those two great metropolitan areas, Montreal and Toronto. However, there are exceptions even in those areas where certain ridings comprise perhaps 20 by 30 city blocks containing a terrific number of electors. This, to a rural member, is absolutely crazy.
I can think of two ridings in metropolitan Toronto, I believe Spadina and Trinity, where there is a relatively small number of electors, much smaller than the number of actual residents. A great many people who reside in those ridings are not citizens and probably will not gain citizenship for some time, yet they are counted in the total population. Those members of parliament tell us to look at the number of people living in their ridings as compared to my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, for instance, which encompasses some 10,000 square miles with a population of 62,000 to 63,000 people, and an electorate of 43,000. This is one fact that ought to be drawn to our attention.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), one of the sages of this House, who suggested that perhaps members of parliament cannot be entirely trusted to set boundaries, and for that reason an independent commission is much more appropriate.
There is some truth in that, but in a great many cases the members of parliament know a lot more about the boundaries and where they should be set than any independent commission. As I understand it, in the last drawing of boundaries some of the commissioners sat in their ivory towers in the cities of Toronto and Montreal Without ever going to the actual ridings. They were, therefore, not familiar with natural boundaries such as rivers, highways and so on. Certainly members of parliament might have a bias in respect of boundaries, but most of them are more knowledgeable as to proper location of boundaries than any independent commission.
I understand this bill is to receive approval on second reading and that there may be others who wish to speak, so I will not take any more time except to say that I support it, and I am pleased to see support for it from all sides of the House.
Before concluding I should mention that, as a result of the bill which is to come before the House next week or in the very near future, the province of Ontario will gain the greatest number of seats of any province-I believe seven to be exact. These seven additional seats will probably go to that golden horseshoe, the great metropolitan area of Toronto, and we in northern Ontario will again be left out, Mr. Speaker.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Nipissing that I class myself as part of that great northern part of the province, and we want to be damn sure that we are not going to be shortchanged or left out in the cold again as a result of that bill, while the great metropolitan area gets even more representation than that to which it is entitled. We know the population, of course, is in that area. I was again discouraged to hear the hon. member for Nipissing refer to the fact that over 90 per cent of the people living in Canada by the year 2000 will be living in that metropolitan area. That is not an encouraging fact for those of us who are living in the rural parts of Canada.
This again focuses attention on the fact that the British North America Act should perhaps be amended, throwing down the drain the 10 provinces and substituting five provinces, namely Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and I guess Winnipeg, with the other province being rural Canada. Let us hope that does not happen because rural people are entitled to the very best representation possible. Representation by population should not be the only criterion, any more than what some of us suggest, namely, representation by acreage.
Perhaps we should require a minimum of 5,000 square miles for each riding. If that were the case Toronto and Montreal would come out on the dirty end of the stick, but there has to be some reasoning in order that rural areas of Canada are protected. If independent commissions are to set these boundaries for redistribution, that is fine, but I think they should have some guidance from members of parliament.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has said, that there will shortly be introduced in the House a bill to amend the British North America Act. However, that bill will only deal with redistribution of parliamentary seats as between provinces, and will not deal with redistribution of seats within provinces. It will provide for a modest increase in the size of this House, and I can assure hon. members that I am not telling tales out of school because those members who were active on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections during the last parliament are aware of these details.
Let me now make a few remarks about the bill before us, put forward in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). One of the things frustrating all members is that, when looking at previous maps, we find that proposed redistribution will not only affect us individually and personally but will also affect the constituents in our ridings.
We are frustrated when trying to discover any logical and coherent philosophy behind the decisions of the provincial commissions. To compound that confusion, very often there is no continuation of any common philosophy on the part of the commissioners as between provinces. In other words, we find 10 different philosophies in respect of redistribution within a province. I do not deny, because of the way the population is spread out through our country, that this is desirable. However, I do feel that this bill provides a correction to the kind of laissez-faire attitude commissions take in determining how redistribution is to take place.
November 14, 1974

Those who have the responsibility for taking a decision it seems to me should also have the responsibility to provide reasons for having taken that decision. Right now the commissions are in the position of being able to take a decision without having to give any reason. I cannot think of anything more irresponsible. However, the legislation permits that, and this amendment would have the effect of forcing the commissions to make a reasoned argument to justify what they are doing in a province. It may have a much more substantial effect in respect of the way in which redistribution takes place within a province than is now the case.
I feel the principle of having to explain the reason for a decision is a good one, not only in respect of redistribution but in respect of other spheres of activity. Therefore I am happy to support this bill. I am pleased that it will go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I would hope that when the bill goes to committee we would have an opportunity to focus attention on the principle in the redistribution bill concerning the distribution of seats within a province.
My last comment is to remind hon. members that this bill is no solution to the problem of distribution of seats within a province. It does not touch on that. I do not think it is right for members to raise expectations where there are no expectations possible. It is a very limited bill. I think it will have a very desirable effect. It is a desirable amendment, and I am delighted to support it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business is now deemed to have expired. Perhaps the House will agree that we go back to Committee of the Whole before the Chair calls it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of
Oil and Petroleum
Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Penner in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
B. Keith Penner: When the Committee of the Whole rose at five o'clock it was considering clause 2 of Bill C-32, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had the floor.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I was responding to a number of points which had been put to me by the hon. member for Crowfoot who was with us at that time. I dealt with his query about oil pricing and said that of course the major international companies, such as Imperial Oil and Gulf, would like the price to go up to the international price as soon as possible, but that this government does not happen to agree with that and we think we have the means to protect the Canadian consumer.
The same is true with regard to natural gas. While we think that over a period of time it would be desirable to move to a commodity value relationship between oil and natural gas, we do not think that this should occur in one year. There have been some suggestions by members, such as the hon. member for Crowfoot, that this would be of exclusive benefit to central Canada, as though there was something wrong with that particular group of Canadians being protected in this way.
With regard to natural gas perhaps I can remind the House, and members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba in particular, that they too are the consumers of Alberta natural gas, indeed that a far greater percentage per capita of individual householders in those two provinces than of householders in Ontario and Quebec use natural gas. They as consumers would also be grievously affected if the price of gas were allowed to go to commodity value at this point.
It is for that reason that the government has proposed a formula for phasing up the price of gas, over a period of years, to commodity value in a way that would be fair to the producing provinces, but at the same time softening the impact on the individual consumer.
One of the questions which the hon. member raised was with regard to the financing of the Montreal pipeline. He said that the government should give an undertaking to the company in question which, as he pointed out, was a subsidiary of a number of major international oil companies, in order to make certain that the pipeline would be built.
The position which the government has been taking is that the public purse should not be exposed to any more expenditure for building this pipeline than absolutely necessary to make certain that it goes through. In other words, in certain circumstances we could indeed give some

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
very expensive undertakings to the company. We think, however-and this has been the tenor of our negotiations-that we should achieve our objectives without exposing the taxpayer to a substantial potential expenditure in the future if the contingency about which the company is concerned should in fact take place.
The hon. member for Crowfoot raised a question about the number of amendments which I have distributed to other parties on behalf of the government, and which we intend to put to the House in due course. As I said when I introduced this stage of the proceedings yesterday, there have indeed been a number of amendments worked out by my advisers as a result of representations made following scrutiny of the bill by the general public. I make no apology for that. It seems to me that that is exactly what the three readings procedure of our House of Commons is about, that the bill should be given first reading and that members of the public who will be affected by it, who may be in special situations which may be adversely affected by the application of any clause of the bill, should have the opportunity to respond. The government should take account of this kind of response and, in due course, put forward amendments. That seems to me to be a reasonable and sensible course of action, far more sensible than saying, "We put the bill down, it is graven in stone and we will make no changes."
Finally the hon. member for Crowfoot asked what would be the formula for the pricing of petroleum after June 30, 1975. I think that probably the best answer is the answer that was given by the ten provincial premiers and the Prime Minister when they met a week or so ago in connection with inflation, that is, that the appropriate oil price after the end of the agreement which they negotiated on March 27 should be a matter of further discussion and negotiation in May, 1975.
I think that at that time there will obviously be some conflicting views coming in, on the one hand from the producing provinces saying, "Let us go to the highest possible international price right now so that we can get the full benefit," and on the other hand from the consumers, namely, British Columbia and the provinces to the east of Saskatchewan, saying "Come now, let us keep the price down so that we do not have to absorb this in a short period of time." This will be a matter of negotiation between the premiers of the different regions under the leadership of the Prime Minister.
The hon. member has been saying that we should conduct this kind of negotiation rather than adopt, by fiat, and in advance, the kind of formula which it is suggested will be followed. I think I have responded to the questions raised by the hon. gentleman and will be glad to clarify further, if I can.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have a further question to put to the minister and I should like something clarified. First, let me comment on something the minister suggested before supper. No member on this side of the House believes, so far as I know, that Canadians should suffer because of fluctuating oil prices, or because of high prices charged on the wprld markets for oil. We want to see stable oil prices and a mechanism in this country which

