1975-04-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
It has come to my attention that people have carried weapons, such as holstered hand guns and long bladed knives onto commercial airliners, both on their person and in their hand luggage. While these were not people of bad intent, these occurrences do show that x-ray and metal detecting devices at Canadian airports are not completely thorough or effective, resulting in possible danger to innocent passengers.
I would move, seconded by the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to launch an immediate investigation into this matter and conduct extensive tests on these apparatus at Canadian airports.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hort. Members: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
| English |

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who indicated yesterday in response to a question that he did not expect to achieve unanimity in any particular sector of the economy. I would like to ask, therefore, whether he expects to be able to maintain compliance with the targets about which there is to be consensus over a period of three or four years in the absence of unanimity within the particular sectors.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is assuming that we are successful in achieving a consensus or mutual agreement. Obviously any mutual agreement would have to allow for a certain flexibility in those areas of the work force that have fallen behind in terms of their ability to maintain that pace of the rise in the cost of living over the last 18 months.
On the other side, certain businesses and even industries have been in a loss position over the last few months or in a position where the competitive forces have put them in exceptional circumstances. So that in envisaging the operation of any consensus program, one would have to allow not only for a lack of complete unanimity but for some flexibility in the appraisal of the success or failure of the program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am happy to have the information, but I would be happier if the minister would answer my question.
Is it the intention of the minister to rely entirely upon voluntary compliance with his targets, flexible or rigid as the case may be, or does he propose to resort to other sanctions such as taxation sanctions, having said yesterday that he does not intend the monitoring board to have any power to impose its will?


John Napier Turner: One of the difficulties with sanctions is the rigidity they impose. What one has to try to achieve in mobilizing the program is a balance between moderation in the claims upon the economy in terms of prices on the one hand and costs on the other with the necessity to retain enough incentives in the system to provide for the expansion, both in agriculture and industry, necessary to provide the jobs we will need until the end of the decade and provide the production that will ensure stability in prices over the medium and long terms.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question. I wish the minister would answer directly how he intends to achieve support for his program if he cannot achieve unanimity within each sector, and how he can expect to achieve compliance over a period of three or four years. In particular, since he indicated yesterday that with respect to mineral prices, for example, the world price would be the domestic price, and that we would not resort to a two price system, how can he expect manufacturers to accept that kind of standard for mining companies if they are going to be restricted to price increases based only upon increased costs?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman of course still has in the back of his mind the feeling that the voluntary system will not work-

April 15, 1975
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to know your system.


John Napier Turner: -in a free society, and he has relied in the past on a compulsory system. We rejected that because of the rigidities built into it and because of the fact that it places constraints on the expansionary potential of the economy. My hope is that the facts, as they are presented to Canadians in terms of our current unemployment rate, the current rate of inflation and the comparative escalation of costs in Canada compared with those in the United States, our closest competitor, and those in Europe, will be such that if we can mobilize a general climate of opinion in favour of this program, it has a good chance of succeeding.


INFLATION-MINISTER'S VIEW OF ORIENTATION OF ECONOMY IN RELATION TO OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question is also to the Minister of Finance. Relating the domestic consensus talks to the international scene, is it the position of the minister that the Canadian economy should be oriented in a counterveiling position to that of other countries to avoid a new synchronization of expansionary policy among industrialized nations, which the minister stated last evening had provoked Canadian and worldwide inflation over the past few years?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Considering the delicate stage of the consensus guidelines and the fragile state of the Canadian economy, would the Prime Minister tell the House what minister will be taking over the duties of the finance minister as acting finance minister, particularly that of talking the economy back to health, while the current Minister of Finance is visiting other countries?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It will be the Acting Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May we know the name of the Acting Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Westmount.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Canadian Railway Freight Association
| Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton). |
has filed a tariff application for a 20 per cent increase in class freight rates effective May 5, and in view of the commitment of the minister in February, at the meeting of transport ministers in Calgary, to prevent further horizontal percentage increases in rail freight rates, can the minister inform the House whether he approves of this new 20 per cent increase in class rates, and if not, whether he intends to intervene to prevent the increase?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I think I have stated my position on this across the board increase proposed by the railways. My answer was quite clear, and I am still opposed to what they are trying to achieve.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that these class rates are ceiling rates for the railways and set the pattern for all the other rates, that some commodity rates are tied directly to class rates and will automatically increase, and in view of the predictions that the increase in class rates will inevitably lead to further increases in other categories, can the minister give his assurance that, in accordance with his Calgary undertaking, no across the board increases in other categories will be permitted?


Jean Marchand: Under the authority given to me by law I will surely get in touch with the CTC and see to it that what I said is really accepted by the railways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister clarify how he intends to carry out this commitment? Precisely what kinds of increases, in what categories is he pledged to prevent? For instance, what freight rates? The only one that he can prevent, possibly, is the rate on walrus tusks from Inuvik to Frobisher Bay. What is he going to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure the question period would be the appropriate place for the minister to attempt an exhaustive review of all the categories in which there might be intervention.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Has he received a telegram from the Quebec poultry producers association stating their concern about the situation resulting from the strike of longshoremen at the Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivieres harbours, for producers now have poultry feed for 24 hours only, and, if yes, what does he intend to do?
| English |


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have received many telegrams but I am not sure if I have seen that one concerning the possible shortage of feed grains. The grain elevator in Quebec City has been opened for two or three days now and grain is moving out of that area. Other ships are moving into the
April 15, 1975

area with feed grains. We are not moving grain out of Montreal or out of Three Rivers, but we are hopeful the grain supply situation will improve-not that there will be a sustained supply but sufficient that there will be no loss of poultry or livestock. We are doing everything possible to make sure that the grain moves.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if by accident you have overlooked the tradition of calling on a member of the Social Credit Party in the first round?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I might say I have not done that by accident. It was done because at the moment the NDP member finished questioning no member of the Social Credit Party was standing.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, to calm the fears of the Leader of the Opposition, may I tell him that this afternoon I take it upon myself to be the spokesman for the Social Credit Party of Canada on this subject. I should have liked to put my supplementary to the Minister of Labour, but in his absence I shall address it to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to settle the strike of the longshoremen in the port of Montreal the way it did in the port of Vancouver?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I was not listening when the question was put. Would the hon. member be kind enough to ask it again?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to do so.
I asked the Minister of Labour, or in his absence, his parliamentary secretary, or the Prime Minister, whether the government intends to take legislative measures identical to those Parliament passed to settle the longshoremen's strike in the port of Vancouver to settle the strike now paralyzing the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, there always comes a time in a strike when the public interest must be weighed against the right to strike. The government and the cabinet are now in the process of looking into this matter. For the time being we have no statement to make, but one thing is sure: the Minister of Labour and the government are watching the situation very closely.
Oral Questions


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for his kindness to us and also to tell the House that we did not elect the member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) to speak on our behalf. However, when our turn came, I was busy talking with a member on the government's side. So, my question-


An hon. Member:: They were talking about patronage!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -and we were not talking about patronage, but about management.
In the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I want to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the unfortunate strike of longshoremen in the ports of Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres, which worries a lot of people and disturbs our economy, can the Prime Minister assure the House that the negotiations now taking place to settle this strike are conducted with diligence and not only for form's sake, and secondly can the Prime Minister reassure us on the results of these negotiations and tell us that the strike will soon be over?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course, I cannot give any guarantee regarding the outcome of the negotiations, but the answer I gave to the excellent question of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) indicates rather clearly that the government follows this matter very closely.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that for the past 10 days several members from both sides of the House are rightly concerned about conditions in Quebec, can the minister tell us how long the government is ready to wait to settle this embarrassing matter and can he at last tell when producers will have sufficient supplies?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, many statements have been made concerning the shortage of grain and the loss of poultry livestock, but no evidence has been presented to me or to the provincial minister of agriculture in Quebec to show that this is actually taking place. Grain is moving out of the Quebec elevator. Grain is being moved to the area by ship from the Lakehead and by truck, and we are optimistic because those who are picketing the grain elevators in Montreal are not elevator workers. None of them work in the elevators. We hope, and are optimistic, that an arrangement can be made for the union to withdraw their pickets from that area, because there is an injunction; there is to be peaceful picketing, and truckers refuse to cross the picket lines
4808

April 15, 1975
Oral Questions
when pickets are there. They are on public property, on the street, and we are optimistic enough to think that the union may be encouraged to withdraw their picket lines from that elevator in that area. Also, some trucks moved out of Montreal early this morning, before 6 a.m.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since the producers' association has already applied to the minister responsible for a subsidy to offset additional costs incurred as a result of that dispute, is the minister in a position to assure the House that he would be willing to discharge the additional costs which producers are now compelled to pay to obtain supplies?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have always looked after them in the past in a responsible and reasonable fashion and accepted their requests in the same fashion.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and has to do with a question I asked him yesterday concerning the denial of an undertaking given by the vice-chairman of the National Harbours Board to the mayor of the city of Halifax and other interested people who came to Ottawa to discuss shed rentals in that particular port. Has he had an opportunity to advise himself of the nature of this serious confrontation between the mayor of the city of Halifax and others, and the chairman of the National Harbours Board concerning the denial of the undertaking given by Mr. Guy Beaudet, vice-chairman of the National Harbours Board.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is extremely difficult for me. I have taken the matter very seriously, and I got in touch with the National Harbours Board. I did not receive the exact confirmation of what the hon. member reports. I am not saying he does not tell the truth, but I think I have taken a faster way. Tomorrow, the chairman of the National Harbours Board, Mr. Taylor, will be in Halifax to meet the mayor to clarify the situation.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I must say I am surprised that there has not been some reaction from the chairman of the National Harbours Board. Would the minister take a personal interest in this matter, because it is quite likely, if the impasse continues tomorrow, that the resignation of the vice-chairman of the National Harbours Board will be called for, a position which I cannot help but support, because somebody has been playing games with the port of Halifax. Would the minister intervene personally in this matter and use his authority to suggest in the strongest possible terms to Mr. (Mr. Whelan.]
Beaudet and Mr. Taylor that, when they go to Halifax, they should go prepared to talk straight and not with a crooked tongue.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as Mr. Taylor is back from Halifax and there have been discussions with the mayor, I will be happy to give a more precise answer.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the government House leader a question about the report of the Independent Review Commission which was tabled yesterday. Will the government House leader consult with the other House leaders with regard to submitting this report to a committee of this House in connection with proposing the kind of legislation suggested in the first recommendation of the report? I make that proposition because parliament must be vitally concerned with regard to the position of the Auditor General who is the servant of parliament.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the opposition will recall that it has been government policy to propose a bill that gives statutory form to the responsibilities of the Auditor General. Therefore, this does accord with government policy. I am not quite sure whether it would be more expeditious to refer this report to a committee or have the government present legislation based on this report for the consideration of the House. In either event, we are in favour of introducing such legislation.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that 18,884 aliens became landed immigrants last year through orders in council, and in view of the fact that regulations imposed by the government now clearly indicate that a prospective immigrant must apply from outside Canada, can the minister indicate whether a practice in which approval of such large numbers is being given only worsens Canada's problems with illegal immigration since illegal immigrants can always hope for an order in council from this government?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that is the case. I respect the hon. member's question and concern. I will be glad to discuss it with him in detail, either privately or when I am before a committee. There is nothing hidden in this practice. It is a discretionary authority vested in the minister. I think in every case there is a
April 15, 1975

situation and justification which the hon. member would share if he had the responsibility to look at it. I will be glad to go over that in as much detail as the hon. member wishes, perhaps before a committee.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the fact that orders in council now cover approximately 10 per cent of the total number of immigrants landed, will the minister give an undertaking that the names of the people and the auspices or conditions under which they were given the ministerial order in council will be published for members of this House so that suspicions concerning this practice can be aired and clarified?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the only prohibition about giving that detailed information would be that respecting the privacy of the individual in certain cases for reasons which I think the hon. member would share. Generally speaking, yes, in terms of category. There is no attempt whatsoever to hide or withhold the information. I will be glad to convey all the details, with that reservation.



TOURISM


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise the Canadian government office of tourism that there is a riding of Kootenay West and within its confines are three major cities, Nelson, Castlegar and Trail, in view of the fact that a recent map depicting British Columbia ignores these cities while at the same time recognizing much smaller communities, including Blaine, Washington, which is shown on the map as being a part of British Columbia? I refer to a tourism advertisement inserted in the National Geographic magazine, which is not known for its errors. Can I have some assurance from the minister that a change will be made?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I will draw those representations to the attention of CGOT.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise the House what action is being taken with regard to the persistence of ice conditions in the northwestern Atlantic, particularly near Newfoundland, which are interfering with the execution of the fisheries? My question arises from the need of further ice-breaking capability in that area. Has he been made aware of the conditions which exist? What action is being taken?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: This is the first time I have been made aware of the situation. I intend to inquire immediately.


Jack Marshall: Is the minister aware that I have already brought this matter to the attention of his officials? Since these conditions are in evidence every year, and have been persisting, would the minister tell us what attitude the government is taking toward increasing the capability of ice-breaker services which up to this time have been lacking?


Jean Marchand: As the hon. member already knows, the government has decided to increase our capability in this field. Two ice breakers are to be built in the near future and much bigger ones later on when we have enough money to pay the bill.



POST OFFICE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the difficulties which have been experienced in the last few days in the Montreal Post Office I should like to ask him whether meetings have been arranged between himself and representatives of the Union of Postal Workers and, if so, whether he can report any progress.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we are still encountering difficulties in the Montreal Post Office and, reluctantly, I found it necessary last evening to suspend indefinitely a postal worker for pushing or attacking a supervisor and to suspend 183 other workers for the rest of their shift. Apart from those minor problems, I think things are running well in the Post Office. Discussions are going on at the local level between the appropriate officials and the various supervisors. As far as discussions at the national level are concerned it would be, I think, in everybody's best interests-if they are held-that not only the contents of such conversations be private but the fact that there is such a meeting being held should also be considered as private.