will keep them stable. Further, we want to make sure that oil exploration in Canada is not discouraged.
Before supper the minister was somewhat political in his remarks. The trained seals behind him thumped their desks at the suggestion that the Liberal party stands for cheap oil for central and eastern Canada and the Conservative party for world oil prices for all Canadians. This House must meet any such suggestion head on. We must assure Canadians in all parts of Canada that we are all in favour of continued energy supplies, and that no Canadian will be asked to go short of energy today in return for some possible benefit in the future. The minister has suggested that there must be a trade-off between our needs of today and those of tomorrow. I do not think any Canadian has ever agreed to such a bargain. We suggest that the price should be high enough to encourage continued exploration in Canada.
The minister said that the $6.50 per barrel price will prevail until July 1, 1975, after which he, or the commission to be established under the bill, may renegotiate the price. That brings me to my point. Why are we dealing with this bill today? Why has it been given such high priority, in view of the imminence of the budget which is to be presented on November 18? The previous budget of May created great uncertainty in the oil and gas industry, as it proposed that royalties paid to provinces should not be considered as an expense. Yet here we are discussing a bill to do with energy, a bill which will confer certain powers on the commission to be set up, and we do not know what the next budget will propose.
The people in the oil and gas industry are uncertain. The minister has been in western Canada and talked to the people of Calgary who, I am sure, were not bashful in presenting their views. He knows the extent to which the coming budget will affect employment and exploration activities. The companies are waiting. They have made out their expenditure programs, but want to see what the budget will propose. The minister did not touch on that topic at all.
To show how ridiculous this debate is, let me quote from a transcript of an interview which the Prime Minister gave Ron Robert on November 13, 1974. Mr. Robert was discussing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I will not read the question, but the Prime Minister said this, in answer to whether the pipeline would be built:
No, this is a policy which has been discussed in caucus. I don't think that the caucus has been divided on it, I mean in terms of regions. There are individuals of course who feel strongly against the Mackenzie pipeline, and those who feel very strongly in favour of it. You know the government's position on it.
Now comes the key phrase:
It is one of waiting for the National Energy Board to state, well, the facts of the situation:-
The point is that we are being asked to pass this legislation tonight, but the Prime Minister said that the government policy is one of waiting for the National Energy Board to report. I continue quoting:
-how much energy do we have, how much it will cost, and so on. It's only after that that the government will have to give precise answers as to timing and financing and so on, and at that point, caucus will be involved. They can give their opinions too when they've seen the National Energy Board report.
November 14, 1974

The Prime Minister wants his caucus to read the report from the National Energy Board, but he wants this House to pass this particular piece of legislation at this time. He does not want this House to exercise the judgment which his caucus will be asked to exercise. How foolish can one be. Before supper the minister suggested that the National Energy Board report to the government, that the report will not necessarily be made available to parliament, but that out of the graciousness of his good heart he will let the two producing provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, see it. At no time did he suggest that the report will ever be made public, not even after it has been printed in French and in English!
Actually he hinted it may never be made public. Such failure to disclose would be a sin against the Canadian voter. What did the Prime Minister say? He is the guiding light in this country and he knows how important is the report of the National Energy Board. He said that the government's position is "... one of waiting for the National Energy Board to state, well, the facts of the situation." Only then will the government give precise answers as to timing, financing and so on, and at that point caucus will be involved. According to the Prime Minister, "They can give their opinions, too, when they've seen the National Energy Board report."
Although I have not consulted my colleagues, I think I speak for them when I say that it would be proper for someone to rise and move the adjournment of this debate, and ask the House to deal with other legislation. Surely we are entitled to the same privileges extended to the Liberal caucus. Surely we should be asked for our opinion after we, too, have read the National Energy Board report. Asking us to pass this bill now is an insult to our intelligence and an insult to the intelligence of parliament, especially in view of what the Prime Minister said on November 13.


An hon. Member:: But you are not asking a question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is exactly right. We are in committee of the whole and I can make another 20-minute speech if I like. I say to the minister, why does he not rise in his place and ask for adjournment of this debate. Let us deal with something else, until we have the facts. I think the minister said he would send this report to the provinces.
We should also have before this parliament the advice of the producing provinces. It is foolishness and irresponsibility on the part of the government to ask us to deal with the question before the fact. The press gallery, the fifth estate-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The fourth estate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is right. The fifth estate is the mafia. I am sorry I got them mixed up. The minister knows well of the fifth estate. It has a been a tradition within our democratic system that the fourth estate makes certain that government answers to the people.
If the official opposition were irresponsible and readily accepted the plausible, saleable position of the government in trying to put this bill forward, it would be a contradic-
Oil and Petroleum
tion of what the Prime Minister does by insisting on knowing all the facts. How can constructive criticism be expected from the opposition until we have all the facts from the National Energy Board report?
Will that report be made public before the November 18 budget? I ask this question because of the very important position of the budget and also to satisfy the hon. member to the minister's right.


Mr. Bechard:: Thank you very much.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Will the minister state that those facts will be given to the public before November 18 so that we will know the impact of the budget on the production capabilities of our industry for the betterment of all Canadians? That is the question.
All or most exploration companies, both Canadian and international, are waiting for the budget. The report of the National Energy Board should be in their hands and our hands before the budget comes down so that we can appraise the exact attitude of the government with regard to further exploration.
As I said before the dinner hour, this is the only country in the world that has turned down exploration for the past two years. Was it foolishness, extravagance or do we really have that much that we can turn off exploration? I think the National Energy Board report will make it abundantly clear that we were in fact foolish to turn off exploration. We have lost a time gap which was ours. We could have caught up and met our needs after 1983. Regardless of whether Petro Canada pours millions of dollars into the tar sands, we will still be in a deficit position until after 1983 when production from the tar sands should catch up with our demand. Also, we must uncover more resources than are now known in both the oil and gas fields.
Will the National Energy Board report be made public to members of this House and the industry, or will it be kept solely for the purpose of the Liberal Party? Will it be made public prior to the evening of November 18? I will give the minister an extra half day and only ask for it prior to that evening.
It is of vital importance to the industry and all Canadians to know where they are going. If the minister really wants to serve Canada, he will stand in his place and ask that this debate now cease. The House Leader can bring in other pieces of legislation. We could deal with some of the Senate bills that are before the House if the government wants to kill an extra hour and a half tonight.
Let us treat parliament with some degree of respect. The minister should show the same amount of respect that the Prime Minister is prepared to show the Liberal caucus.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the basic theme of the hon. member's remarks were in his last few words when he talked about killing the remaining hour and a half this evening. There is an important point that should be made for the record. The Leader of the Opposition is making threats about continuing the debate. That is fine. I hope the record will note that.
I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot would not want to mislead this House or the readers of Hansard in what he said. The National Energy Board report that Mr. Robert

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
referred to in his question was not the report about which the hon. member questioned me yesterday. The report he was referring to was the one with regard to the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline which will be produced by that board after a full set of hearings for which application is now being made before the board.
I am sure the hon. member would not try to mislead the House by taking quotations out of context. With regard to the National Energy Board report on oil, I responded to the hon. member on this question as reported at page 1286 of yesterday's Hansard. I indicated it had been put in the hands of the provincial government. It has not yet been put in the hands of my colleagues, either of cabinet or caucus. It will, of course, be made public as soon as we are in a position, as I indicated before supper, to announce our intention with regard to the appropriate export level.
It is important to get the reaction of the government of Alberta on this. It will be of serious importance to the level of production in that province. I agree it would certainly be of assistance if we had it at this point, but unfortunately we do not. The government will wait with patience for the provinces. If in due course they are not prepared to respond, we will have to take our responsibility.
I am sure parliament will want to react to it. I hope members will react intelligently. What the government will do is make its decision as to the proper level of exports, taking into account whatever level of exports the province of Alberta may think appropriate. We will take our responsibility in this regard.
I look forward to any meaningful substantive response which the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues may have in this regard. I will welcome it. When it gets down to the substance of dealing with this energy question, I think I can say that the Leader of the Opposition has been almost the least informative man in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to speak in this debate. I would say that the minister's true colours are now coming out. As far as the oil and gas business are concerned, prior to September, 1973, I thought that all he knew was that gasoline came out of a pump and oil was brought to your home by a truck. I thought that was all he knew about production and the background of the industry.
On Labour Day 1973, this government imposed the export tax. That was the beginning of the intervention by this government. If there ever has been an industry in this country that has suffered from ham-handed amateurs not only tinkering but slamming with sledgehammers, it is the oil industry.
Hon. members think the oil industry is something that exists way out somewhere. They do not bother with it. I say to hon. members that businesses in their constituencies later this year and next year will have cancelled orders for unfilled sales because the supply firms that deal with the oil industry have to cut back.
We must look at the number of drill rigs that have left. We must look at the capital that has been committed elsewhere by the oil companies. Over 60 per cent of the

wells drilled in this country are drilled by independents, but because of the action of the government, the tax proposals of last May and the attempted long range control of the industry, Canadian companies are unable to raise capital and have been forced to cease operations with the result that Canadians are being laid off. If the government only knew the damage it was causing to Canadian industry! But that is beyond its ken.
We know there was a meeting in January, but that was a preliminary meeting. Neither the government of Canada nor the premiers of the provinces knew much about what they were discussing at that time. We hear talk about an agreement in March. There was no agreement-no voluntary agreement. The premiers of the producing provinces were told they could either accept the price or it would be legislated. Yet we hear this talk about sweet agreement being reached in March. Nothing doing!
Part of this bill represents the working out of a one-price policy. If the government wants to take credit as far as the levelling off of prices in Canada for domestic consumers is concerned, let me point out that this suggestion came first from my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition. If that be the objective, it can be done out of the revenues of the government itself. It is not good enough to say that prices are to be levelled off on the back of the industry which is not getting the export tax.
I have not heard that the Province of Quebec is not allowed to sell its lumber at world prices. On the contrary, it is allowed to sell any product it chooses at the world price. British Columbia is able to sell its lumber at world prices. The people of Saskatchewan and Alberta pay world prices for farm machinery and also for automobiles and trucks. I say this is a policy which is politically motivated. The extensions which follow from this policy, as far as natural gas and the tar sands are concerned, are on the basis that the government wants to lay a heavy hand on the natural resources of the province in order to control those natural resources. It feels it can get away with it. But it would not dare to try it in the case of the Province of Ontario.

That would be unthinkable for the province of Quebec, but since Alberta and Saskatchewan are the ones involved, they will be saddled with that.

As a result of these proposals and the budget proposals combined, every province is threatened and a precedent is established for the federal government to move in on the natural resources of any and all of the provinces.


Albert Béchard: For the good of all of Canada.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All of Canada! This is only happening because the oil and gas of Alberta are bringing $5.20 less to the operators. I do not hear of operators in other provinces being faced with an export tax. Will there be an export tax on the electric energy of Quebec or of Newfoundland when it is exported? I say there is a political motivation. We hear about an agreement in March. Well, it did not touch natural gas. That is a
November 14, 1974

new intervention. Consider the tar sands. What business has the government with the tar sands or their development? But ministers are putting their hands on it now. They want to get in, even though they do not have the knowledge.
It would be very interesting, I am sure, if I were to stand here in my place and suggest that the government of Canada devise a system to deal with the interprovincial distribution of electrical energy in this country, and then set the price. I can hear the screams from across the way. "Keep your hands off", they would say. What about the iron ore of Ontario? We need it in Alberta. Are we not entitled to have it at a lower price? I am amazed at the hypocrisy of some of the people who defend this policy.
Again, we heard references today to the mythical pipe line the government was going to get built in six months, or thereabouts-a period which has now, it seems, been deferred indefinitely. It is supposed to be a two-way system. There are claims that Quebec wants it to be a two-way proposition, and so does Premier Regan of Nova Scotia if he can get an extension built that far. Why? So that should offshore oil get cheaper they will be able to funnel oil back through the pipe line. And then, bye-bye to the oil producers in Alberta-"Too bad, chaps, but your oil has become too expensive, so you can keep it; we can get it from abroad more cheaply." This won't wash. We sometimes hear about separatism in Quebec which is on a cultural basis. I want to say to the government in all seriousness, keep this up and you will hear a lot more about separatism in western Canada, and it will be on economic grounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: These great western experts who come from eastern Canada have never been out there. Let me assure them that this can be one of the totally unwanted but natural consequences of this type of action, which is directed at one, possibly two provinces. When we talk about the tar sands we are talking about one province.


Albert Béchard: This bill is designed to help Canadians.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member says it is designed to help Canadians. Let the government follow through on the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain regarding an electricity grid. Let us see whether the government will accept that.


Albert Béchard: In the same circumstances, yes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My colleague from Crowfoot dealt with the question of the pipe line and a guarantee of supply of throughput. I suggest that it is not quite as simple as the minister indicated. One of the uncertainties that exist relates to a point that the hon. member for Crowfoot and I have been making concerning the actions of the government since September, 1973, and its export tax, as well as the budget. The uncertainty that has been created has driven the industry into a marked decline. We saw the same sort of thing happen once before, though the situation was not nearly so bad. This was in
Oil and Petroleum
connection with the government white paper on taxation. That was bad enough. The tax bill that followed was not nearly so bad, but it did unsettle the industry no end.
If hon. members think that the petroleum industry is financed from Friday night to the following Monday morning, then they have another think coming. Funds have to be committed 18 months to two years ahead of time. Drilling programs and exploration programs have to be worked out over an equally long period of time. But all this can be knocked down overnight, and this is what is happening now. That is why there was such a violent reaction on the part of the people of Alberta and from us as representatives from that province to the government's program, which singles out one particular industry in one particular region of the country for particularly discriminatory treatment.
I will have more to say about the bill when we get further into it. I shall have something to say later about the idiocy of the thinking that one Crown can bind the other as to licences, offences, penalties and other consequences that flow from the bill, as a result of the wide statement made in clause 3.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a few general comments on Bill C-32, which is to become the national petroleum administration act. At the outset let me say that I am a strong nationalist and that the welfare of all Canadians must be our first concern. I believe that we as Albertans, because of our past actions, have shown this to be the case. But what disturbs me is that the federal government now wishes to fleece the western region of our country. This bill will seriously undercut Alberta's constitutional authority. I say this not only as a concerned Albertan but as a concerned Canadian. If the federal government is allowed to invade provincial authority in this area, what is going to stop it from invading provincial authority in other areas? Other provinces have other resources that may well be on the chopping block of this federal administration.
Throughout history natural resources have been a lot more than mere financial problems of provincial and federal governments. It now appears that the federal government wants all the gravy. For 50 years the west lived or died on its agricultural base. Now the oil fields and gas fields have changed that considerably. A great many of the benefits that have emerged in the west over recent years are the result of our natural resource development, and the same is true for the future. It is not only a matter of money, but the principle of Ottawa's interfering where it ought not to be interfering. Ottawa is intruding simply because it wishes to have part of the bonanza, only because it wishes to have part of this wealth.
Ottawa's interference is going to stagnate our oil development. Rising world prices should be serving to stimulate the exploration of oil development, but this will not happen with the system that the federal government plans to impose. This government has responded with great enthusiasm, hiring more people to survey, to collect data, and to search for reasons as to why it should be involved in this area. As far as I am concerned, the government has created more problems that it has cured. The more government becomes involved, the more it is going to cost us. If it takes 20 per cent of the wage earner's money now, it will

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
take 30 to 50 per cent after the government has taken control.
It is hard for me to understand why so many people want more government involvement. In Manitoba there is a government that wishes to control everything, yet one of its own corporations, Manitoba Hydro, is contracting out more of its work to private individuals because it gets no efficiency out of its own departments.
The federal government is putting artificial props in certain places and plugging certain holes at different times, and the result is total confusion. Now is the time to stop this confusion and to formulate policies so that one area is not discriminated against in the way that this bill provides. We, as elected representatives, have a responsibility to guard against these interferences, and now is the time for us to act. Bill C-32 is an intrusion on provincial authority, and for that reason I do not believe it is worthy of our support.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Chairman, this debate now going on on Bill C-32 is rather important, I would say very important, since it concerns federal-provincial relations on energy development and use.
The development as well as the use of energy have until now been matters of provincial jurisdiction and reasonably accepted as such.
However, because there have been for a couple of years restrictions or an alleged shortage of energy, the federal government took the initiative in poking its nose in provincial matters. It has not been doing so for only two years!
I remember very well, as do my colleagues who then sat in the House, the ferocious battle the government of British Columbia had to fight against the federal government with regard to the agreements British Columbia and the United States had concluded about the Columbia River Treaty.
Ottawa thrust its nose into that to embarrass the provincial government and, in the end, the provincial authorities were fairly victorious. No Canadian province wants the federal government to interfere in its affairs. Be it Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, the Maritimes, each one cherishes its autonomy and refuses to be dictated to by Ottawa.
This, Mr. Chairman, does not prevent meetings between Canadian provinces and the federal government, in the mutual respect of the two levels of government, but with constant consideration for the provincial rights so that they may not be infringed upon and so that the provinces may take their own decisions. I think that there is no Canadian in Alberta who would want the Maritimes to suffer and that there is none in the Maritimes who would wish such a fate for the western provinces. This is my conviction. That there should be elements protesting against one another, elements from the west against those from the east or from the east against the west, this is obviously inevitable. These people hinder not only the development of our natural resources, but the spirit of

Canadian unity because they are taking completely foolish positions.
Recently, I had occasion to meet, in Toronto, on Pierre Berton's program, Mr. Harridence, a separatist lawyer from Alberta. He lives in Calgary. I believe he was at one time either leader of the Conservative party in Alberta or a candidate to the leadership of that party. He is the fellow who said, out west, during the pseudo energy crisis: "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark." A separatist-


Stanley Howard Knowles: In French, please!