David Orlikow: I am not for a moment trying to judge where the fault lies, but surely the suspension of such a large number of employees is a serious matter. Again, would the minister not consider the advisability of meeting formally with the national representatives of the Union of Postal Workers so that there might be a frank discussion of the issues in the hope that the difficulties, whatever they are, may be resolved as quickly as possible, in which case several hundred more employees would not need to be suspended or dismissed or whatever the minister says is being done with them?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I find myself in a dilemma here. I do not want to leave the impression that such a course has not been considered. I simply stated the conditions under which I would prefer the discussion to take place-poss-
29557-29)4

April 15, 1975
Oral Questions
ibly the conditions which someone else would prefer. I wish to make it clear that these suspensions are not because management is necessarily right; it is simply that the solution lies in applying the collective agreement and the grievance procedure rather than settling the matter through what I consider to be a violent way of acting and one which is not in the best interests of the labour movement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: In view of the fact there obviously exists a difference of opinion between the minister and the President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers about the way in which a collective bargaining agreement is applied, may I suggest to the minister for the last time that the way to settle this difference of opinion is through a meeting between the minister and the president of the union so that each may know precisely what the other is thinking?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Theoretically, it is possible that such a meeting has already taken place.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what progress he and his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are making toward the government's objective of assuring adequate stocks of chemical fertilizer available to the agriculture industry this year at economic prices?


Eugene Whelan: I am
assured that there will be adequate supplies. If the information given to me is correct, some farmers are cutting back their purchases of fertilizer because of the uneconomic price-the high price that is involved. We have seen some slight evidence of price decrease in our analyses of fertilizer sales but nothing like we would wish to see- nothing like the reduction we think should take place. I am working very closely with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with regard to what action we can take.


John Angus MacLean: What action has the minister taken to make sure that farmers generally are aware of the fact that there should be adequate supplies available, whether the price is right or not?


Eugene Whelan: We have contacted all the provincial departments of agriculture and our surveys show, as they have in the past, that there will be adequate supplies. In some areas there may even be an oversupply of some varieties of fertilizer.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. I would have directed it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs but he is absent on business. Having regard to the haphazard efforts of CIDA in the past, how will the new guidelines affecting CIDA with respect to foreign aid be applied when it comes to determining which countries are to receive such aid, especially in the light of the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that fewer countries will receive Canadian assistance?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would be appropriate for these guidelines to be discussed in a forum other than the question period at which time full satisfaction could be given to the hon. member. Perhaps he has a more specific question to follow up with.



VIET NAM-INQUIRY WHETHER ASSISTANCE CHANNELLED THROUGH CIDA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. Will the assistance which will be going to Viet Nam be channelled through CIDA, and will it be assistance directed to the relief of misery, inhumanity and suffering in the form of cash?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated, our help to Viet Nam is being channelled through international agencies.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe the minister left the wrong impression. I was asking about the sole Canadian agency, namely CIDA, possibly working through other agencies. Would this help, given to Viet Nam, be in the form of cash and is the hon. gentleman waiting until the North Vietnamese take over all of Viet Nam to deliver that cash?


Mitchell William Sharp: The assistance which is being provided by Canada is, of course, being provided through CIDA. It is being provided in cash to international agencies which are now on the spot doing what they can to help.



VIET NAM-POSSIBILITY OF PROTEST TO HANOI OVER BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF EVACUATION OF CANADIANS

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question also for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the situation in that area has deteriorated even more, is the government considering notes of protest to be delivered in Hanoi or elsewhere against the breaches of international agreements, with such cost in terms of misery and tragedy for the local population?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the government has been expressed already by the Secretary of State
April 15, 1975

for External Affairs, who has pointed out that our principal purpose in making protests like this is to be helpful to Canadians and to others whose lives might otherwise be in jeopardy. I am sure that the hon. member, who has experience of these matters, would not want to say anything that would harm Canadians or anybody else.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister assure the House and the country that all Canadian personnel in the disaster areas will be evacuated before they become personally endangered?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, evacuation plans are being updated daily. However, so far it has been decided that it is not necessary to evacuate Canadians from Saigon. They are safe at the moment, but plans are ready to evacuate them if the situation gets to that point.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement of the Minister of National Defence on October 24, 1974 that the President of the Treasury Board was giving serious consideration to the proposition that retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be entitled to count their period of service for leave purposes when they enter the public service of Canada, would the minister please inform the House whether this serious consideration is continuing and, if so, would he advise the House and the country when there might be an announcement made with respect to a change of policy?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to tell the hon. member whether or when we will have an announcement on that matter. While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, may I answer a question from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who asked me yesterday when a contract was given by Statistics Canada. The contract was approved by Treasury Board on January 30, 1975.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister could tell me when he will be in a position to answer the question that I first asked?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Soon, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS



OFFER OF SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE LAND CLAIMS IN CONNECTION WITH JAMES BAY PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could the minister tell us if the Indians and Innuits of James Bay in Quebec have really accepted the latest offers of the Bourassa government concerning compensation for the hydro-electric project in that area and, if not, if his department will continue to give them financial help to assert their rights and privileges?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, all that has been achieved in Quebec is the signing of an agreement in principle in November of last year. We left a period of a year, to November of this year, for ongoing negotiations and discussions to be held to try to iron out the details, so that the final agreement pertaining to James Bay would not be signed, we expect, until November.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that security procedures for inspecting passengers and hand baggage at international airports were implemented for the safety of passengers, and in view of the enormous cost and considerable inconvenience to passengers, would the minister call for an immediate investigation into the failure during the past 24 hours of x-ray machines at Vancouver and Toronto international airports to detect the presence in hand baggage of four razor sharp kitchen knives, one of which was over 14 inches in length?


Jean Marchand: I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and arises out of the meetings held last week with his provincial counterparts. I wonder whether the minister would make a statement on motions regarding the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency and, if so, will the statement be made this week?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I see no real urgency about making a statement.

April 15, 1975
Oral Questions
The findings reached at these meetings were made public. We are still discussing the proposals with some of the provincial governments and provincial egg marketing boards, and I do not think these will be finalized until late this Friday. At least, I am hopeful that they will be finalized this Friday.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. For some time the minister has been seeking additional federal authority over egg marketing. Would the minister tell the House whether he is satisfied that he has received sufficient federal authority within CEMA, or is the minister also seeking additional authority over the Food Products Marketing Council?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking orderly marketing for eggs. We have asked the provinces for and been given more federal authority by the majority to enable CEMA to operate in this way. There is also a commitment to reorganize the National Farm Products Marketing Council.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and concerns a matter of great moment to many adoptive parents in Canada. Has the government investigated the claim by the International Red Cross that adoption of Vietnamese children contravenes the Geneva convention governing the protection of civilian populations; and can the minister assure us that these adoptions are in fact legal and that there will not be any questions asked later as to the legality of the adoptions of children already adopted?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have made several statements in this regard, many of them in this House. The children that are being brought forward are children for whom the adoption process, in terms of complying with the legal requirements of the government of South Viet Nam and in terms of complying with the legal requirements for adoption by provincial jurisdictions in Canada, has been completed or is arranged.
As I have indicated, there could be one or two exceptions to this as a result of the confusion and the urgency of the situation in Saigon at the time. A responsible agency might present to our officials there a child as an orphan that they would like removed from Saigon, but such a child would only be accepted if the approval of the South Vietnamese government had been given, and in all cases I am aware of that has been the case. One or two of these children, however, may not have proceeded through the adoption process in Canada, in which case we will have to be very careful-there is one such case-in our contacts with the provincial authorities in order to ensure that the adoption process, which is a provincial matter, does not proceed until all questions are clarified and settled in
(Mr. Whelan.]
terms of the legality of the adoptions in Viet Nam and here.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to address to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I gave him some indication a few weeks ago that I would be interested in this matter. In light of the fact that the adoption of orphans from overseas requires the participation of perhaps some five different government departments or agencies, would the minister tell the House what progress is being made, in co-operation with the provincial governments, in establishing some sort of federal co-ordinating agency to facilitate the adoption of orphans from overseas where these adoptions can legally be made?
[Translation]	_


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the hon. member that during the conference of welfare ministers in November 1974, it was agreed, that the Department of National Health and Welfare would establish an adoption desk to deal with international adoptions and to co-ordinate these activities with the provinces. This desk has been created and we are now working very closely with the provinces as well as with the Department of Manpower and Immigration to simplify all negotiations required.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the Fares language school for public servants recently summarily dismissed 22 teachers for asking for better working conditions and wage parity with similar teachers employed by the federal government, and in view of the fact that the Public Service Commission has institute^ an inquiry into the awarding of language training contracts, would the minister ensure that the Fares contract, which is up for renewal at the end of May, will not be renewed until the PSC inquiry is completed and recommendations are brought forward?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall examine the matter and report to the hon. member.


Reginald Cyril Symes: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Fares contract has amounted to $243,000, will the minister undertake to investigate the working conditions and salaries at the school as well as ensure that the school is maintaining proper language instruction standards?
April 15, 1975


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.



CONTRACT TO FLAHERTY MANUFACTURING OF HAMILTON- INQUIRY WHETHER PETER FLAHERTY ON DEPARTMENTAL PAYROLL WHEN CONTRACT AWARDED

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister inform the House if he has inquired into the matter raised in this House on March 11, 1975 by the hon. member for Athabasca concerning the date Flaherty Manufacturing of Hamilton received a $40,000 contract from the department without tenders being called, and whether Mr. Peter Flaherty was indeed on the departmental payroll as a riding assistant to the former Minister of National Health and Welfare at the same time?
Oral Questions



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RESULTS OF MEETING WITH NATIVE INDIAN BROTHERHOOD

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can the minister inform the House what progress if any was made at yesterday's meeting between representatives of the NIB and the relevant cabinet committee? If he cannot inform us as to the progress made at this meeting perhaps he can tell the House when a statement will be forthcoming concerning the outcome of that meeting.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it would take a fairly lengthy period of time to give a full report on the meeting. The basic things that were agreed to were the establishment of committees to look into and try to come to agreement on the broad question of what are native rights and second to set up a body to look into the proposed revision of the Indian Act.



INDUSTRY


Marc Lalonde: I have not yet had the report, Mr. Speaker, but will look into this matter and be pleased to give the information to the hon. member tomorrow.



INDIANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since Treaty 7 Chiefs after their last meeting with the minister said, "We've used every peaceful method and gotten no place", will the minister go back to Alberta this month with direct answers to the Treaty 7 Chiefs to help ensure that the Indian people are not driven to abandon peaceful methods.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I felt that the replies which were given were direct answers.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House why, in the sealed envelopes handed to the chiefs without opportunity for debate, the minister did not respond to a single major suggestion or request put forward by the Treaty 7 bands and whether he will continue to ignore their legitimate grievances and concerns or go back and deal with them directly.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the statement is absolutely incorrect.


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that as a result of the poor sales year the United States car industry is having the Canadian subsidiaries of those automobile companies have been instructed to transfer purchase of tooling and assembly parts from Canadian suppliers to firms in the United States? Can the minister advise if he is aware of this situation and if so what his department is prepared to do about it.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of it. I am interested in the hon. member's question. If he has information to that effect I hope he will give it to me and I will make an inquiry.



OIL-POSSIBILITY OF PIPELINE TO CARRY ALASKAN OIL TO UNITED STATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last October the minister indicated that he had had some discussions with United States officials concerning a pipeline to carry Alaskan oil through Canada to the United States. Can the minister advise whether these discussions have continued and if so whether the United States officials have put forward any proposals in this regard?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, no specific proposal has been put forward by the United States officials with regard to an oil pipeline through Canada, more probably

April 15, 1975
Oral Questions
up the Mackenzie Valley. There have been extensive discussions between Canadian and United States officials about a general pipeline treaty which would govern the construction of any pipeline either in Canada or the United States.



FISHERIES


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to know if we can expect any forthcoming reports concerning the seal hunts which have occurred in relation to the experience that was brought to our attention by previous television films and could we expect any report concerning what has happened in relation to the minister's efforts in this area.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the hon. member that in the gulf the hunt was not very successful because of ice conditions. On the front, the quota has almost been reached now, but the seal hunt will be coming to an end in a matter of hours or days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. When we were dealing in the latter part of 1974 with the estimates of the minister's department he said he would look into the matter of the unfairness created by the fact that retired armed services personnel have to wait until age 60 before their pensions are escalated. Is he now in a position to report on this matter?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister continue the study in the hope that he will have a report soon?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do so.



HARBOURS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with regard to the shed rental policy for the port of Halifax.