David Réal Caouette: "Laissez ces batards de l'Est geler a la noirceur!"
That reflected the same spirit that animates some people we hear in the east who say: "If things are not going well in Canada, it is because the west spends its time begging for help. The west gets more than the east." Some even make of it a French versus the English problem.
In the meantime, all hell breaks loose; hardly any problems are solved and the federal government, instead of putting out the fires, instead of setting up a consultation system, throws oil on the fire, compounding the problem. So, this is where we are now, Mr. Chairman, and I think the federal government should play a leading part and assume its own responsibilities, not by restricting provincial rights but by gathering the provinces at a round table and having them agree to let all Canadians benefit from our natural resources. Then, Mr. Chairman, I think Canadians would be satisfied.
Anyone today can say: We have oil out west, so who cares about the others. But who can tell that in five or ten years oil will still be in as great demand as it is today? Will nuclear energy not be used for pacific purposes, or will it not replace oil just as oil supplanted coal? The federal government then has to interfere with coal mining activities, not only in the maritime provinces, but also in the western provinces, to help them develop those natural resources. But that is no reason why the federal government should say: Those riches belong to us because no province wants to share what it has got.
In Quebec, the magic word is hydroelectric power, and that is natural, we have more than enough-and then some. Same thing as regards forests. Sometimes, a province may own riches required by the whole population, then later it has to turn to another province to get another commodity. So why should we say: We are going to tax Alberta because its products are selling so well at the moment. Its products are in such demand that we are going to tax it to punish it for having too many natural resources. And the same attitude would apply to Quebec and Ontario. Why should we say that?
In the mining field for instance, some mining companies are now urging the federal government to let them go ahead with the development of new mines. That is as far as it goes because the government would immediately be told: you take from us our gains, our profits. So, the companies are not interested in working for the benefit of the government.
Same situation in Alberta, where nobody is interested in working for the benefit of the government. Saskatchewan
November 14, 1974

owns other natural resources, potash for example. Is Saskatchewan willing to have its policy dictated by the federal government? No.
The federal government's role is to maintain balance and harmony among all the provinces, and the only way to do so is to respect the authority and autonomy of every one of them. I believe the federal government should act as a conciliator, but also as the agent which will examine the possibilities for Canadians to benefit from the development of those natural resources on the international markets.
Mr. Chairman, there is not one provincial premier in Canada who wants to kneel before the federal government to get the permission to exploit the resources of his province. The former premier of Saskatchewan-he is sitting on my right-did not want Ottawa to dictate what he was to do. He had to take his responsibilities, he wanted to take them. The same thing is valid today for the other provincial premiers.
I, for one, say that Ottawa should not penalize a province because it has natural resources, but it should help that province get the maximum out of its natural resources and always keep in mind first, the fulfillment of the needs of the Canadian people, and then consider exports, if we have something left to trade with others. Exports should not be taxed in one province to punish it because it is exporting oil to the United States, for example. Quebec should not be penalized for exporting electricity to Ontario or to the United States; that would be absolutely ridiculous.
Bill C-32 would allow us to tax provinces with production surpluses or natural resources. Mr. Chairman, that bill will not last ten years before some government, whoever they might be, will regret it and will probably have to, if not cancel it, at least amend it to allow the provinces to get on with their own business and be shown the respect they deserve.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, this debate has been good in that it has drawn attention to certain factors that have been overlooked. The main question is whether the government's stand on the price of oil will assure us of a supply in the next four, five or 10 years. Canada has an abundance of energy resource for the foreseeable future, but it will be expensive, and we are now being warned by industry that we could well have a shortage in the early 1980's. Even taking into allowance industrial over-statement, I think we might well have a shortage of conventional crude in the 1980's and become more dependent on foreign supplies.
I think we face this possible future shortage because of the rigidity in setting the price at $6.50 without encouraging development. We are assuming that because $6.50 is high, companies will still continue to search for oil, when in fact oil companies feel they might as well cease exploration and take whatever they can get now, then when the oil runs out they will not have lost anything. I think we are making a grave mistake because we are now at the stage the United States oil industry found itself in the early 1950's. At that time the price of oil and gas was such that it encouraged wasteful use rather than conservation.
Oil and Petroleum
That wasteful use is now taking place here, and I cite, for example, the use of natural gas to fire some of Ontario Hydro's generating plants.
I do not think that this pricing mechanism of the government will encourage the supply of oil and gas. Coupled with this price the government has set of $6.50, and no indication of what will be done to encourage production and exploration, we have had the budget of last spring which was termed a disaster so far as the oil industry was concerned. Certainly until the twin problem of setting a proper price for oil and the mechanism for doing it is devised-until we know what the government intends to do so far as this is concerned-we really will not have any meaningful discussion of the problem.
Obviously the oil industry can only continue exploration if it is allowed a fair return on its investment. It is stated that the cash flow in respect of new oil would be $1.66 in Alberta on the basis of the May budget proposals, whereas in the United States for new oil the cash flow would be about $5.06 after allowing royalties of 12.5 per cent and a corporate tax of 48 per cent. Exploration is more attractive in the United States.
Apparently some 40 companies have opened offices in Denver, Colorado, and 10 per cent of Canadian drilling rigs are down there. Until we at least reach a normal level of exploration it would seem that we face considerable difficulty. It has been forecast that out of 250 drilling rigs which have been available in Alberta and British Columbia only 110 will be available in these two provinces by next January. This means that we are losing these rigs-the minister has not denied this-and are also losing experienced personnel. This is an indication that in Canada we cannot isolate ourselves from the United States or world markets.
What is the problem in respect of the $6.50 per barrel price? The system is rigid. There is no premium for new oil. There is no differential between old oil, adolescent oil or new oil, and with the present tax situation the industry does now know where it is headed.
As I have said, I suggest there is too much rigidity in respect of the pricing of oil by the government. I would hope that by his attitude the minister would show that he hopes to have some sort of a differential for new oil flows. There must be a standard method of encouraging production. If this were the situation the bill might be seen in a better light. But certainly the pricing of oil as set forth in this bill would indicate that the exploration and production of oil are secondary to holding down the price. While this might be advantageous to all of us, because we like to have low priced oil, it will not do us much good if the result should be a shortage in four or five years.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the minister rather than make any general remarks I should like to address a few short questions to him. First I should like to ask the minister whether he considers this price control regime to be permanent?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, one cannot, given the uncertainties of the international market, be certain of that, but I think it is very likely, as I said earlier

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
in the debate, that the OPEC countries will continue to the extent they can to enforce their prices on the consuming countries.
From the standpoint that if it is to be a government which controls the price of oil in Canada, it is the feeling of the government that it should be the Government of Canada rather than the governments of the oil-producing countries. This will depend very much, I believe, on where the international price goes. I think if we have learned anything from the events of the last year it is that there has been a series of highly mercurial developments. One thing I think that is clear is that the impetus within OPEC will be to keep the price up, and to that extent, and to the extent we have this power in Canada, I think we should try to cushion the impact of high international prices against Canadians.


Harvie Andre: I still have not received an answer to my question. I doubt that there is any point in repeating it because I probably will not receive an answer. Numerous remarks have been made by a number of members during this debate, and of course, there have been remarks made in committee, as well as numerous comments in the press to the effect that there has been a decrease of oil exploration and development in Canada, and that in fact Canada is the only petrolific area in which there has been a decrease in exploration and development in the last year and a half.
Having an awareness of this situation does the minister feel that the situation has reached a point of some concern? In other words does he, as the minister presumably responsible for healthy industries, feel the current situation in absolute terms and in terms of the trends that are developing is a matter of some concern which requires some different action?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think we naturally would have preferred that some of their energies had been deployed in Canada, rather than moving down to Montana and Wyoming, for example. We recognize, on the other hand, the appeal of those rather more attractive geological deposits over those in the western Canada sedimentary base. Very naturally, if there should be any substantial drop in exploration, particularly in the more productive areas of Canada-and I am talking about the north and the offshore-this would be a matter of great concern.


Harvie Andre: This is the second question to which I have not received an answer. Let me try again, because this is a matter of just more than minor importance. The fact of the matter is there has been a considerable loss of personnel and equipment to other areas, not just to the United States. I have in mind the North Sea, Indonesia and other parts of the world. The fact remains that surely it must be of concern to the government, and to this minister, that we are the only petrolific area in the world that has had a decrease in exploration and development in the last year and a half. Surely that fact must be of concern.
I suggest to the minister that there must be some encouragement, some indication that he appreciates the problem, and will not in fact allow a deterioration of

drastic proportions in the oil and gas industry. If there were such encouragement it would certainly help. Perhaps it would not cure the situation, because we need some positive action. However, we should at least have some indication that he is aware of what has happened and that his government feels it has some responsibility in this regard.
Again I ask the minister: what contingency plan does he anticipate to restore the necessary exploration and development activities so that we will remain a self-sufficient nation in respect of the hydrocarbon energies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that I have responded numbers of times to the hon. member for Calgary Centre on these various points but he keeps on putting the same questions. I do not expect ever to satisfy him with these particular responses. He knows, or should know that, for example, oil exploration ebbs and flows, the primary determinant is the geological potential at any particular time. Of course, the North Sea being a particularly hot area at this point and Indonesia being another one, this capital in a highly mobile industry will migrate to those areas. On the other hand the position that the government has taken-and I think it is a little difficult to understand where the official opposition stands on this-is that we should not increase the oil price.
Certainly one can attract a lot of money by increasing the price to international levels, but would it be in the general interest of Canadians to do so? We do not think it would be, Mr. Chairman. We think it would be desirable to have an appropriate division of revenue so that industry gets its share, and this is something which my colleague will be dealing with in the budget. However with regard to the rather apocalyptic terms in which the hon. member likes to describe that industry, I suppose he has to do a little puffing for his clientele, for his constituents in Calgary. We do not happen to see it in the same apocalyptic terms that he does.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I could say that the minister does not see it in the same terms as I see it because it is not his constituents and friends who are moving. But, for goodness sake, he is the minister responsible for the energy industries in Canada and I do not know why he cannot take a lesson from his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, who makes no bones about being concerned about the health of the industry for which he is responsible.
I realize that there are more political points to be gained by taking pot shots at Gulf, Imperial Oil and so on. Perhaps he could leave that sort of activity to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, because that is more in line with that minister's responsibilities. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is supposed to be concerned about the long term health of the industry which employs many thousands of Canadians. Perhaps they do not live in his constituency, but they live in Canada and they are concerned about their future. People who live in his constituency have to heat their homes, and unless this trend is arrested we will be short of hydrocarbon and we
November 14, 1974

will become a net importer. It is tragic that we should get ourselves in that position when it is so unnecessary.
The minister has stated deliberately that it is the view of our party that the price of crude oil should go up to the international prices now. He knows full well that this is not the policy of our party and that it has never been that. In fact our party was the first party to recognize that there should be a uniform price for crude oil across Canada, and that it should be less than the international price.
With regard to a just share of the income, let me remind the minister how we arrived at what is a just share of the petrodollar. A couple of weeks after the freeze was applied on September 4, 1973, the export tax had to be invented because of the National Energy Board Act, and 100 per cent of that export tax was to go to the producing provinces. That was a commitment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


Harvie Andre: Then that commitment was changed to 50-50. But indirectly, 100 per cent was to be spent in the producing areas. That was the first promise. The second one was that the producing provinces would get 50 per cent of the export tax. Then the government said: no, we will use the export tax to subsidize eastern consumers. I will not go over the whole history. Suffice it to say that the March 27 agreement was the basis for it, and indeed the minister, in speaking on the predecessor of this bill in the last parliament, stated that one of the major reasons for the price of crude oil being increased from $4 to $6.50 was to provide the industry with the extra money which it would require to justify its exploration and development.
At that stage I thought, aha, at last the minister recognizes that there must be some incentive or else people will not explore and develop. Exactly one month to the day later, his colleague, the Minister of Finance, came in with a budget which confiscated that extra revenue.
If the minister will state frankly and make a personal commitment right here and now that he, as the minister responsible for the energy industries in Canada, will give his word that he will ensure that this industry is allowed to retain a sufficient proportion of the petroleum dollar to allow it to proceed with the type of exploration and development we, as a nation, need to remain self-sufficient, that would go a long way. If he makes that commitment and later, in the back halls or wherever decisions are made, he is forced again to swallow his words, or his colleague, the Minister of Finance takes action that would make this minister's words meaningless, perhaps he will have the honour, displayed in the past, to submit his resignation.
There was a time when I was taught in school that it was part of the British democratic system that when a minister gave his word, you could depend on it because, if he could not keep it, honour dictated that he resign. Little did I know. I will have to find that teacher and tell him that he has not met Donald Macdonald.
There is one point that I would like to make regarding gas price controls, a subject which has not been discussed to any great degree. The minister indicated that he feels it will be necessary to control gas prices up to commodity
Oil and Petroleum
value. I hope that everybody heard him say "up to commodity value" because, based on past experience, we can expect some pronouncements in the not too distant future regarding the meaning of commodity value, a meaning which might be totally remote from any realistic meaning. Although it may not do any good, let me remind the minister that that would be another broken commitment.
I think it is worth mentioning that the price of natural gas in Canada has never been at commodity level. It has always been underpriced. Tragically this has resulted in waste, and this is probably the best view fit. In terms of its potential for producing fertilizers, chemicals and other higher value added commodities, it is a tragedy to be wasting this fuel in generating electricity and in other ways.
It is certainly high time that we brought this valuable fuel up to commodity value so that this wastage can cease. I think it bears mentioning-although that probably will not have any influence on the government-that the only thing that is preventing natural gas from seeking its fair value, its commodity value on the market, is the fact that we have a monopoly purchasing situation. You can remove that monopoly, that bottleneck, from the entire market if you require TransCanada Pipe Lines to be a common carrier. If you take that simple action the market place will establish the true and fair level of gas prices. We do not need a hired bunch of experts. We do not need big brother interfering in industry and other aspects of life. What we need is that simple action.
I am sure the minister is aware of my ideas, and I am sure they run counter to his philosophy. Only occasionally does he feel it necessary to genuflect to the principle of free enterprise. The rest of the time he seems bent on doing what he can to destroy free enterprise in the oil and gas industries.
Before sitting down, let me echo something the hon. member for Crowfoot said. I am truly saddened to see that the minister responsible for our security of energy supplies has brought forward this bill which, according to its stated purposes, is designed to protect the consumer from the vagaries of supply. Yet the minister shows no apparent concern about decreasing exploration and development activity in Canada. Without such activity this country will become a net importer of energy in a few years. Instead of being concerned about this, the minister seems bent on winning the battle with the provincial governments. I say that a minister with priorities so distorted should seek another portfolio.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I want to spend a few minutes discussing this bill calmly and quietly, in the way the minister does. It seems to me that several important questions of principle are involved in the bill we are discussing. One, of course, is the constitutional question, the question of the relationships between the federal government and the provinces in the control and development of our natural resources.
The least that can be said is that we are witnessing a two-pronged power play on the part of the federal government which is seeking to take effective control of the

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
commerce in the natural resources of this country. If that is what the Canadian people want, fine. I do not intend to be inflammatory, but am amazed that members from Quebec can sit back and watch what is going on, because it seems to me that this process is fundamentally opposed to everything I ever thought the government of Quebec and the people of Quebec believed in, Mr. Chairman. I think they still believe in those things. As I say, we are witnessing, in this bill, one prong of that attack. The other prong was the budget of last May. Presumably we shall see it again in the budget which will be brought down on Monday night. We shall see the government using its fiscal power to supplement the efforts the minister has made under this bill.
What is happening should be clearly understood by the House and by the people of the country. If this is what they want to happen, fine. I happen to feel strongly that this is not how it was contemplated the country would be governed. Here we are seeing confrontation, a federal government policy which attempts to overwhelm and beat down the provinces instead of working things out through consultation. The government deserved a fair amount of commendation last spring for working out a price agreement. I favoured the agreement for one price across the country; I still do. I advocated it.


An hon. Member:: Conservatives were in favour of price controls.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Here we are dealing with a question of principle, and that question is not at issue in connection with this bill. I thought the government was entitled to commendation for negotiating that agreement. I thought the provinces concerned were, too. I must say that I feel the government of Canada ought to have been charged with bad faith immediately after that negotiation because it changed very substantially the ground rules governing the fiscal aspects. I do not think it is going too far to say that the government of Canada behaved dishonestly toward the petroleum producing provinces. The government negotiated the agreement on certain terms, but very shortly afterwards changed the rules.
What we are now witnessing is a very powerful, very determined attempt by the government of Canada to take full control of natural resource development in the country. This is to be done through this bill, which is to be supplemented and complemented by the government's fiscal thrust, as witnessed in the budget of last May, and as we shall presumably see renewed.
The concept of relations with the provinces, the concept of the country, the concept of our constitution and the concept of our confederation-all this is being substantially challenged. We should recognize what is taking place, what is being proposed and what the government is attempting to accomplish.
Second, I am greatly concerned about future supplies of energy in this country. I will not talk in terms of corporate profits or corporate returns, although one could. I do not say that is an invalid approach. I am not suggesting that. Rather, I want to concentrate on the issue of future supplies of gas and petroleum, and of energy in general. When this subject is raised with the minister he usually

resorts-I think this is the fair way to put it-to demagoguery.