An hon. Member:: Now, we are getting down to the nitty-gritty.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the Minister of Finance will not get down to the nitty-gritty, it is just as well that I do. Is it now the situation that the shed rental policy may be implemented for the Port of Halifax soon, despite many indications to the contrary given by the Board in the past.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to give about the same answer I gave a few minutes ago to the representative of Dartmouth. Mr. Taylor will meet with the mayor of Halifax and I will want to have a full report on this in order to have clear information. The port of Halifax is prospering this year. I do not regret it, but I think it will be much more prosperous than the port of Montreal. It is going very well. This is a good thing. As soon as I have an answer from Mr. Taylor I will be happy to give a precise answer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,256, 1,312, 1,571, 1,692, 1,694, 1,697, 1,736, 1,891, 1,901, 2,084 and 2,123.
If question No. 47 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask that questions No. 606 and 1,099 be made orders for return and also ask the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,920?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
April 15, 1975


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Which departments are involved in granting money to group activities sponsored in support of International Women's Year for 1975?
2.	For each department, what is the (a) total 1975 budget available for such groups (b) projected percentage of the budget that will go for (i) administrative costs (ii) actual money to participating groups directly?
3.	For each department, what is the amount of money (a) available by region (b) allocated to metropolitan Dartmouth-Halifax, Nova Scotia?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1. The Department of National Health and Welfare.
2.	(a) International Women's Year Grants 1974 and 1975, $75,000; 1975 and 1976, $100,000. Other granting areas of the department may grant money to women's groups that are involved with a particular area of interest i.e. New Horizons, Family Planning, Non-medical Use of Drugs etc. (b)(i) Administrative costs are absorbed within the department's budget, (ii) See 2 (a).
3.	(a) and (b) There are no specific regional allocations under International Women's Year Grants.
In so far as the Department of the Secretary of State is concerned: 1. The Women's Programme of the Department of the Secretary of State has been given additonal money for group activities for International Women's year in 1975. In addition to the amount in the Women's Programme, all other programmes in the department will place a priority on women's projects which meet their objectives and criteria.
2.	The funds allocated to the Women's Programme, Department of the Secretary of State for 1974-75 and 1975-76 for the International Women's Year activities, which will take place in the calendar year 1975, are budgeted as follows: (a) and (b) (i) and (ii) Money for group activities, $1,745,000, 75 per cent; Community Education/ Promotion, $202,000, 9 per cent; Seminar Series, $160,000, 7 per cent; Administrative Costs, $220,144, 9 per cent; Total Budget, $2,327,144, 100 per cent.
3.	(a) There is no specific allocation of funds by region or urban area. However, certain guidelines for regional distribution of funds have been established according to the activities and needs of women's organizations across the country; these figures are therefore subject to changes in the course of the year. Atlantic, $204,000; Quebec, $246,000; Ontario, $312,000; Prairies, $280,000; Pacific, $270,000; National, $433,000; Total $1,745,000. (b) Not applicable. See 3 (a).


Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many full-time employees were under salary in the Post Office Department on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a) 42,830; (b) 46,310.
2. January 1974: (a) 36,917; (b) 5,755; (c) 145; (d) 13. January 1975: (a) 39,163; (b) 6,823; (c) 298; (d) 26.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 907, what is the reason Statistics Canada does not collect statistics on the official language or languages spoken by new citizens?
2.	Has any difficulty been experienced in assessing the regional effect of immigration and in establishing an immigration policy because of the lack of this information?
3.	Is country of birth, country of former allegiance, marital status and citizenship of spouse considered more important or more useful statistics?
4.	Is it possible to assess the impact of immigration on this country's language groups when no language information is recorded for new citizens?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: 1. Statistics Canada reports that annual data on the official language or languages spoken by new citizens is not collected. However, users with a more specialized interest than the general public could request Statistics Canada to generate unpublished data from the 1971 census on the number of Canadian citizens cross-tabulated by period of immigration, mother tongue and official language. Such data was collected from all Canadians in 1971.
2.	Language capabilities of new immigrants are recorded by the immigration division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and therefore no lack of information exists which would create the difficulty indicated in the question.
3.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration considers each category of statistics gathered is equally valuable for the purpose for which it is gathered.
4.	Since the immigration division of the Department of Manpower and Immigration has this information for new immigrants, the problem referred to does not exist for that group.


Mr. Ellis: 1.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded, to date, for the Department of Public Works project, Place du Portage, Phase III, Hull,
Quebec?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of completion for this project?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1.


[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	$98,500,000.
URBAN AFFAIRS BUILDING (LaSALLE ACADEMY)- CONTRACTS TO DATE
Mr. Ellis: 1.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded, to date, for the Department of Public Works project, Urban Affairs Building (LaSalle Academy), Ottawa, Ontario?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of completion for this project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	$8,003,200.
Mr. Ellis: 1.	What is the total amount of contracts awarded, to date, for the Department of Public Works project, Major Postal Processing Plant, Montreal, Quebec?
2.	What is the present estimated cost of completion for this project?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	$212,108,000.
Mr. Howie: 1.	When were shares in the capital stock of other companies acquired by the Canada Development Corporation?
2.	How much per share was paid and how many shares were acquired?
3.	What is the market value of such shares today?


John Napier Turner: The information sought is not available in the exact form of the questions. All the shares of Polysar Limited were purchased in 1972 for $62 million, provisions being made for an additional $10 million payment to be made under certain circumstances. Connlab Holdings Limited was established by the CDC in 1973 at a cost of $35 million. In turn Connlab owns 100 per cent of Connaught Laboratories Limited, 75 per cent of A/S Dumex, 70 per cent of Omnimedic Inc. and 70 per cent of Roylo Chemicals Limited. Since Polysar and Connlab are wholly owned by the CDC there is no market determined value for their shares. In 1972 the CDC purchased 35 per cent of the shares of Venturetec International Limited for about $4.5 million. In 1973 it purchased 49 per cent of the shares of Ventures West Capital Ltd. for $2.2 million and 40 per cent of the shares of Innocan Investments Ltd. for $3.7 million. These three venture capital companies are owned by a very limited number of investors and since their share do not trade publicly there is no market determined value for such shares. Through a tender offer the CDC acquired in 1973 about 30.4 per cent of the shares of Texasgulf Inc. The tender offer was at $29 per share at a time when these shares were trading at around $22-23, the difference representing the normal premium for acquiring a controlling

interest in the company. The shares of Texasgulf arp now trading at about $27.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Was it intended to make a correction to that part of the Report of the Food Prices Review Board "Sugar Prices and Policies" that appears on page 14 in the English version where it states "it is unlikely that these islands will become a major supplier to Canada within the next few years, since the industry there has been declining as a result of social, economic and other problems" and, if so, what is the reason for the delay?
2.	Has the supply of sugar from the West Indies been pre-empted by the United Kingdom?
3.	Has a massive change in traditional trade patterns taken place since the UK entered the Common Market?
4.	Has the government initiated or is it contemplating discussions with the UK and the West Indies with a view to making long term contracts that could stabilize prices and assist the West Indies?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to request that the subject of sugar be included on the agenda at the April Commonwealth Conference to be presided over by the Prime Minister of Jamaica in order to give consideration to the realignment of the pattern of Canadian sugar trade?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Food Prices Review Board and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. No, as the sentence quoted in the question from the board's report "Sugar Prices and Policies" represented the board's opinion as of the date of publication of that report (July 1974).
2.	The supply of sugar from the West Indies has not been pre-empted. However, bilateral arrangements between the West Indies and the U.S. and U.K. have made these countries more attractive markets in which to sell sugar.
3.	There has been no massive change to date, but some changes are anticipated. It is not possible to estimate their extent at this time.
4.	There has been no initiative taken to date, but the entire sugar policy is now under review.
5.	Although the government does not intend to place this subject on the agenda, it may be raised by other countries.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	Had each offender convicted of a second or subsequent indictable offence since 1968 been imprisoned for 3 years, what would the estimated reduction have been in the number of prosecutions and convictions owing to the incarceration of the offender?
2.	What percentage of the total would this reduction represent for each year covered?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and the Solicitor General and Statistics Canada as follows: the information is not available.
April 15, 1975

Oil and Petroleum
Return tabled.


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to hold hearings at the federal level only or in conjunction with the Province of Alberta in regard to the removal of parkland in Wood Buffalo National Park?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to hold public hearings prior to the removal of any land from a National Park?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no. The answer to the second part is that each case will be judged on its merit, and the call for a public hearing will be met in the forum of this House and in the committee for inquiry.


CLASSIFICATION GRADES USED BY DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the grades of classification used by the Department of External Affairs above Foreign Service Officer 5?
2.	(a) How many officers are employed in each such grade (b) what is the (i) minimum (ii) maximum salary for each such grade?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT-TOTAL AMOUNT GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL MAY RAISE
Mr. Stevens: After given effect to the power granted in Clause 5 of Bill C-55, as passed by the House of Commons on March 20, 1975, what is the total amount the Governor in Council may raise by way of loan, under the Financial Administration Act, for public works and general purposes and what was the comparable ceiling as of March 31, 1964, 1967, 1970 and 1973?


John Napier Turner: 1. $4 billion.
2. March 31, 1964, $1,750 billion; 1967, $1,750 billion; 1970, $3.0 billion; 1973, $3.0 billion.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many additional employees have been hired by the Public Service Commission, Crown corporations and government boards that have assumed positions that are directly related to the Official Languages Act within government service?
2.	Of the total number of open competitions advertised by the Public Service Commission in 1973-74, how many (a) specified bilingualism as an essential for the position (b) listed it as an advantage to appointment (c) were unilingual in either English or French and what was the percentage breakdown between the two languages?


LIST OF ALL CONFERENCES, NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL TO BE HELD IN 1975
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Will the government make public a list of all conferences, national or international, to be held during 1975 to which the government has been invited to send delegations?
2.	Will interested groups be given an opportunity to recommend qualified women to serve Canada on such delegations?
3.	Is consideration being given to nominating a number of informed and expert private citizens to be part of Canadian delegations where appropriate?
Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN CONSTITUENCY OF MONCTON
Mr. Jones: 1.	How many (a) public servants (b) employees of Crown corporations or agencies are employed in the constituency of Moncton?
2.	(a) How many of the positions are (i) supervisory (ii) non-supervisory (b) to what departments, corporations or agencies are they attached (c) what are the salaries and positions of each?
3.	What positions (a) are not or will not be (b) are or are to be classified or designated as bilingual and as of what date?
4.	What positions (a) classified bilingual (b) not classified bilingual are held by bilingual persons?
5.	How many of the positions in Part 1 are held by (a) unilingual English persons (b) unilingual French persons (c) bilingual persons?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 14, 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.
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last night, clause 2 was under consideration.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, again we are discussing this bill which has been around here since December. Obviously, the reason we are still discussing it is the recent failure of the various governments involved, both provincial and federal, to reach some sort of agreement or consensus between the oil producers and consumers and the federal government as to what the price of oil should be, so that it
29557-30^2

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
can be of benefit to the industry and to the oil producing provinces and so that the industry may continue to expand and to supply the needs of our country. In reaching a decision as to what should be a reasonable price for oil, account should also be taken of the fact that Canadian consumers should be sheltered from some of the worst effects of the world petroleum situation. We should rejoice in our good fortune that our consumers are not exposed to the full world price and do not have to make the adjustments that would be necessary if the world price were adopted in this country.
The recent federal-provincial conference ended without a national price being set and with disagreement between the producing provinces, the consuming provinces and the federal government. One might consider federal-provincial conferences as a means of solving problems which exist between the federal authority-which presumably functions for the over-all good of Canadians in all regions, and for the good of the provinces which put forward views reflecting their regional situations-and the provinces. This method of producing binding and often far reaching legislation which will affect the country as a whole is assuming greater importance because governments are becoming increasingly involved in various programs in light of the various economic situations which necessitate government action.
In this case there was an outward attempt by the governments to set the price of oil at the wellhead. Federal-provincial conferences will certainly become more and more frequent and more and more involved in economic matters such as price fixing if we keep on moving away from a market economy to a rigid form of government controlled and government directed economy. It is doubtful whether this type of conference is the best forum in which to settle problems such as this, and certainly it seems to make the role of the elected representative irrelevant, whether he be a member of the provincial or federal legislature or whether he be a member of the government or of the opposition. As I said, the recent federal-provincial conference was not successful. Perhaps it was doomed to failure because of the failure of the governments concerned to reach a preliminary agreement in the matter of setting a reasonable oil price before the conference was held.
It seems to me that a number of issues are involved in the bill before us. They affect regional interests, regional needs and regional welfare. In considering this bill, all too often regional interests override the national interest. We must consider-I believe this has been overlooked in our debate until now-what will be the international effect of our action in setting the price for oil in Canada.
This bill is breaking new ground in that the federal government is intruding into provincial jurisdiction by setting the price of a natural resource at a time when it is doubtful that a national emergency exists. By and large, there have been many cases, except in wartime, when the federal government has felt constrained to override provincial jurisdictions and to set prices on a national level. For instance, just recently in the matter of the two-price system for wheat, the Government of Canada set the price of wheat for Canadian consumption at approximately $4.75 a bushel when the world price had been for some

months previously nearly $6 a bushel, as a result of which wheat producers were selling at a loss of approximately $1 a bushel. I do not think anyone could construe the situation at that time as being a national emergency. The federal government's decision in that case was supported by enabling legislation whereby provinces delegated power to the Wheat Board to assume control over wheat production.
I doubt whether the present situation with regard to oil can be considered to be a national emergency as defined in section 92(10)(c) of the British North America Act. In my opinion, such an emergency would only arise in the event of hostilities involving this country in a war, or having the effect of cutting off offshore imports such as if there were an outbreak of hostilities in the Middle East. No such emergency has arisen as yet. Indeed, we have a reasonable supply of oil to meet our own needs, at a price greatly below the world level. What we are discussing is how much our price should rise, if at all, and in what manner will the moneys accruing from this price increase serve to secure our supplies for the future. We are certainly not involved in any emergency situation at present.
This bill is of fundamental importance to our nation. Through it, the federal government is attempting to set the price of a resource which is found mainly in one or two provinces. If the government is successful in doing this, it is obvious that provincial jurisdictions will be reduced to asking for hand-outs from the federal government. Another point to be considered is that if the price of oil can be set unilaterally by the federal government, then obviously the price of other resources such as copper, nickel and coal could similarly be set by the government. Furthermore, a good case could be made for setting the price of newsprint, lumber and agricultural products in this country.
This bill assumes even greater importance when we realize that at a time when there is no real emergency, the federal government is attempting to set the price of a resource at whatever level it considers appropriate. Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a far reaching intrusion into provincial jurisdiction and an extension into the market economy of this country. Before it is used to set a price, real bargaining and real consultation should take place between the federal government, representing the interests of the country as a whole-but, in effect, largely central Canada-and the producing provinces which are mainly Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
I think we are agreed that we should not insulate ourselves from the world economy unless it is very disadvantageous. In the finance committee today, the Minister of Finance, in answering a question, suggested that two-price systems for products held open a very real possibility that they would be looked upon as trade barriers similar to tariffs and that retaliatory action would be taken.
Certainly, if an American company or any other foreign company were meeting competition from a Canadian company in its own market, and if the advantage to the Canadian company were dependent on a reduced price for oil or gas used in the manufacture of that product, then the foreign company would be quite justified in urging its
April 15, 1975

government to erect a tariff barrier against the Canadian product. We ourselves witness the example of our textile industry always complaining bitterly about the low wage structure of Far Eastern countries undermining the industry, and seeking appropriate protection. Similar charges could be levelled at our exports which were dependent on low level oil and gas prices. Obviously, the price of oil and gas should rise to world levels, but we in Canada can be fortunate enough to take some time to reach this level. If the price is to be set below the world level, it must certainly be high enough and the industry must receive enough of it so that exploration will be carried on and security of supply will be furthered as much as possible.
But what has happened to the situation in Canada? There was an increase in the price of oil to $6.50 a barrel. But has this increased exploration activity? Of course not. The November budget of the Minister of Finance scuppered this possibility. There is no point in raising the price of oil unless exploration and development is carried on. Surely the main culprit is the federal government. In his budget, the Minister of Finance, in attempting to prevent the provinces from having accrue to them the benefits the increase in the world price of oil and gas would have brought them, has put in place a punitive federal tax. I think it has to be realized that until recently we have really had to pay money to have people explore for oil and gas. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain that there is only one time for one jurisdiction to steal, but I think we have to recognize that the provinces were there first. The BNA Act gave the right to have this revenue accrue to the provincial jurisdictions, and if the federal government is going to become involved it certainly should be done by negotiation.
There are some figures in a bar graph of where the oil dollar goes. It shows that at $3.80 a barrel the oil industry received 50 cents for lifting, $1.35 for exploration and drilling costs, and 53 cents for industry retention, with the provincial government receiving $1.15 and the federal government 27 cents. After the increase in April to $6.50, the industry's share went to $1.17, whereas the provincial government received $2.97 and the federal government 51 cents. After the November 18 budget the industry retention figure went down to 13 cents. This is the situation in Alberta. The provincial government received $3.34 and the federal government $1.18. In other words, the increase in the federal tax has had the effect of leaving the industry with considerably less than it received when the price was $3.80.
At the recent energy conference Mr. Blakeney, the Premier of Saskatchewan, said that if we just have a flat rate of increase, the big winner will be the federal government; it will receive the lion's share. In other words, without changes this act in itself will not in any way get at the real problem, which is to allow the industry to function better and to produce more supplies and more reserves of gas and oil by the two governments, leaving more money in the industry.
The real problem with this bill and the whole oil pricing system, if we are to have the price set well below the world price, is the failure of the provincial and federal governments to reach common ground. Surely, under the BNA Act and by all historic patterns of tradition, the
Oil and Petroleum
provincial governments were first in the field of taxation of resources, and if in the national interest of the federal government must take more revenue from resource industries, it should not be done high-handedly and unilaterally. The problem affecting resource industries is not just confined to a vendetta with Alberta; it affects every province in Canada because almost all the provinces have sizeable resource industries.
I spoke to a respected member of the other place, who has been here a long time and is well aware of the structure under which our government operates, about the fact that the provinces were vested under the BNA Act with ownership of resources. He aptly said that while ownership remained with the provinces, federal taxing power over the last 20 or 25 years had effectively reduced the control of the resource industries by the provinces and subverted it largely to the federal field. In effect, the federal government, through the taxation system, has been muscling in on the provincial field.
I think many of our problems as a nation are getting worse and reaching more and more Canadians, especially western Canadians who are becoming extremely skeptical about the advantages of confederation. The federal government is attempting to take over taxation in the resource field and in other fields. At the same time, it has been attempting to slough off many of the shared-cost programs which are so expensive and to divest itself of the responsibility in this field by giving a few taxation points to the provinces. The actions of the federal government in the field of resource taxation have been disastrous for industry and for the country. In today's Globe and Mail there is a suggestion that the Ontario mining industry is in a bad way. Mr. O'Brien, quoted in the Globe and Mail, states:
"There is a danger" ... "that Canadian mining companies, which are among the most productive and efficient in the world, are clearly being discouraged from maintaining that position."
So it is not just the oil industry levelling this charge at the federal government; it is the suggestion of many Albertans that the oil industry has been sold out by the federal government. This bill does not in any way solve the fundamental problem that confronts us, which is, how much of the oil dollar should go to the government, and how much to the oil industry? One cannot help agreeing to a considerable extent with the Premier of Ontario who asked, what is the point of increasing the cost of oil and gas unless enough of it goes to the oil industry to make it productive and increase exploration?
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance agreed in the finance committee that the reduction of oil exports to the United States would greatly increase our difficulties in balance of payments problems with that country. Many Canadians have clamoured loud and long for the cessation of exports of oil and gas to the United States. This year alone this would cost us perhaps a billion dollars in lost export trade. Are these same Canadians now prepared to face the consequences of this enormous loss in export trade?
The Minister of Finance has said we expect capital inflows to cover this balance of payments deficit, but if capital comes into the country it further increases foreign

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
ownership of our mines, factories and resources. For instance, in the finance committee a report was given that a certain type of Saskatchewan crude is being forced out of the United States market because of the export tax. Apparently this type of crude at the present time can only be refined in Minneapolis. There is no use for the crude in Canada, yet the export tax has diminished its use in the United States. This is a clear example of what will happen when we apply government rules indiscriminately.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this bill will solve the problem of how to set the price for oil and gas. The government has given no indication of what it regards as a reasonable increase, if any, in the price. We should have a better definition of what is a true price for oil in this country.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I will not detain the committee long, although I have other comments to make on a future occasion during the debate. I want to deal with some misstatements by the minister yesterday while they are fresh in my mind and in the minds of hon. members. I am not reluctant to do this because I feel under a certain obligation, following the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver South, to try to supplement the lectures on law which the minister must have received in college and to help him in his knowledge of the law. It is always a pleasure to help promising young lawyers, and I feel an obligation to do so now.
I understand some of the minister's problems,, because he has said his advice was received from the Minister of Justice. No wonder he has misconceived the law. When I was a young, freshly-minded barrister and went to the Peace River country to practice, there was there a fine old judge whose knowledge of the law was not very good, nor was his comprehension of the facts. At every assizes, however, he made sure that a lawyer won at least one case. He was known throughout the profession as "Old Judge Necessity". Your Honour will understand that, knowing the motto "Necessity knows no law". I suggest that when the minister gets his legal opinions from the Minister of Justice, this motto should be applied.
I know that the minister has a responsibility to take advice from the Minister of Justice, as the first law officer of the Crown, and his officials. But that does not mean his opinion is always right. The law books of this country are replete with cases where the federal government and the provincial governments, acting on the advice of counsel attached to their departments of justice or solicitors general, have legislated accordingly and have seen the legislation struck down. Because the Minister of Justice and his officials have given this minister some advice does not mean that that advice is necessarily correct. Speaking directly to the point, Mr. Chairman, yesterday the minister referred to the CalOil case as being an indication of the position he had taken, when he said as reported at page 4775 of Hansard:
I really need not do so-
He was referring to the case I had raised.
-in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided, in relation to the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board, that the Government of Canada does have jurisdiction to set the price of oil and oil products-

That was the CalOil case. There may be a recent citation, and if I am wrong I hope the minister will correct me and I will accept it. As I understand the situation, however, the Supreme Court of Canada did not sit on that case and did not hear the appeal. I have searched for the citation, unsuccessfully. Perhaps the minister will give it to me.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is in the Dominion Law Reports, volume 20, third series, page 472 and following.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that a Supreme Court of Canada decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was a court made up of all the judges. It looks like the full Supreme Court.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that 1971 and following? Is this following case No. 2 heard by them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: I appreciate getting that information from the minister, because I was not able to find it. Apart from that fact which was only collateral, my understanding of the situation is that in that case there was a problem with regard to the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board because the so-called Ottawa Valley line had been drawn in such a way as to sever the province of Ontario into two parts. The decision of a former deputy minister of justice, now Mr. Justice Jackett of the Federal Court who wrote the judgment in the first CalOil case, was to the effect that it was not within the jurisdiction of the federal government, or the National Energy Board as its agent, to enact regulations which would in any way interfere with the movement of oil and petroleum products from one part of the province to another.
Immediately after that, as I understand the citation, the National Energy Board met and amended the regulation. Then in a subsequent case in which the same parties were involved, Mr. Justice Dumoulin gave effect to the views of the National Energy Board and the federal government and declared that in fact the changed regulations did permit this prohibition to continue. That was, I think, somewhat different from the situation cited by the minister yesterday which dealt with the question of price. The case, as I read it, in its initial stages-unless some other extraneous issue was raised in the argument before the Supreme Court-was not concerned with price but with movement. I think that disposes of the authority which the minister has cited.
The other point I want to deal with now is the statement made by the minister yesterday. He suggested that the Diefenbaker government passed the National Energy Board Act in 1959 for the purpose of controlling and fixing prices, and that the act gave, and was intended to give, to the federal government the right which the present government is now claiming. I challenge that position. I was here as a member and recall the debate which took place at that time. I have researched some of the debates of 1959 and subsequent years. Allow me to read a statement made by Hon. Gordon Churchill, a distinguished member of the Diefenbaker government. He was minister of trade and commerce and was responsible for piloting the legislation
April 15, 1975

through the House. He said, as recorded on page 3927 of Hansard for May 22, 1959:
Gas prices at the point of production are regarded by the provinces of origin as being under their jurisdiction, and gas prices to the ultimate consumer are controlled by the province in which consumption takes place. The government of Canada has had the power to exercise control over the price of gas being exported under the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act-
About that position there is no argument. The minister who was then piloting the bill through the House indicated in the first statement that, beyond any shadow of doubt, gas prices at the point of production were regarded by the provinces of origin as being under their jurisdiction. Mr. Churchill went on to say, as recorded on page 3928:
It is not the practice-
I interpolate by saying that it is neither the practice nor the law.
-in peacetime to control prices or commodities in internal trade, but it is normal to control transportation or transmission charges, as in the case of railway freight rates.
That statement related to the purpose of the enactment of the National Energy Board Act and the establishment of the board. The federal government, through the use of controls and conditions attached to interprovincial trade and through provisions governing the transportation of oil and gas contained in that bill, was enabled to exert some influence on the price of goods at the point of destination. Finally, Mr. Churchill said, as recorded on page 3931 of Hansard:
Also I would emphasize again that we have sought with great care to avoid any interference with the proper jurisdiction of the provinces.
I must say that the last statement does not apply to the present government. Let me now deal with what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said. I was surprised at his position. Let me refer the hon. member to what Mr. Bert Herridge, a member of his party, said on May 18, 1959, as recorded on page 3777 of Hansard:
It is true that intraprovineial fuel and power matters are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is as it should be... and we in this group would not want to change that one iota.
I shall refer to quotations from other sources later in this debate. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the statements I have read, and others, make it clear that the government of the day in 1959, in introducing this legislation did not intend to violate ruthlessly the constitution by fixing prices at the wellhead, as the government seeks to do in the present instance. That, I think, was a position of common sense.
The position which my leader took last night is the position my party has always taken. We say that you should attempt to secure consensus on a multilateral basis among all involved parties. If that is not possible, you must consider the possibility of securing an agreement between a producing province and the federal government acting, as it must, on behalf of the people of Canada. But if that agreement is not possible, if for any reason it cannot be reached, that by itself does not automatically give the federal government jurisdiction. Surely it must first await the arrival of an emergency situation before invoking the
Oil and Petroleum
peace, order and good government clause of the constitution and thereby securing that jurisdiction.
It may well be that present conditions in the world, present conditions in Canada which are distinct from conditions in 1959, the extent to which energy and energy use has become a supremely important element in the social and economic world in which we live, present shortages of energy and apprehended shortages which may be realized in one or two years, may necessitate such changes in our consideration of the constitution as will permit the federal government to invoke that clause. All the same, we are far removed from the situation which applied in 1919 and 1920 when, in the Fort Frances case, the privy council laid down rules with regard to the right of the federal government to intervene in property and civil rights matters which come solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
I readily concede that, considering the situation existing in the world today-we are awaiting reports from boards about potential energy reserves in this country-and considering that our whole social and economic structure is predicated on the use of energy, it is now far easier for the federal government to make that kind of declaration; it is easier than it would have been in 1920 or 1921, or even in 1959. For those reasons we have adopted our position. That position is consistent with the position we took in 1959 as a party, and consistent with our responsibilities as an opposition.
We say that if an emergency does not exist, the federal government does not have the power it suggests it has. We , work under a finely-tuned federal system in which the producing province has the right to fix the wellhead price and to dispose of the product at the wellhead to people within the province. Clearly, the consuming province has every right by law to fix the price of the product within that province. In addition, the federal government, through its exercise of powers governing the regulation of trade and commerce and the transportation of a commodity through a pipeline, or commodities involved in interprovincial trade, may affect substantially the price of the commodity as it flows from the producing to the consuming province. But in a federal system, if there is no emergency it must, of necessity, bring all three parties-hopefully there will be three, but in any event there will be two-together and, in exercising leadership, work out an agreement.
Before I sit down, let me make a statement which we shall make over and over again. Unless that emergency exists, failure to reach agreement does not vest the government with powers it does not have.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has referred to the CalOil case. May I refer to the case decided in 1971, on appeal, by the full Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Pigeon gave the opinion of the court. The case dealt with a statement of principle. The hon. gentleman spoke about the wellhead price. In the case before the court, the question of the consumer price in the province of Ontario was at stake. The principle of federal regulation was attacked. One of the parties purporting to sell in the Ontario market argued that the restrictions imposed in the National Energy Board Act were beyond the powers of the federal government in so far as they dealt with the regula-