An hon. Member:: That is putting it kindly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I intend to discuss this question in calm terms. When he is asked questions on this topic he says, "The consumer should come first." Although he said in the committee, tonight, that he felt he would never satisfy the hon. member for Calgary Centre on this issue, he has not given us any answers. Although we are discussing this bill, I do not think he has faced the fact that one cannot help but notice, no matter from what part of Canada one comes, the decline in the rate of exploration in many parts of the country, including the western provinces. I cannot help but be concerned about what this means for the consumers of the future. Yet the minister seems to think that this is not really important. That is the impression I got.
We do not have the findings of the National Energy Board about inventory. The minister does not seem to think it important for us to have this information. I hope he will understand that those of us who are concerned about what is going on, who are concerned about our future energy supplies, are most concerned about what the NEB report may show. We are very uneasy about being compelled to consider this bill in the absence of that information.
Can the minister reassure us by pointing out there is no need for us to be concerned about future supplies of energy in this country, and not simply saying it goes up and down, or that the North Sea is attractive now so people are moving out of Canada? He must know that is only one factor in what is happening. It is only one factor in the decline of exploration in Canada.
The minister must be aware that there is tremendous inequity in the industry. It is not entirely due to his administration and the attitude of the government toward the energy problems of this country. However, it is substantially due to concern about the attitude of the government and of this minister in particular.
When asked a question, the minister does not deal with it. He skirts all around it. He resorts to demagoguery. He will attack me, as he always does, and say I am not very forthcoming. He can do that if he likes, but that is still not answering the question.
The minister is not facing up to the need in this country for the development of future energy supplies. If he wants to say that uncertainty in the industry about his intentions is not important because his government is going to resort to reliance upon governmental activity, PetroCan, we will know where he stands. We will know how to judge him. However, I plead with the minister not to treat us as having so little intelligence as to be satisfied with the kind of answer, "Well, it is the consumer who comes first." Naturally, the consumer comes first in the sense that consumers are Canadians, but it is not just the consumers of 1974 and 1975 who are of concern. We have responsibility to the consumers of 1980 and 1985.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 14, 1974


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister may have perfectly satisfactory answers. He may be able to reassure me and others in the House on this question. However, I think it is fair to say he has not done so yet.
There is a great question of principle involved in this bill as to whether this is the direction we want this country to go, with this government developing this twopronged massive assault on provincial control and development of natural resources. Canadians should realize what is happening.
The minister should be prepared to recognize that our concern about future supplies of energy in this country are genuine and justified in light of what we see happening. It is our belief that much of what has been happening is due to the attitude this minister and his government have been taking. We are concerned that the passage of this bill will intensify the deterioration in our energy outlook. I ask the minister to believe that that is genuine concern. I should not have to emphasize that. It is obvious. What is going on now is alarming. It is alarming to anyone who is prepared to look ahead 10 years or so.
Will the minister honestly face up to these questions in this committee and, if he can, give us that assurance? Otherwise it will be very difficult for us to support this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to pin down the Leader of the Opposition on his intervention, I think the significant point is that we are now getting to where it will be difficult for his party to support the bill. It is not unfair to go through the essentials of this bill and see to what extent the remarks he just made bear relevance to the proposition put forward in the bill.


An hon. Member:: Evading again.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, debating again. This is debate.


An hon. Member:: You have had wax in your ears for a couple of years. It is evasion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the loud mouthed member for Rocky Mountain wants to shout, that is fine. I listened to his leader. I think his leader might be a fair man and might be prepared to hear what I have to say.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am happy to listen.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Taking the Leader of the Opposition's analysis apart, the critical question was: how are the measures put forward here going to prejudice the future supplies of energy to Canadians? What is more, are there measures in this bill which, if taken out, would satisfy the opposition in terms of ensuring future energy supplies for Canadians? I suggest that if anybody has been evading this, it is the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: While the bill has some complex legal terminology, it is relatively simple. It is divided into a number of parts. The bill provides for
Oil and Petroleum
compensation for eastern Canada in relation to oil imports that may be brought into that part of the country so as to keep the price down to the current Canadian price level, which is related to the gathering price of oil at $6.70. Would taking that part of the bill out make it any more certain there would be oil supplies for Canadians? I suggest it would not. The Leader of the Opposition chose to refer to it as demagoguery, but it is a fact that Canadians in the eastern part of the country would have to pay more for offshore oil. We would be no more certain of having oil in this country by paying $11 a barrel to foreign producers than by paying $6.70 now.
Look at the part with regard to how the fund is paid for, the provision with regard to collection of the export charge. Would Canadians be better off if that export charge were not used in that way? Would they be better off paying through the general taxation system for that cushion in the eastern part of the country? I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition they would not.
Dealing with the setting of the domestic price for oil, we will want to look hard at the remark by the Leader of the Opposition and compare it with some of the other remarks made by hon. members on that side. The Leader of the Opposition said he accepts maintaining the lower price, but does maintaining the lower price for Canada-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I said the one price and the lower price.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition says the one price and the lower price. All right. The part of this bill with regard to a one price and lower price which the Leader of the Opposition says he accepts-does that make it any less certain there will be oil supplies for the future?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister asking me a question? What makes the future uncertain is the fact that the federal government is taking unto itself authority to set the price without reference to anybody else, without any reference to or negotiation with the provinces.


Mr. Blais:: That is not so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that though he has made an interesting statement up to this point, he has clearly not read the bill. The first part of the bill, to which I have referred, contains substantial provision for just that kind of agreement and negotiation. The Leader of the Opposition argues that prices should be set by negotiation. But what if negotiation fails and a producing province insists on going to world prices? Is a single province, then, to exercise a veto over the Canadian market?
An. hon. Member: Right!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: An hon. member from Alberta at the back says "right!" That is really the essence of the matter. There is to be this veto power. That is the essence of the difference between members of the Official Opposition and ourselves.

November 14, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
We hold that if responsibility is to be taken for the development of a national market it should ultimately be taken by the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suggest the same applies with respect to natural gas, so if there is failure to arrive at an agreement, provision is needed for the final decision to be made by the national government with regard to the pricing of gas.
I have gone over all the major parts of the bill. I have demonstrated that none of them would make any difference to the prospects for the future supply of oil in Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have never demonstrated that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There may be arguments which the hon. gentleman would like to put forward in the course of a budget debate. There have been indications this afternoon that hon. members opposite may be waiting for the budget debate. Well, that is fair, I think, from their standpoint. But I say the provisions we have made in this bill to establish an appropriate price for oil and gas in all parts of Canada are provisions which the government feels should be enacted on behalf of Canadians generally, and having heard the hon. gentleman's statement we are more than ever left in doubt as to whether or not he has really taken any position at all with regard to the kind of oil policy which should be followed in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I intend to be brief, Mr. Chairman, because I do not think it is very profitable to discuss this matter with the minister. One does not get anywhere.


Mr. Cullen:: Not when you are wrong.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Hon. gentlemen opposite can view this as just a lot of political hoo-ha if they like, but there are some basic questions involved here. The minister has made it very clear which way he is going-he did not need to tell me because I know it. He is taking the position that this is ultimately the responsibility of the federal government. He confirms what I have said on a number of occasions. He puts it in terms of "taking the final responsibility". I put it in terms of taking full control over the resources of the country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a gross
exaggeration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says that is a gross exaggeration. I do not believe it is, Mr. Chairman. In terms of present policy I say it has not yet been demonstrated that there is a need in this country to resort to the dominating centralist position which this measure proposes. The government has succeeded in reaching an agreement with the provinces in connection with price and, as far as I know, there is no reason to believe it cannot do so in the future I might say, though, that it will be more difficult next time because the provinces feel they were cheated subsequently by the government.


An hon. Member:: Which provinces?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The producing provinces, because of the change in the ground rules affecting tax. The minister completely ignored my concern about future energy supplies. He tried to pretend that the bill has nothing to do with future supplies of energy or the difficulty the country is now experiencing in moving forward in this area. He evaded that whole issue. One important factor in determining the outlook for energy will be the dominant position in which the bill before us purports to place the federal government.
The minister expressed no concern about future energy supplies. He did not respond to my invitation to tell us what he thinks will happen to arrest the deterioration in present prospects. If he wants to content himself by repeating that I have nothing to contribute, that's O.K. But that is not the point, in any event-although if I wanted to take the time of the committee I could probably show that I have contributed far more in the way of constructive energy policy as Leader of the Opposition than he has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What modesty!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is not the point. The point, as it relates to the bill before us, is not what I might be putting forward. The point is, what the minister is putting forward. I resume my seat saying, simply, that we are seeing in this bill something I had never thought I would see Quebec members quietly accept, that is, the spectacle of the central government assuming a completely dominant position with regard to natural resource development in Canada through the control of prices, and, second, a Minister of Energy who totally ignores genuine concern about deterioration in the energy outlook in the country and who refuses, apparently, to give us any indication as to how the energy outlook is likely to be improved.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The remarks of the Leader of the Opposition were hardly a demonstration of humility on his part. Probably what he had to say can be taken as seriously as that. We are dealing with a bill to meet the energy crisis in Canada. Let me make the point very briefly which I made previously in the course of debate on the bill. The Leader of the Opposition has asserted that the bill will make supplies of energy less available in Canada. I have pointed out seriatim, part by part, how there is absolutely no foundation for that suggestion.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting in this House now for a few hours listening to this debate. I am going to make a few brief remarks and then ask a simple question, to which, I frankly doubt, I will get a simple answer. As my colleagues have discovered, there do not seem to be any answers forthcoming. I am not going to duplicate many of the points the Leader of the Opposition made far better than I could regarding the constitutional difficulties concerning this particular piece of legislation.
As a member from Ontario I have asked questions in the House and expressed concern regarding transportation in my province. I have pointed out on different occasions errors that have been made to the tune of hundreds of
November 14, 1974

millions of dollars in the public works estimates, and I have asked questions about unemployment insurance involving expenditure of almost $1 billion. However, last winter many of my constituents, including myself, began to become concerned about a shortage of fuel. At that time we were told, after talking to some of our colleagues from Alberta as well as provincial officials, that they are Canadians first and that, as far as they were able, they were not going to see Canada short of energy.
It then became obvious that to fulfil this promise a pipe line was necessary. It was also obvious that the pipe line which, for want of a better word, had been imposed upon this country by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert a few years previously was indeed one of the smartest moves this country had ever seen.
It is a fact, of course, that we in Ontario have for a number of years been paying a premium on our oil. That is fair enough; we have paid premiums before. Then we started hearing talk about this pipe line which was necessary to carry oil further east, and we also heard some nonsense about having a two-way pipe line. Now, Mr. Chairman, any huckleberry from Ontario knows that you cannot suck and blow at the same time; it does not take much expertise to find that out. So we are concerned anew with the energy situation.
We are now faced with Bill C-32. Despite the government's obvious dislike for price fixing or price controls, and with the government's heavy accentuation on combines legislation, we now find out that a price is going to be forced on the province of Alberta if negotiations do not meet with success. We do not know what the price is, but a price will be forced upon that province.
It seems to me that this is a particularly large club. If that club were being used against the province of Ontario in connection with its nickel, or its uranium, or other products of a similar nature, the minister would have a bigger fight on his hands than he has right now.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Crowfoot. I think it is fair to say that one thing that the hon. member for Crowfoot and I have in common is that we rarely agree on things. But I think that anyone who misjudges his intelligence on a subject like this, and that of his many colleagues, makes a very real mistake.
I must admit that the longer I sit here the more concerned I become. Indeed, I am also a little confused. My colleagues from Alberta used terminology and referred to quantities that are a wee bit beyond my ken, perhaps; but the single thought comes through that there is something wrong with this legislation. There is something here that does not sit well with Canadians, and I remind the committee that these members from Alberta are Canadians.
To take this a step further, during the question period my next door neighbour and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings often ask questions about the level of production in Canada compared with the level of production throughout the world, and the fact that Canada's balance of payments is getting into a bit of trouble. If there is less exploration of our resources and we are not able to export some of our products, what is going to happen to our balance of payments? Where will we get the
Adjournment Debate
money to pay the tariff on incoming oil, so as to guarantee a single price, if we do not export?
I am sure that the calm, reasoned and logical approach of the Leader of the Opposition, when put up against the hon. "flim-flam" man from Toronto and some of the things he said this evening, is going to appeal to the people of Canada. Certainly I have not heard the minister give us any answers this evening.
I have one question I want to ask, and it is a very simple one. Will the minister tell me categorically that this legislation is going to enable more oil to be found, that it will enable Canadians, and specifically the people in Hastings riding, to get a sufficient supply of oil? I can stand a little bit of cold, but young people are growing up in Hastings county and I should like them to have oil for the future. I am not sure that we have had any answers to this particular question. I guess I should call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the minister leaves could he let us know if it is his intention to deal with this matter on Monday and Tuesday next?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the House leader has indicated, as a result of discussions with the hon. member, I take it, or with others, that there was no prospect of making progress with this bill, so I think he listed other business for Monday.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in following up questions I asked the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs in the last session of parliament I asked the present minister on November 5 whether he has directed an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into the unwarranted increases in the cost of personal health care products.
It is my contention that the ripoff cliche could not be better applied to unwarranted profits than in the field of most personal health care products. It is obvious that despite all the time and investigation by responsible authorities we cannot seem to find solutions to control the cost of food, but certainly there are many commodities used in the home which are increasing in price almost as

November 14, 1974
Adjournment Debate
fast as foods, along with clothing and housing. I refer particularly to costs of personal health care products which take up a goodly portion of the family budget, and which could be controlled by responsible and reasonable government legislation.
Surely we can see just how much money is being wasted by housewives as a result of advertising hucksterism used by advertising agencies and most cosmetic firms. Surely we could show the consumers the waste, and thereby save them many millions of dollars in their budgets, which would leave them more dollars to acquire the essential foods they need for their families.
Not only are the consumers the victims of cosmetic hucksterism, being ripped off, they are using products which might even be injurious to their health, or which are indeed of little or no use.
I was pleased to note that after the many references I have made to the subject over the past two or three years, but to no avail, the CTV program "Inquiry" exposed the matter recently on television, for which it should be commended. It revealed the phoniness which exists because of artificial freedom of enterprise.
Apart from the fact that the television program revealed that some half a billion dollars is being spent for personal care products, and most of that money is being wasted as a result of saturation advertising, and that a product costing a few cents can be sold for many dollars, depending on the name and the advertising clout of the firm promoting the product, this situation still exists.
I took it upon myself last year to purchase two cans of hairspray, one at a cost of 98 cents and another at a cost of about $3. I sent them to the Food and Drug Directorate for analysis, and I should like to read you the results in part:
The limited analysis available so far suggests that the majority of the spray (97 to 99 per cent) is made up of propellants and solvents ... with other lubricating, perfuming, and coating agents making up the balance. The products are similar in composition, though the amounts of individual ingredients will naturally vary somewhat.
The details could not be provided because it was given on a confidential basis for branch use only.
A similar situation exists, I am sure, in respect of most other cosmetic products, and I mention anti-perspirants, hairdressings, nail polishes, lipsticks, mascara, creams and lotions. In this regard I would refer you to the "Consumer Contact" report of September, 1974, and I quote:
Cosmetics in Canada are required by federal law, under The Food and Drugs Act, to be free of injurious substances, to be packaged in safe and non-deceptive containers and produced under sanitary conditions.
Later in the same report it states:
Rare or precious ingredients are seldom, if ever, included in cosmetic formulas and there is no need to pay a high price to obtain an effective product for any cosmetic use.
For example, the report states:
Deodorants are designed to eliminate the odour of perspiration without checking its flow. Use of mild soap and water has always been effective. Prolonged and repeated use of aerosol underarm deodorants, if they are inhaled, may have adverse effects in the lungs, while feminine hygiene sprays may cause some local irritation.

The report further states:
The skin is nourished by normal food consumption and not by externally applied creams, lotions, or other substances.
Hair cannot be restored to bald heads by application of salves, ointments, and other preparations applied externally, nor by shampoos, manipulation and various mechanical devices.
In another area the report states:
Dandruff is readily removed by washing the hair and scalp with any good shampoo. Indiscriminate use of medicated products may result in severe skin reactions.
Reduction of excess weight can be achieved safely and effectively only by a proper diet, a decrease in the amount of food eaten, and to some extent, by a good deal of exercise. There are no solutions, preparations, or devices applied externally, or pills taken internally that can truthfully claim to have a slimming effect without an accompanying reduction of food intake on a low calorie diet.
Lipstick of the long-lasting indelible type is a frequent cause of irritation. There are, however, a number of lipsticks that do not contain the bromoacid dyes which are usually the chief offenders. Look for what are called 'Hypo-allergenic' brands.
Organic or 'natural' cosmetics have become quite fashionable, but they have no special values.
The most common sources of allergic problems are perfumes, antiperspirants and deodorants, dyes, chemical depilatories, nail lacquer and other nail preparations, indelible lipsticks and sunscreen preparations.
Good looks are derived from good health. Cultivate it by eating wisely, keeping regular hours, avoiding excess use of liquor, soft drinks, and other sweets.