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
tion of trade and commerce. I quote from Mr. Justice Pigeon what seems to be the clearest enunciation of the principle, to be found at page 477 of Dominion Law Reports, volume 20, third series:
As noted by Dumoulin, J., Lord Tomlin's fourth proposition in the Fish Canneries case... is:
(4) There can be a domain in which provincial and Dominion legislation may overlap, in which case neither legislation will be ultra vires if the field is clear, but if the field is not clear and the two legislations meet the Dominion legislation must prevail...
This principle was recently applied by this court in such cases as-
He then cites a number of authorities. This is the statement of principle:
It is clear, therefore, that the existence and extent of provincial regulatory authority over specific trades within the province is not the sole criterion to be considered in deciding whether a federal regulation affecting such a trade is invalid. On the contrary, it is no objection when the impugned enactment is an integral part of a scheme for the regulation of international or interprovincial trade, a purpose that is clearly outside provincial jurisdiction and within the exclusive federal field of action.
In other words, the power under the constitution has been given to the federal government in certain cases to regulate trade, including the setting of prices in a particular trade, where that trade is part of an interprovincial or international system of regulation. That is precisely what is provided in this case. Hon. members will have noted the bill is very careful to make it clear that it is to apply to transactions related to the removal of products from a province, removal across a provincial boundary to other , parts of Canada or for export.
One of the wisest things the hon. gentleman said yesterday is that perhaps it is not a useful exercise to debate points of law in this parliament. I accept the basis of that.
I merely put the proposition of the Supreme Court of Canada on the record and let hon. members and readers of Hansard judge for themselves.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? Is it not a fact that that case involved a situation where CalOil was importing oil into Canada, and the National Energy Board-as it was entitled to, being the appropriate federal authority-set conditions, with regard to the importation of that oil, as to the place to which the oil was to be brought and utilized. This was because originally an attempt was made to take it from one part of one province into another. The decision of Mr. Justice Jackett was against the federal government.
The federal government made no attempt to appeal that decision. It was quite prepared to accept that decision which said, in effect, that the federal government, exercising its right, could not make regulations prohibiting or in any way interfering with the movement of oil from one part of a province to another part: it was prohibited and the federal government was out of court when it attempted to do that. That decision was not appealed. The case had nothing to do with price; it involved the import of oil into Canada with conditions attached.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would only say we are not talking about trade within a province; we are talking about its movement as part of an interprovin-

cial scheme. For these purposes, under the constitution where one is talking about international or interprovincial trade, the authority is clear: the federal government, as Mr. Justice Pigeon said, has exclusive jurisdiction.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed listening to this erudite discussion between the hon. member for Peace River and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the constitutionality of the veto clauses of Bill C-32 and whether in fact the government has the authority to set prices. I cannot claim legal training other than that which I have gained from sitting in this House for some 2lA years.
It seems obvious, from sheer logic and by just examining the facts as presented, that the veto clauses are contrary to the constitution, the British North America Act, and the Mineral Transfers Act of 1930 which transferred to the western provinces jurisdiction and ownership of all natural resources. More fundamentally on the legal question, the Mineral Transfers Act, as an amendment to the BNA Act, states in plain English that the resources belong to the provinces: they are owned by the provinces. I submit that if one says "Fine," there is no contest in that regard. However, if the price, the markets, indirectly the royalties, and the transportation shall be dictated by the federal government, what rights of ownership are there? Ownership becomes totally meaningless because in fact total control rests in the hands of the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the very simple reasoning in the Mineral Transfers Act of 1930 that natural resources, including oil and gas and the royalties derived therefrom, are owned by the provincial governments of Canada, these veto clauses which give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the authority unilaterally to set the prices of crude oil and natural gas are contrary to the constitution: they are unconstitutional.
This is the third occasion on which we have discussed this question. In the last parliament there was a predecessor bill, Bill C-18, which was never passed by the House. In this parliament we had the introduction of Bill C-32. Bill C-18 was a bad bill, and because of the minority situation the government was unable to impose it upon the House of Commons and the country. Having achieved a majority on July 8, they introduced Bill C-32, which is worse than Bill C-18. Bill C-18 in the previous parliament was bad; Bill C-32 is worse. As a result of gaining a majority, they expect they can now impose this bill on parliament and, therefore, on the country.
During our deliberations before Christmas, many arguments in opposition to this bill were presented by members of our party and members of the New Democratic Party. We indicated that we objected to the bill. Alternatives were presented to the government in terms of the availability of other acts now in existence, such as the Export and Import Permits Act, through which the government could accomplish the purposes of Bill C-32, namely, a uniform price for crude oil across Canada at something less than the world market price and impose an export charge and subsidy program for the consumers of imported oil east of the Ottawa Valley line. I thought, on the basis of those arguments and the fact that these alternatives were made known to the government, that
April 15, 1975

they had decided to withdraw the bill. Indeed, they did withdraw it and supplementary estimates were introduced to look after the subsidy program.
Unfortunately, however, it appears I was naive, because this week we began again our consideration of Bill C-32, brought back-coincidentally, I am sure-just a few days after the failure of the conference of first ministers to agree on what the price of crude oil in this country should be after July 30. I am sure I would be forgiven for reaching the conclusion that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made a political judgment and concluded that because of the failure of this conference, we in the opposition who have opposed the bill might now be more ready to give the government the power it seeks. If the minister is acting on that assumption, I am afraid he is mistaken. He is mistaken if he now thinks we will go along by giving parliamentary sanction to the powers requested in the bill before us.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Would the hon. member permit a question? Do I understand him to say that he is refusing to allow parliament to reach a decision on this question? Or is he prepared to let parliament come to a decision even though he and his hon. friends intend to vote against the bill?


Harvie Andre: I can only repeat what I have said: our position on this bill remains as adamant as it was before Christmas. As earlier speakers have made clear, we put forward a number of suggestions for amendments which, if adopted, would improve the bill to a point at which it might be acceptable. For instance, there was a suggestion that a time limit be placed upon the powers requested. As I read Hansard, however, there does not appear to have been any reciprocal desire on the part of the government to consider these suggestions, some of which would go a long way toward removing the concern we feel. I am assuming that as the committee proceedings continue, an opportunity will arise to look again at some of those proposals and, hopefully, an accord will be reached. Until such time it is a hypothetical exercise to predict how we on this side of the House will vote; it depends on how the discussion proceeds and what accommodations are reached. Does that answer the hon. gentleman's question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If I might respond, I can tell the hon. member that of course it does not answer the question I put to him. I can quite understand the hon. member would be embarrassed to admit that he intends to engage in a filibuster, but it seems to me his failure to deal directly with my question was in itself very eloquent.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has gone out of his way to mention a filibuster. I would only point out that at the request of the government we are not proceeding with this bill tomorrow.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Silence is golden in your case, Don.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the reason we are not proceeding with the bill tomorrow is that I have accepted an invitation from Mr. Speaker to be present in his riding tomorrow after-
Oil and Petroleum
noon, and it seemed to me nothing more than courtesy to the Speaker that I should fulfil that engagement.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Why
not send the hon. member for Peace River in your place?


Harvie Andre: It is a tradition of this chamber to show respect to the Chair and to the occupant thereof, and in this case it is well deserved. However, in view of the minister's announcement, I have some questions about the Speaker's judgment that I did not have previously.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Harvie Andre: The point the minister has made by way of a question reinforces the speculation which certain observers have indulged in, namely, that one of the purposes of the first ministers' meeting was to make it easier for the government to secure the kind of legislation which is before us. I refer particularly to the first day of the meeting, the part which took place under the eye of the camera; it was obviously hopeless to expect to reach a consensus on so sensitive a matter and it might have been expected the minister would then try to use the mounting pressure, in the absence of agreement, as a means of trying to force us to be less adamant in the position we are adopting. But it is not going to work. The reasons for which we oppose this bill, specifically the veto clauses, stand on their own merits. As responsible members of the opposition, we have an obligation to the country to oppose those provisions and to do everything we can to get them amended.


An hon. Member:: But not to filibuster.


Harvie Andre: No amount of grandstanding or pressure will work in this instance. We are conscious of our responsibility and we shall not be cowed by threats, name-calling or anything else.
Bill C-32 is plainly a bad bill as it is presently drafted. It is in need of considerable amendment and we shall do everything we can to see that the required amendments are made. In its present form the bill will certainly not aid in the process of negotiation which must form part of any agreement concerning a uniform price for crude oil and natural gas across Canada. This measure is a gun pointed at the heads of the producing provinces. Nobody can negotiate staring down the barrel of a gun, yet this is in essence what the situation will be. Far from facilitating negotiations, meaningful dialogue, participatory democracy or improved federal-provincial relations, these proposals will give rise to greater frustration, increased alienation and all those things the government claims it opposes.
The veto clauses in the bill will certainly not restore confidence and optimism to the industry, and if there is anything in particular which I find disturbing it is the total lack of confidence the industry is showing in Canada's future. Mr. Chairman, there are Canadian companies which have ceased entirely to explore for oil and gas in Canada. They are exploring for oil and gas in the Persian Gulf, the South China Sea and in Indonesia because, in their judgment, the political climate in those countries is superior to that in Canada.

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


Mr. Cullen:: Aw, nuts!


Harvie Andre: They have more confidence that the rules set down by those governments will remain the rules than that the rules set down by this government will remain the rules.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is $11 and $12 a barrel oil.


Harvie Andre: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has given his financial judgment as to what has caused this disenchantment on the part of the energy industries in Canada. I can only suggest that while the energy minister is in Sudbury, I arrange some meetings for him in Calgary, where he will soon be straightened out on the situation. He is totally wrong. There is no question that return on investment is a significant factor. The oil companies have no confidence that the government will let them remain a viable industry and receive a reasonable return on their investment. They feel that some of the Arab emirates will in fact be more open, honest and fair in their dealings with them than will the Government of Canada.
It is shocking that such a situation should exist, Mr. Chairman. The provision of these veto clauses in Bill C-32 is one of the main reasons for this feeling. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has virtually managed to destroy the industry or to do it great damage without the sort of powers that he will be given by this bill. Imagine what he could do if he had such powers! He would wipe out the industry in a day.
This bill is not going to improve Canada's supply situation. The most serious problem that we as a nation face today-a problem that must be faced but which apparently no one in the government is facing-arises from the predictions made in the National Energy Board report of last December to the effect that this year we will become a net importer of crude oil. Within six years, according to the report, we will be unable to supply from Canadian sources the area west of the Ottawa Valley. Since the Borden line was introduced in 1959 with the national oil policy, the area west of the Ottawa Valley line has been supplied by Canadian crude oil. We produced more than the market could absorb at that time. However, within six years we will be unable to produce enough to satisfy that market, and Toronto will be in the position of having to rely on imported crude oil, which will be subject to all the vagaries of the Middle East political situation and the consequences that will flow therefrom.
With regard to natural gas, within three years there will be insufficient natural gas produced in Canada to supply Canadian markets. There will have to be rationing or the importation of very high-priced natural gas which will have to be shipped to the country in liquid state, thus driving up the price enormously.
This bill will not add one barrel of oil to Canada's proven recoverable reserves, reserves that have been declining steadily since 1971 and which will lead to the shortage I have just been talking about. This should give us greatest cause for concern and we should redress the situation. Adding to the proven recoverable reserves should be the number one priority objective of a national

energy policy and the number one concern of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Any evidence of such concern is far from obvious to this observer or to anybody else. If there is any concern at all, it goes no further than some gnashing of teeth and biting of fingernails. There is nothing in the way of positive initiative to try to turn the situation around. Quite the contrary. What we have are veto clauses in this bill which can only make the situation worse.
The bill will do nothing but exacerbate an already alarming equipment drain from the country. The latest estimates indicate that 95 drilling rigs have left or are leaving Canada since the whole energy confrontation started. This in itself is a symptom of the malaise that exists. It is symptomatic of the fact that exploration and development-the search for crude oil, for the new oil supplies that Canada will need for the future-have stopped or have significantly decreased. The owners of the rigs, Canadian companies all, have found that to seek employment they must either move south or to other areas. It is incredible, but nonetheless the fact is that Canada is the only petrolific area in the entire world that has seen a reduction in exploration and development in the industry in the last year. What a testimonial to the energy policies of this country and to any confidence that this government will look after Canada's future energy needs!
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the bill will certainly not bring about better federal-provincial relations. Far from it. I find it incredible that a government which originally was elected on the basis that it would bring about national unity, that it would pull the country together, that it deplored the divisions existing in the country and that it would make national unity its number one priority and goal, should turn around and resort to tactics that are themselves driving great wedges into the country.
Many of my hon. friends discount statements such as that. They say they are not true, that the feelings of alienation I am talking about are frustration. They accuse me of indulging in rhetoric as an argument to try to maintain the privileged position that these companies now have. That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. The situation is very serious. Those of us who are devoting our lives to the service of this country want to see the country strong and united in all parts. A continuation of these kinds of tactics and the use of brute force in the form of Bill C-32 can only make things worse, exacerbating an already bad situation.
The time has long since passed that the minister and the government should alter their direction and stop trying to pit one part of the country against another. Let them work things out in the manner traditional in Canada, which is the way we have always worked things out. There are some good, well meaning people in all jurisdictions in Canada. If the tactics adopted were conciliatory rather than confrontation tactics, this would go a long way toward reducing feelings of alienation.
For those reasons and many more, we simply cannot go along with this bill. It is a bad bill. It requires amendment because in its present form it will do great damage to the
April 15, 1975

country. In essence, this bill would give parliamentary sanction to the decision of September 4, 1973, when the government introduced a price freeze on crude oil. That particular decision on that Tuesday after the Labour Day weekend, when the Prime Minister, in response to pressure from the New Democratic Party, made a statement about inflation and the anti-inflationary policies of the government and indicated that there would be a temporary price freeze on crude oil, marked a very clear division between a situation in the country in which the future, certainly in terms of the energy industries and energy supplies, looked rosy and bright to the situation we have today of doom and gloom.
We might compare the situation in the oil and energy industries between the summer of 1973 and the present time. In 1973, the industry, after a fairly long period of limited markets and low cash flows because of low prices, was in a period of tremendous optimism and enthusiasm. All the companies, particularly the Canadian independents which were doing most of the drilling in the great plains area of the western provinces, were geared up to massive programs of resource exploration and development. These companies had expansion programs. There were shortages of personnel such as geophysicists and petroleum engineers, but financing for exploration and resource development was not a particular problem.
As I indicated earlier, basically since 1971 we have been facing a decrease in respect of proven recoverable reserves in Canada. However, there is no doubt in my mind that if the exploration and development efforts planned to take place in 1973 had been carried out, the situation would be reversed and we would be in a position of having increased proven recoverable reserves; we would be in a situation where Canada would be self-sufficient well into the future if anybody cared to extrapolate. The government in July, 1973, introduced an energy policy document called "An Energy Policy for Canada; Phase One," which contained a great deal of very useful information. It contained a very well conducted analysis of Canada's energy situation and some recommendations for a national energy policy that would have made sense and been good for Canada.
Things looked very good in that period: Canada's prospects looked excellent. However, just two short months after this energy policy was introduced, the Prime Minister announced on September 4 a freeze on the price of crude oil. In something less than a month later, because of the provisions under the National Energy Board Act that Canada could not export oil and gas at less than fair market value, it was necessary to invent the export tax. Both moves, the freeze and the export tax, were taken with no consultation with the producing provinces. It was announced by the Prime Minister that this was the way it would be. There was no consultation and, understandably, there was concern on the part of the producing provinces that this move should be taken.
I refer particularly to Saskatchewan and Alberta because in that summer there were three commodities the price of which was controlled-beef, wheat and oil. It would be difficult to name three other commodities more important to the economy of those two provinces. Understandably, the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta asked
Oil and Petroleum
why these three commodities were frozen under the government's anti-inflationary program. They wondered whether political reasons might be involved. I am afraid we know the answer. Prior to the imposition of the price freeze and the export tax, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that this was just temporary, that the freeze would be taken off on September 30, 1974, and that every dime raised from the export tax would go back to the owners of the resource, the provinces.
The government, in effect, said it had to do this because there was a difficult inflationary situation. What a bunch of nonsense that turned out to be. Far from being a temporary freeze, it became permanent. Far from every dime raised in export taxes being sent back to the producing provinces, nothing was sent back. Far from agreeing that the producing provinces own the resources as indicated in the British North America Act-that they have certain rights of ownership that are inherent in our common law-the government sought to take over all these prerogatives of ownership and in fact to leave the producing provinces with ownership in name only, and no authority.
Now we see Bill C-32 as one more step in the same direction. What has happened in the oil and gas industry as a result of this activity? Today, exploration and development has dropped off markedly. We are the only petrolific country in the world which has a reduction in exploration and development activity. We are losing personnel and equipment. We need exploration and development in order to supply Canada's needs. We face shortages of natural gas and oil in three years and six years, respectively. We have an industry which previously was very optimistic and is now very despondent. Companies which had great exploration and development programs are now laying off and transferring workers. As a member from that area, it is difficult for me not to react at least somewhat angrily when I find that friends and acquaintances of long-standing, loyal Canadians who like Calgary and want to live and raise their families there, are now in a position where in order to pursue their occupation they must move to Dallas, the Middle East, Indonesia or Australia.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member because the time allotted to him has expired.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters that I want to raise in this debate on Bill C-32. I shall begin by attempting to explain the situation to hon. members who do not come from regions where petroleum is produced. I am speaking here not simply of provinces or of cities but of rural areas where people rely for their livelihood and sustenance upon the oil industry. These people often come from other parts of the country to settle in communities which they anticipated would have some capacity to exist and where they could continue contributing to the economy and the future of Canada. A very real alarm has set in in those communities, a corrosive, cancerous alarm about the very future of their towns and their livelihoods. This matter is related directly to the bill before us, which is seen as one more instance of the

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
federal government's squeeze upon the people and the industry in this region.
I want to communicate this feeling as effectively as I can. The response is not a regional anger of westerners at the east. The response is a much more direct and personal concern about what will happen to homes, to friends, to investments and to small communities-and I know that many of my colleagues on the government side come from small communities where people have relied upon there being a sense of continuity. In many of the oil producing regions in my constituency of Rocky Mountain, which include the Pembina field and also the original Turner Valley field in Alberta, particularly in the areas where there has been active production, there exists now a sense of pessimism that I do not think has been seen in that part of the country since the days of the depression. People came there with high hopes, perhaps no higher than those of people who moved to other communities to start their careers, but they have seen those hopes suddenly undermined and they are naturally concerned.
Already, in towns such as Drayton Valley, Whitecourt, Fox Creek and Swan Hills-communities that might mean nothing to some hon. members here but which mean a great deal to those who live in them-there is a great and growing concern about the number of people who have moved away, leading businessmen in the towns who ran the Scout groups, who served on municipal councils and school boards, people who saw their businesses in oil field servicing dry up or suddenly become so uneconomical that they unloaded them at a loss. These people are facing problems that are not simply personal but problems that strike at the life of the community.
This is one of the consequences of Bill C-32 and the family of acts of intervention of which this bill is a part. If there were anything inevitable about this, perhaps we would simply have to accept it. I think that no one here is attempting to maintain communities artificially at the standard they had previously. But the point I want to make and what causes so much concern, frustration and bewilderment among constituents of mine is that this attack on the communities where oil and petroleum is produced is not necessary at all. There is no reason for it to happen. The reserves of petroleum and of natural gas in those areas are sufficiently high to allow the communities to expect a long, natural lifespan.
What is shortening that lifespan, what is bringing concern and the possibility of attrition to those communities is not any natural force. It is-and I say this deliberately and precisely-the actions of this government as embodied in Bill C-32, the unilateral introduction of the export tax and of other actions which have been taken without any kind of consideration for the human and social effects which they will have upon parts of the country.
I said that the major concern of the oil producing communities such as those I have enumerated has to do with the immediate effect upon the community of the decisions of the government. There are many businessmen who two or three years ago thought that things were good, that they would be able to provide for their families and prepare for their future, but who are now having second thoughts. There is that level of concern about the immediate future of the community.

A matter which should receive careful attention from the House-even if there is not much compassion on the government side for individuals in the communities in my constituency-is the effect that this kind of action has upon the attachment to this country of people who are as good and productive as any whom hon. members opposite have in their constituencies. They see the accumulation of federal initiatives in the energy field as initiatives directed, not against the Premier of Alberta whom the minister might lampoon as some kind of sheik, but against themselves, against their region, against their aspirations.
There has suddenly been a movement directly into their homes, into their lives, of a kind of attack from Ottawa. Naturally, if you see all around you evidence that the direction of the Government of Canada is clearly and precisely against your interest in ways that you can quantify, such as in the number of rigs that leave town, or businesses that begin to lay off their employees or delay expansion, then you begin to wonder about the cost and value of your commitment to the country of which you have always been proud.
I think it would be foolish if members on the government side looked upon the series of acts taken by the minister and his colleagues in energy matters as simply having to do with energy, because in fact they have to do much more with the capacity of the country to hold together and with the will of the people in my part of the country to remain active and contributing Canadians. I had the opportunity the other day to take my colleague, the hon. member for Don Valley, the energy critic of the official opposition, to one of those communities, to Drayton Valley, to see for himself some of the operations in the field and to talk to some of the people who live there in an atmosphere of uncertainty that would worry any member of the House if he found it in his constituency.
The hon. member for Don Valley went away with a predominant understanding, which he had not been able to learn from books or even from elevating debates in the House, of the degree of pride that people who work in the oil industry take in the work they are doing. They consider themselves to be producing Canadians who are dedicating their lives to building the country and to making it grow. They are absolutely bewildered, and indeed their faith in Canada is shattered, when they see a series of government actions which in accumulation seem to attack them for doing the very thing in which they have taken so much pride.
I should say in passing-and I note that the minister is here-that many of the people whom we met in the oil fields in Drayton Valley expressed to the hon. member for Don Valley not simply their appreciation of the fact that he had come to see for himself the human side of what was being done by Ottawa, but also the hope that the minister himself would come. They had hoped that the minister would remove himself from the protection of his advisers who perhaps see things in terms of war games with the provinces or, indeed, perhaps in terms of war games with OPEC nations, and would come himself to visit the people who work and live in an area of Canada where petroleum is produced and where the confidence in an ability to carry on has been very seriously undermined by the
April 15, 1975

cumulative actions of this government, of which the bill we are considering is only one.
Other members of the House of Commons who have participated in this debate have raised questions about the constitution and about the reason the Government of Canada is embarking upon this particular instrument to try to achieve the goal it says it needs this bill to achieve. I think it is fair for hon. members to be frank with one another. My suspicion is that the real motive for this bill and for the other actions of which it has been part is not a concern about achieving an immediate consensus on price, nor is it a concern about establishing a particular price level in the country; it is, instead, a concern to accumulate to the bosom of the federal government as much power as it possibly can.
As others have argued and as I intend to argue later today, there is no need for this particular instrument to accomplish the goals which the government says it wants to accomplish. Those goals can be accomplished by other means. There is an extraordinary emergency power already in the constitution. There is the well established practice, venerated through many years of Canadian experience, of working out agreements on matters which cause disagreement between the provinces in conferences such as the one we saw last week. There are a number of other ways of doing this; but the only instrument the government is prepared to choose is one which will aggrandize its own power-and I think that that is rooted, unhappily, in a very dangerous view held by the government of the nature of this country.
I regretted yesterday, when the Prime Minister was uttering a very well deserved tribute to the late Senator Crerar-I have not checked to see if the "blues" were corrected-that he made a point of saying that Senator Crerar, when he spoke for western Canada, did not speak in negative terms of alienation or diversity. That, surely, is the operative word. Perhaps he meant "division." I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps he meant "division". But if he meant diversity-and I believe that is the word Hansard shows in relation to his comments on the late Senator Crerar-that indicates a highly dangerous attitude in this country. It indicates a fundamental suspicion of diversity. In my view and in the view of others who come from other parts of the country, whether they are from areas like Cape Breton, where there are continuing attempts against great odds to maintain culture and civilization and to mine coal, or whether they come from western Alberta, we realize the tremendous importance in this country of national policy which reflects diversity.
We realize, too, that the federal system we have is not a system imposed by someone else from a distance or for some theoretical reason. It is a system which developed because it is the only system which could work in a country so broad and diverse but which wanted to haul together. What frightens me about the attitude I see on the part of this government as it reaches out to establish power under its own control-whether by establishing Petro-Canada or by introducing Bill C-32 which gives it a power it does not need, or by other actions-is that it is trying to change the balance of confederation and to
Oil and Petroleum
reduce the capacity of provinces and regions which reflect the peculiar diversity of their areas to have that diversity reflected in the whole country.
Quite apart from other questions which might arise in connection with Bill C-32, there is no question-anyone who comes from a distant part of the country will agree with this-that a decision taken here in the isolation of Ottawa respecting other parts of the country will not be taken intelligently unless there is some direct contact with those other parts of the country. The way we can now assure some degree of consultation and of reflection of the great diversity of this country is by having a federal system which is federal in fact and which allows various provinces to exercise powers which are important to them.
This is not a question strictly of economics or energy because, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, the effects of this initiative and others which are most notable to me, as a member of parliament who goes home to his constituency, are not the economic or direct energy effects; they are the social effects and the disruption of communities whose leaders must move or operate in uncertainty; they are the effects upon the willingness to remain active in contributing parts of Canada; and they are the effects we see upon the pride which has existed to this point in energy producing areas of this country.
What worries me most of all about this bill is that it is a symbol and a symptom of a much broader attitude toward the nature of a country which considers diversity to be a danger, and which believes that the only way we can achieve agreement in this country is by giving the federal government a big enough club to beat the provinces or regions into some kind of submission. That suggestion is a highly dangerous principle upon which to proceed in a country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That is a bunch of crap.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, quoting his leader, says that this is a bunch of crap. Well, I agree with him in so far as following that philosophy is a bunch of crap if we want to hold Canada together. But I challenge him to explain to me what other kinds of motives are generating the policies of the government which here, in Bill C-32, is trying to secure an extraordinary power which it does not need; which is determined, under the Petro-Canada bill, to set up an agency whose primary purpose is simply to add to the armament of the federal government; which is acting, in the courts of Canada, to stop the development of cable television and of a cable capacity in the provinces, and which is working in various other fields to aggrandize its own power and to weaken the power of the regions of Canada-because if that philosophy is followed, it could lead to the destruction of the country. I am afraid that it is a philosophy which is all too evident in this bill, because under it the Government of Canada will have an extraordinary power which it does not need. The government can, in extreme circumstances or in emergencies, exercise this power under the provisions already in the constitution. I think that power is the motive and it is a highly dangerous motive.
There is another aspect of this question of the acquisition by the government of extraordinary power. When the

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
partners in confederation, the provinces and the national government, come to the table more or less as equals, there is an onus upon them to agree. They know that if they do not agree there will be no agreement, bqt when an extraordinary club or an extraordinary power is put into the hands of one of the members at that table, that undermines the determination of the other partners to come to agreement. It corrodes and erodes the willingness to negotiate. If we grant this desire, we are going to take away from the premiers the incentive to agree when meetings are held such as the one last week. Why should they make all kinds of trade-offs in an effort to ensure the continuity of this country, if the decision is going to be imposed anyway? There is no point in negotiating with a government which already has the power to do what it wants to do.
This instrument would allow the government, whatever the issue, whatever sides people were taking on questions relating to energy, to go to a negotiating table without the need to negotiate. That would undermine the whole future and capacity of negotiations in this country. Anyone acquainted with the history of federal-provincial relations in Canada knows that our success and continuity as a country has relied substantially on the willingness of the various partners to negotiate. It is that willingness which would be undermined if the federal government acquired this extraordinary power.
What is being asked for in Bill C-32 is a regular, continuing, extraordinary power for the Government of Canada; a power which it does not have today. If it did have it in this form, we would not need this law. The government is trying to put into law a new, extraordinary power.