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


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of points in his remarks tonight. He referred to such things as possible misleading advertising. If that is in fact the case and he has evidence, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would be interested in obtaining such evidence so that it would be able to take appropriate action.
Further, there has been mention made of possible health hazards in respect of such products as cosmetics and other things to which the hon. member referred. This is not part of the responsibility of our department, but I am sure the Department of National Health and Welfare would be very interested in any evidence the hon. member may have in respect of real health hazards for Canadians.
The hon. member referred to an information program which appeared last weekend on CTV in respect of cosmetics and their usefulness or lack of it. I think that kind of approach is very worthwhile in terms of informing the Canadian people as to the merits or demerits of products or lines of products in the cosmetic field.
I would compliment the CTV and others who provide this kind of public information to the people of Canada. I must admit I do not really have the view that the people of Canada are so naive as not to be able to recognize the quality of many of these products but because of simple cosmetic vanity are inclined to use them.
The hon. member asked whether the minister was proceeding with an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act. As the hon. member realizes, such investigation must be carried on on a confidential basis. Therefore the minister is not in a position either to confirm or deny
November 14, 1974

that such an investigation is taking place. However, if the hon. member, or any other hon. member or members of the public generally, feel that there is justification for charges to be laid under the Combines Investigation Act, they can rest assured that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will take appropriate action on the basis of any valid evidence submitted.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-PRICE OF ANTI-FREEZE-REASON FOR INCREASED MARKUP AND POSSIBILITY OF PROFITEERING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on November 13 I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) whether he found any evidence of profiteering in the anti-freeze industry in Canada, and his reply was no. I wonder how the minister can be so complacent in the light of the present situation.
Today anti-freeze is selling at 100 per cent more than a year ago, and in some cases even higher than that. In 1973 a consumer could buy a gallon of anti-freeze for $2.40. In 1974 prices range between $6.88 a gallon and $12 a gallon. Indeed, in my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie at the retail level the price of anti-freeze varies from distributor to distributor. At Canadian Tire the price is $6.88 a gallon; at Western Tire, it is $7.98; at Esso, $8.00; at Fina, $8.95; at Gulf, $9; at Texaco, $9.50, at Supertest, $9.95; at Sunoco, $10; at Shell, $10.95; There are variations among service station operators, some charging as high as $12 a gallon.
What, I ask, are retailers paying to the wholesalers for their supplies? Figures I have obtained from a co-operative store in Oshawa indicate the following: in 1972 the retailer purchased anti-freeze from the distributor at an average price of $2.25 a gallon; in 1973, the average price was $2.65 a gallon; but in 1974 the price varies from $6.15 a gallon to $9.75 a gallon that the corner gas station must pay to the wholesaler.
Why is there this tremendous mark-up? The minister says it is because the cost of the raw material, ethylene glycol, has gone up due to shortages. True, the cost has gone up somewhat, and we should try to determine whether they are real shortages or not, sufficient to justify anti-freeze selling at $9 to $12. In 1972 ethylene glycol was imported at 73 cents a gallon; in 1973 it was imported at $1.08 a gallon and in 1974 at $3.35 a gallon. I have found out that in 1972 the mark-up was roughly $1.50 a gallon over the import price, but today the mark-up is from $4 to $6 over the import price.
How does the minister justify a $6 mark-up over the basic import price of ethylene glycol? He cannot. The evidence is that the middleman and the manufacturer have conspired to raise prices unjustfiably. I charge that the Canadian manufacturers of anti-freeze have deliberately avoided increasing their production capacity at a time of rising demand, thereby creating an artificial scarcity of ethylene. Coupled with this, they spread rumours of a scarcity of anti-freeze, which resulted in consumer panic buying which allowed companies to raise prices and to keep them high.
I should like to quote from the Toronto Star of October 30. An anti-freeze retailer, a gas station operator says:
Adjournment Debate
"It's all just one big ripoff," charges Walker who claims this year's anti-freeze shortage is as "phony" as last year's energy crisis.
"We are being dictated to by these companies that are bigger than government," he continued.
Pointing out that he bought bulk anti-freeze last year at $1.95 a gallon, Walker claims suppliers and manufacturers today are making exorbitant profits while the service station operators are being "crucified".
We know that there is no scarcity but we are still confronted with anti-freeze ranging from $7 to $12 per gallon.
In view of the facts I have outlined, and in view of an inquiry launched by the Minister of Financial Institutions in Quebec, which also concludes that an artificial scarcity was created, will the minister launch an investigation under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act, to prohibit such blatant profiteering by anti-freeze producers in this country? Will the minister act to protect consumers?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has built up an impressive case to show the extent of the increase in price of anti-freeze in this country. He did a good job in demonstrating differentials in prices across this country. Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs investigations confirm, without specifying particular instances, that the substance of the hon. member's information is correct. In our investigations last week we found that a gallon of anti-freeze in the Toronto area sold for as little as $5.80 a gallon and for as much as $12 a gallon. Clearly the price differential is large.
When the department is asked how it justifies such increases, the answer is that we, in the department, do not justify them. We do not say that we feel they are justified. The simple fact is that we lack the legislative base for dealing with what may be termed profiteering. An antiprofiteering bill was introduced in the last parliament but was not passed. The election intervened. Another similar bill will be introduced in the present session of parliament and will deal with that question.
Touching on the Combines Investigation Act and evidence of violations under that act taking place, let me say that this is a matter of judgment. As I said in responding to the question immediately prior to this one, the department is not in a position to comment whether it is presently engaged in investigations under the act or whether it plans to become so engaged. As I said before, if any Canadian obtains evidence of price fixing, or of collusion in the market place which violates the spirit and content of the Combines Investigation Act, members of this House and of the general public can be assured that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will take appropriate action to see that Canadians are protected by laws under which we work and which have been passed by parliament.


HEALTH-PHARMACISTS' STRIKE IN QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, in my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. 1350

November 14, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Lalonde) today I assumed that the minister had been informed of a shutdown last week of most Quebec pharmacies. They were showing support for a proposed bylaw which could drive discount drugstores out of business. It was against this background that the minister introduced Bill S-9 which, incidentally, passed Senate third reading yesterday.
Let me state at once that my question suggesting the revision or withdrawal of Bill S-9 is in no way a criticism of the principal intent of the bill. Putting quantitative ingredient information on the label is desirable. The real concern is the ability to sell products presently registered under the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act in non-pharmacies in Canada. There is no assurance that non-drug sales will be permitted after repeal of the act. Assurances have been given that the pharmacy acts of the various provinces will be amended to allow proprietary medicines to be sold in stores other than pharmacies. But this assurance may not be fulfilled, and it niay be the intent never to fulfill it.
The federal Department of National Health and Welfare has no direct authority over the pharmacy acts of the various provinces. Knowing the concern of the pharmacists about having any medicines sold in non-pharmacy outlets, the provinces may be reluctant to pass the enabling legislation.
The discount store has had a major influence on proprietary medicine prices. The consumer interest in this vital matter must be recognized, not only as it affects the price which the consumer must pay but also in the ready accessibility which is afforded by the freer sale of any product.
The consumer must be able to obtain full information concerning the use of his medicine, and the public must have a free choice to pay the lowest possible price.
It is my firm belief that the federal government has the duty and responsibility to exercise to the full its powers and authority in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. That is why I questioned the minister's answer today. I again ask him how he can reconcile the undoubtedly good primary thrust of Bill S-9 and its unfortunate possible future implications for the consumer?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for
Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for his interest in this particular subject and his well-known concern for the interests of consumers. It is a concern which is shared by most members of this House, expecially as it deals with the price of drugs to Canadian citizens. He mentioned the great advantages that had resulted to consumers from discount drugstores in some provinces. His worry that they may disappear is certainly well understood.
I wish to stress that the question of legislation authorizing such drug sales is a matter which comes under the responsibility of the provinces at the present time. It will remain under the responsibility of the provinces after passage of Bill S-9, if the House decides to approve that bill.
I have had several contacts and communications with my provincial colleagues over the past year in connection with this bill, particularly at the federal-provincial conference of health ministers in February, 1974. My colleagues unanimously agreed that we could repeal the PPM Act and substitute another bill which would provide for greater disclosure than exists at the present time.
There was a meeting on October 3, 1974, of the Registrars of Pharmacy of the various provinces. Particular consideration was given to the changes that would be required in provincial pharmacy legislation to accommodate the repeal of the PPM Act. I might point out to the hon. member that a resolution was passed unanimously at that meeting supporting the actions taken by the Health Protection Branch in the matter of repeal of the PPM Act.
During the discussions it was agreed that there was adequate time to effect the changes required in provincial legislation since they were considered to be minimal. In general, present provincial legislation allows for the sale of proprietary medicines in non-pharmacy outlets by referring to products registered under the PPM Act. It is anticipated that the major change required will be to refer to the new regulations concerning proprietary medicines under the Food and Drugs Act.
Bill S-9 provides that the bill will come into effect in July 1976. That allows a year and a half to ensure transition. There should be no reason why any province has not passed the necessary legislation in the meantime. I might point out that provision will be made for progressive implementation of the act in the interim period.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Friday, November 15, 1974