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


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Chairman, in the bill before us there are three things which must be considered. The first is the question of unity within this country and the whole subject of federal-provincial relations. The second thing is security of supply of energy for Canada in the foreseeable and distant future. The third important thing is the question of industrial development in western Canada. I think it is fair to say that in the past three, four or five years of this government these three considerations have been in danger.
I should first like to deal briefly with the question of unity. We can all remember the good old days when previous federal governments paid some attention to the constitution of this country and made genuine efforts to maintain reasonable working relationships with the provincial governments. In the last couple of years in particular, steps have been taken by this government, particularly through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which have put a strain on federal-provincial relationships.
Less than two years ago there was a sudden increase in the world price of petroleum. At that time the federal government, without consultation with the governments of the producing provinces, and in their usual practice of

government by news release, announced a tax on all petroleum products exported from this country. I do not object to the principle of the tax or what it was intended to do, but I do object to running roughshod over federal-provincial relations. This attitude cannot be tolerated in our country where so much depends upon unity and good relations between the provincial governments and the federal government.
The next step the government took was to introduce the energy allocations bill. This piece of legislation called for an inordinate amount of power to be given to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources; power far beyond what could conceivably be required to deal with any emergency. This measure was introduced without meaningful consultation with the producing provinces and was pushed through in the manner of the playground bully.
The government then imposed the budgetary provision which eliminated royalties from income tax deductibility. That not only created a strain on federal-provincial relations but it created instability in the industry and the economy. The government has followed the pattern set by introducing this petroleum administration bill without meaningful consultation with the producing provinces. The bill provides, in effect, that if the producing provinces do not agree to put a suggested price on oil, then the federal government will do it. Such an attitude is not conducive to good relations.
One could easily draw the conclusion from the steps I have outlined, Mr. Chairman, that this minister wants to amass the power in his own hands, and one might ask why. Certainly, the measures I refer to, particularly the tax changes, have led to an unwillingness on the part of the petroleum industry to carry on with the job it has been doing so well in this country. The government does not seem to have learned anything from the steps it has taken; it does not seem to have observed that exploration and development is decreasing or that security of supply of energy products is jeopardized. It continues to ride roughshod over everybody in order to achieve its goal.
One could almost conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to destroy the petroleum industry in order to make it easier for the federal government to take over not only energy resources but, in due course, all natural resource development in this country. It seems to me that is the direction in which the minister is heading. If the government wants to go in that direction, it should come clean with the people of Canada and say in this House what it is doing. Obviously, it is heading in that direction. Hon. friends to my left may applaud this move, but at least we know where they stand. They stand in different places on different days, but generally speaking they favour nationalizing resource industries, and they have said so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Right on.


Paul Yewchuk: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has often said inside and outside this House that he is in favour of private enterprise developing petroleum and other natural resource industries in this country, yet his actions belie his statements. Not long ago the National Energy Board issued a report which said that
April 15, 1975

within the next eight or nine years Canadian petroleum products would be in short supply. That report shocked many Canadians because not long ago we were told that we possessed sufficient energy supplies to last us several decades, not just one. Yet suddenly we were told there would be a shortage in the near future.
One wonders about the accuracy of such reports. If there is to be a petroleum shortage within the next ten years, why does the government follow policies which discourage the development of our petroleum industry? Indeed, government policies are bringing about a decrease in exploration and are hindering development. Exploration is on the downswing and companies are looking to other parts of the world for investment. They seek to explore elsewhere because conditions in this country for them have become unpalatable.
What about quid pro quo for the West? About a year ago, when the federal government began intruding on provincial jurisdiction in the field of energy, it at least tried to console westerners. Ministers said, "We are going to skim off as much income as we can from the provinces and put it in the federal treasury, but in return we will implement policies beneficial to western development." They talked about reducing transportation costs and stimulating industrial development. We do not hear about these things any more. Nobody on the government side talks about quid pro quo for the west; the subject has been forgotten. Instead, the government is now concerned with power; it wants to invade, as quickly as possible, provincial jurisdiction and take over as quickly as possible the development of natural resources. Apparently it is not concerned with the long-term effects on security of supply.
A moment ago I said that a National Energy Board report indicates that we possess supplies of conventional petroleum sufficient only for the next eight or ten years. In the middle of my constituency and forming a large part of it exists one of the largest undeveloped deposits of petroleum in the world in the form of the Athabasca tar sands. It seems to me that development of the tar sands is essential to make sure we do not run out of petroleum by the end of the decade. I am in favour, of course, of increasing exploration for conventional oil: we must do all we can to find and develop these resources. However, we all know that supplies of conventional oil are decreasing. The only logical way to guarantee long-term security of supply for this country lies in the speedy development of the tar sands.
I am distressed to note that the government's remarkable vacillations in policy regarding this country's petroleum industry have resulted in a falling off of interest in the development of the tar sands. Consider for a moment the gestation period needed before a new plant can be born, so to speak. A long period must elapse between the conception of a plant on the drawing board and the actual production of oil. Obviously, we must not waste time; we must develop the tar sands. Past experience shows that it takes, on average, five years to turn a plant conceived on the drawing board into reality. It takes five years to bring new tar sands oil on stream.
At present this country consumes about two million barrels of oil a day. We export about one million barrels of western oil and import an equivalent amount to supply the
Adjournment Motion
markets of eastern Canada. As I said, the interval between the design on the drawing board and the operating plant is, on average, five years. We know that tar sands plants of a capacity of about 100,000 barrels a day are being designed. If we want to be assured of secure supplies after the end of the present decade, we must make certain that we possess at least ten tar sands plants each producing
100.000	barrels a day by that time. We need at least one million barrels a day of tar sands oil. Simple arithmetic shows we shall need ten plants each with a production of
100.000	barrels a day.
At present we are not likely to reach this production target. At the moment one plant produces about 65,000 barrels a day and another, under construction, will produce about 125,000 barrels per day. Two or three plants are in the early planning stages and may or may not go ahead. We do not know if they will proceed. This government's vacillating policies have caused uncertainty in the industry and have proved a deterrent to people who want to develop the tar sands. The government should not deter such people; it ought to be concerned about security of supply. We know what could happen if this country became more dependent than it is today on offshore supplies of oil. Oil prices are unpredictable, Madam Chairman.
May I call it five o'clock?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: As it is five o'clock, and so that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 15 to leave the chair at this time.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Possibility of provinces sharing cost of chronic care hospitals; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-External Affairs-Government position on permitting entry of Valentyn Moroz and family as landed immigrants; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-External Affairs-Discussions with United States concerning transportation of Alaskan oil across Canada.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, and
notices of motions.

April 15, 1975
Private Members' Business


Mr. Lefebvre:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is attending the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. He has asked me to move his bill, C-367, on his behalf.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Thomas Lefebvre: that Bill C-367, to amend the Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


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


Thomas Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) may I thank the House for its co-operation in helping him to pass this bill which is very important to his constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-208, respecting Heritage Day, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. McKinley:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We cannot agree that this bill be now considered in private members' hour because notice was only given for the bill that was just passed. There are certain members of this party who like to know ahead of time when a particular bill is being brought forward. We cannot consent to it at this time.


Thomas Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, I missed part of the hon. member's remarks. Would he mind repeating them so that I can report this to the authorities?


Robert Elgin McKinley: Yes, Madam Speaker. We were only provided with information for the bill that was just passed. There is a responsibility to give information to hon. members when a bill is coming forward in private members' hour. This information was not provided to us to pass on to our members who are concerned with this Heritage Day bill. Therefore it is my duty to be responsible to those members of our party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, if there is the kind of objection which has just been stated, there is no point in being difficult. I may say that I do have the authority of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) to move this bill on his behalf. It is for this bill and not another in which he is
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
interested. However, if the Conservative party objects, I shall not try to do so at this time.
I wish to make the point that these arrangements that are being made are getting to the point where we are not only facilitating the private members' hour, but we are losing a lot of time. The rule is that when one order is disposed of, we move on to the next. Surely it should have been known that the bill of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) would take only a few minutes. Something else should have been ready for this hour. I suppose we now face the problem of what we should do.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member can call it six o'clock if he wants. However, I do not like us giving up 55 minutes of House time. Furthermore, since it is Tuesday I certainly will not agree to our giving up this time if it is going to count as the thirty-first of the 40 hours we have on Mondays and Tuesdays. Maybe we can find some solution to this. I have a bill away down the list, order No. Ill, which I am prepared to take, but I certainly do not think we should rise now and say we have had appointed day number 31.


Thomas Lefebvre: Replying to the comments of the House leader of the NDP, I suggest he raise this subject at the next House leaders' meeting rather than wait until these problems arise in the House. Our House leader is not here. I do not see the House leaders of the other parties. The hon. member is speaking as a House leader, and there is no one here to reply to him as such. I suggest he place this on the agenda for the next House leaders' meeting. To help solve the dilemma today, I suggest we return to Bill C-32 until six o'clock.


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I have to apologize for my voice, Madam Speaker, but I have a cold that has settled in my throat. If we are to do that, some suggestion should have been made before this time. Possibly we could have made some arrangements. At the present time we are not prepared to agree with the suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the chief government whip, but I wish to point out that the order of business is not completely in the hands of the House leaders. There is an order paper. At five o'clock on Tuesday the order is private members' business. We would be perfectly within our right to say we will take the first item and then the second item, whether members know about it or not. For the purpose of convenience we have arrived at this agreement, and I have no objection. However, when it is clearly understood that a bill that is called will take only two or three minutes, there should be an understanding that we will move on to something else. As I say, I am prepared to have my bill called. It asks for time off, up to three hours, for new citizens to appear in citizenship courts. Surely that is a reasonable proposition. I do not press it. I just say it is something we could do.
If we reach the point where there is nothing we can do, I make the same plea I made the last time. This hour, which
April 15, 1975

is only a few minutes, should not count as one of the 40 hours we are allowed for private members' business on Mondays and Tuesdays.


Thomas Lefebvre: Just to show that we on this side of the House are agreeable, I will agree with the hon. member's suggestion that this not be charged to the 40 hours. I agree to that. If it is agreeable, I will call it six o'clock and no time will be lost for private members' business.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that order No. 8 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we do not count this as a private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House will permit our going into committee of the whole on Bill C-32 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 Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5:12 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Yewchuk: Madam Chairman, just before the committee recessed I was saying that the country in which we live has been severely damaged by the policies of the government. I said it was damaged in three ways. The first was in the area of federal-provincial relations and general unity. I said this damage had been done because no consultations of a meaningful nature had taken place before the
Oil and Petroleum
announcement of major policies on energy matters was made by the minister.
I also said the country had been damaged as a result of the instability surrounding the petroleum industry, an insecurity which jeopardized the security of future supply. The most obvious place at which the effects of this instability are now visible is the development of the Athabasca tar sands. It is estimated that by the end of the present decade we shall require a million barrels or so a day from the sands, and to achieve this level ten plants must be constructed before the end of the next ten-year period, each producing some 100,000 barrels a day. Because of the time it takes for a plant to go on stream, some five years, it is evident we are up against what I would consider to be an emergency situation right now. Steps must be taken very soon to stimulate the industry, to create a feeling of well-being in the economy so that this important development can proceed forthwith.
I realize it is becoming increasingly popular to expect governments to participate to an ever greater extent in the development of natural resources, particularly in the field of energy. We also are aware that no governments have the machinery or the know-how at the moment to take over from private enterprise-I do not say they could not get it, but at the moment they do not have it. I am not arguing now that government should take over from private enterprise; all I am saying is that private enterprise has been working in this area for several decades and doing a good job. It is only since there has been marked interference on the part of the federal government, and maybe some others, that supplies have been in jeopardy. While some members of the House, and some people in the country may daydream about the day when governments are completely responsible for energy production, the fact remains that our only hope at the moment of assuring security of supply within the next decade or so lies in encouraging the people who have proven their success in the past, and who already have the know-how and the required machinery. I want to impress this on the mind of the minister in the hope he will give it some thought and take steps which will be more useful than those he has taken so far.
This is not the time, Madam Chairman, to be taunting the provinces, or picking fights with the various regions of the country. In days in which Canada is threatened by unemployment on one hand and inflation on the other, the federal government should be striving for co-operation and taking a conciliatory approach in an effort to solve collectively the serious problems which beset the nation. We have not seen this happening. Instead, particularly as far as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned, we have witnessed a series of confrontations staged for no particular reason. It is important that this situation be changed. Perhaps the Prime Minister himself should take a more active role in this area. The Prime Minister is probably quite sincere when he says he wants to come to grips with inflation in some way; his efforts so far have not resulted in any significant improvement. I should like to see the Prime Minister go down in history as the man who, to use his own phrase, wrestled inflation to the ground. However, I fear history will record of his leadership only the phrase "Pierre fuddled while Canada burned".

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Chairman, in approaching legislation such as Bill C-32 I am surprised the government, when considering the implications, did not see fit to make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is not as though there was not sufficient time to permit this to be done-as a number of hon. members have mentioned, this particular piece of legislation has been before the House for many months. The regulation of trade and commerce has always been a delicate and controversial subject. The bill before us has great potential for abuse by a government which is overly concerned about legislative expediency and somewhat impatient with the rights of provinces, and, indeed, of individuals.
The other day I was looking at a book by a contemporary authority on the Canadian constitution, W. R. Leder-man, a very distinguished academic who at one time was at Dalhousie University when I was studying there. This distinguished gentleman had some very interesting things to say about the role of courts generally in relation to our constitution, and I should like to put on the record some brief excerpts from his book, which is entitled "The Courts and the Canadian Constitution". Professor Leder-man makes the point that the court has an educational role to play, and at page 172 of this book we find the following:
It is well recognized that the ultimate court in a federal system plays two roles in relation to public opinion. It is first the institutional symbol of balance in the national life, the instrument which seeks to preserve unity in the system of diversity of interest and legal power involved in federalism. Secondly, its deliverances help to educate the public mind as to the historic purposes of the constitution, and the principles applied in the determination of great internal issues.
I do not think any of us would seriously question that under present circumstances this is a great internal issue. A determination is being made by this highest court in the land, parliament, of what the historic role of the provinces will be in the future, having regard to the rights that they and their people have to deal with their own natural resources. The Supreme Court of Canada should have a role as well. Professor Lederman goes on to say that the court is an umpire of the federal system. May I return here to the point with which I began these few remarks and suggest to the minister that I am surprised he did not seek to make use of our Supreme Court.
Professor Lederman continues:
It is the prime function of the final court to keep the exercise of legislative powers by parliament or legislatures within the limits marked out for them. For that purpose it must interpret the heads of jurisdiction relevant to each exercise of asserted legislative power in reaching its conclusion of validity or invalidity.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister said that he did not need to go to the courts; he had Otto Lang to rely on.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As the hon. member for Peace River says, the minister made reference to the fact that he had received the benefit of an opinion from the Minister of Justice. I believe his exact words were that the bill being put forward carries with it the judgment of the Department of Justice that it is, indeed, within the legislative power of the parliament of Canada to pass this particular

enactment. I say to the minister in all sincerity, how much better would it be if he were able to make that statement with reference to the Supreme Court of Canada; and I say that with all due deference to the Minister of Justice.
In looking at another major act dealing with energy, the act that set up the National Energy Board and which came into effect in 1959, it was never intended by that piece of legislation to give the federal government the right to come into a province and fix the wellhead price for petroleum products. The government of that the day exhibited, albeit under circumstances quite different, though not entirely so, from those existing today, a more commendable concern for the rights of the provinces and the citizens of the provinces, since at that particular time the government was content, through the board, by transport controls and so on, to exert an impact on price at the place of arrival, a much different situation from moving in and interfering with prices at the source.
As other hon. members have said-and I do not wish to belabour the point-by applying the same reasoning as that applied to petroleum products the government could institute controls on the price of lumber, because most provinces export lumber. It could do it with iron ore because iron ore will eventually become steel and might be exported. No resource is exempt. So it is quite clear that the government has, if it so chooses, the power to change drastically the traditional roles that the provinces have played in managing their own resources ever since confederation.
I repeat that it becomes imperative that the government do what it did about a year ago, namely, use every effort to bring the provincial premiers back again in a more subdued and businesslike attitude to achieve a consensus, without resorting to legislative enactments of this sort. Again I caution the minister to avoid his tendency to be impatient and inflexible because of his understandable concern to achieve his objective.
There is another option that the minister and his colleagues should pursue to the utmost extent. I refer to bilateral discussions between the producing provinces and the federal government in an attempt to achieve written agreements, preferably supplemented by statutory provisions. If there really is a crisis in the area of Energy, as it was claimed there was about a year ago but which has since turned out to be considerably less than a crisis, if surely, the government can act, as it did with the Energy Allocation Act, as if there were a genuine state of emergency and deal with the situation, without being at this time in a great rush to enact this particular piece of legislation.
A province like Alberta, or any other province for that matter, cannot realistically make an agreement to sell petroleum products outside its own borders without the co-operation of the consuming provinces and the federal government agencies concerned with the transportation of such products. Given the co-operative nature of the marketing and transportation process, I want to ask the minister, without going into the many arguments previously cited, why the matter was not referred to the Supreme Court of Canada so that this, our highest and most prestigious court, could have formulated, through its ruling, the legal and constitutional position.
April 15, 1975

This ruling could then have served not only as a guide to Parliament and to the government in proceeding with its legislation; it would have demonstrated to all Canadians, and particularly to all those having the responsibility to govern in provinces, that the federal government was truly concerned with the rule of law and was using the resources of our Supreme Court to assist in evolving legislation which, by its very subject matter, had fundamental constitutional implications.
I did not intend to cite a possible amendment in its entirety at this stage, but it does seem to me that it would be appropriate to move an amendment at the end of the bill. For example, an amendment could be moved to add immediately following clause 95 on page 39 a new clause, which could be clause 96, providing for reference to the Supreme Court. Such an amendment could read as follows:
(1)	Forthwith after this act is assented to in Her Majesty's name, the governor in council, under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, shall refer all questions of law and fact concerning the constitutionality of this act and every provision thereof other than this section to the Supreme Court.
(2)	Until the Supreme Court has certified to the governor in council its opinion upon each such question, no provision of this act, other than this section, shall come into force at the time of commencement provided therefor under this act or the Interpretation Act and then only to the extent, if any, such provision is in the opinion of the court within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada.
I think that is necessary in view of clauses 52 and 35, which provide that they come into effect upon proclamation. Another subclause could be added to this effect:
(3)	The attorney general of each province shall be notified of the hearing under this section in order that he may be heard if he thinks fit.
I have tried to be reasonably specific in what I have said this evening, that is to say, I have registered my concern about why the resources of the Supreme Court have not in fact been utilized by the minister and the government, since they are there and presumably are available to give guidance. I want to conclude by saying that I hope the minister will address himself to this point and provide me with a resume of why he has not taken this sort of action. Perhaps he will also say whether he feels that what I have suggested has any merit or not.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the clause carry? The hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: I got to my feet a little too rapidly, Madam Chairman. I see I have a competitor to whom I yield.


Mr. Elzinga:: Madam Chairman, the reason I did not rise in more of a rush was that I thought the minister would wish to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Central Nova. This petroleum administration legislation, I believe, does a very good job of setting out the philosophy of the government which governs Canada at the present time. It is the philosophy of confrontation.
When the government cannot achieve its purpose through the proper channels it is more than willing to bring out a club with which literally to ram its feelings down the throats of the objectors. It is no wonder there was not agreement reached at the recent conference of
Oil and Petroleum
first ministers. How could our provincial administrations be assured that the federal government would not do exactly what it did after the previous meeting? Shortly after that meeting it introduced a budget which, to my understanding, was in disagreement with the consensus reached, and by which it no longer allowed royalties to be an expense deduction.
I should like to read briefly the reaction of the petroleum industry to the elimination of the expense deduction. It reads as follows:
The petroleum industry has been swift and bitterly critical in its reaction to federal budget proposals that may take as much as $800 million away from it in a full year.
Industry men said they deplored the fact that Ottawa has failed to heed earlier complaints that if the tax proposals-first put out in the defeated federal budget of last May-were passed, producers could face an economically untenable position.
I am as concerned about the petroleum industry as about the small consumer, because if we do not have exploration by our petroleum industries we will not have the supply to give to the individuals who so badly need it, and our concern must be a surety of supply.
I wish also to take a few moments to compare this federal administration to the government of Alberta and its reaction. Alberta somehow feels it is just coming into its own in regard to confederation, but the present federal administration wishes to continue its policy of excluding the western parts of our country from full participation in confederation. As I stated earlier, I should like to compare the attitude of the federal government to the attitude of the provincial government of Alberta. I shall quote out of context some remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he spoke to the Science Teachers Association of Ontario on November 16, 1974. He stated:
I say ... the principles of our policy, and they are threefold in regard to petroleum: To reach, through consultation with the provinces, a phased increase in the price of crude oil to a level sufficient to bring on the required additional supplies for Canadians without jumping to the high levels set by the OPEC group;...
I should like to dwell on his statement in respect of consultation with the provinces. With regard to this bill, is the minister willing to take the advice and guidance of the provinces when the bill contains a veto clause? What type of consultation is that? This is not consultation, but confrontation. Again let me stress that this administration wishes to have a club by which it can beat and mold the provinces to its own federal wishes.
As a comparison I should like to read the statement of Premier Lougheed which he gave at the federal-provincial conference in Ottawa on January 22, 1974. He stated:
Alberta welcomes the opportunity to participate in this federal-provincial conference on energy. As the major supplier of energy for Canada, we obviously have a substantial stake in the development of sound and fair national energy policies. They must be national policies though-national in the sense they are developed by agreement between the federal government and the provinces and with full recognition that natural resources located within the provinces, under our constitution, are owned by the provinces.
The Premier of Alberta states, "they must be national policies". By his past experience I believe he has proved he is willing to respect the national interest. As he says in his statement, with which I am in agreement, the resources are the property of the provinces under our constitution.

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
At the same time we find that this Liberal administration is not willing to abide by our constitution and recognize the fact that resources are the property of the provinces. The federal government is not willing to heed the constitution and the rights of the provinces. It is more inclined to ram its beliefs down the throats of what might appear to be minor governments.
There are many areas in respect of petroleum in which we should be very interested. I feel they are somewhat overlooked by this government because it is more interested in grabbing the wealth these resources will produce. The two areas on which I wish to dwell specifically are supply and national unity. The National Energy Board states that Canada will lose its self-sufficiency in respect to oil production by 1982 even if oil exports to the United States are cut off. What has the minister done in the area of security of our supply? What is he doing in respect of finding future reserves which will be very much in demand by future generations? I do not believe he is doing anything in this regard, or in respect of national unity, although the government suggests it is doing much to foster this cause.
I should like to refer to a few paragraphs from an editorial appearing in the Edmonton Journal of November 30, 1974, in respect to national unity. I believe it is very appropriate to discuss national unity with regard to this bill because I have a strong inner feeling that the present federal administration thrives on confrontation. It believes in dividing this country as much as it can, and then appearing as the godfather who can bring our country back together again with national unity policies, even when it is the parent that fostered the disgruntled feelings that exist throughout our nation. The editorial states:
In 1865, when the Eighth Provincial Parliament of Canada asked Queen Victoria to allow the formation of a federation of provinces in British North America, the central objective was 'to protect the diversified interest of the several provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony, and permanency in the Union.'
This government has done very little to protect the diversified interests of the many regions of our country simply because all it does is to appeal to the populace which will continue to re-elect it. The article goes on to say:
On the surface, the dispute between Ottawa and Alberta is a simple political dogfight over wealth and who will control it. If the conflict were indeed a limited wrangle over money it would be relatively easy to resolve. Instead, profound questions about national unity and the kind of Canada we will have in the future are emerging from the debate.
I think the situation is extremely touchy when we have various regions in Canada competing against each other because the government is dividing us to such an extent that we will be more concerned about regional interests than about the national interest of our country.
The article goes on to read:
Ottawa has challenged the provinces' traditionally accepted right to certain benefits accruing from ownership and development of natural resources...
The federal government is challenging these rights in the bill before us. It would not be so bad if it challenged these rights from time to time, but it is its arrogant
[Mr. Elzinga.)
attitude in challenging provinces such as Alberta, which produces 85 per cent of the oil in our country, that is so unacceptable. I think we are all aware that what we do want is only a fair price. We do not want to be used as puppets on a string by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The editorial also states:
What is alarming about the Alberta case is that Ottawa's approach to oil pricing and resource royalties embodies the concept of a confederation in which provincial jurisdictions can be invaded unilaterally, both in spirit and in fact, at the whim of the central government; a confederation in which the provinces are entirely subservient to the federal authority and are, in effect, political adjuncts to the federal power.
That is just what this bill will do to the provinces, and that is why we in the Conservative party cannot agree with it. It is our hope that the minister will agree to amend the bill to include a provision for consultation with the provinces and to exclude a veto clause under which the government could force its own wishes on individual provinces across the country.
The article also states:
It is equally ironic that Prime Minister Trudeau, that most articulate and ardent supporter of Canadian federalism, should be heading the government that is sowing such discord among the provinces.
Let me state, incidentally, that I disagree with the statement in the article that the Prime Minister is an articulate and ardent supporter of Canadian federalism. It is evident that the government thrives on confrontation and this bill is a fine example of just that.
I should like to relate to the committee a story that was told to me a good many years ago. As it comes back to my mind it makes me think of our present administration and of our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is a story about a man who envisioned himself pushing a wheelbarrow with a man sitting in it, on a tightrope across Niagara Falls. What our minister is asking of the Canadian people is for them to hop into a wheelbarrow which he would push on a tightrope across Niagara Falls.
I think it is evident that in western Canada we do not have that much faith in this administration, and rightly so, judging from the administration's past actions. For example, an agreement was reached by this government and the provinces a year ago but subsequently disregarded in the budget. How can we have faith in an administration that agrees to one thing at one time, and rejects it when it no longer fits its purpose?
In conclusion I should like to pose the same question that the hon. member for Central Nova put to the minister, because I am very interested in the minister's reaction to that proposal put forward by the hon. member. I would also like to know the reaction this government has received to this legislation from the various provinces.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Gilbert:: This is a filibuster.


Walter David Baker: Judging from the remark just made by the hon. member for Broadview who has just awakened, one would think that the situation that we are discussing and the circumstances surrounding the proposed legislation affect other parts of Canada than the part that he represents. As a matter of fact this bill affects
April 15, 1975

all parts of Canada, and particularly the province of Ontario.
It is important that we consider for a moment the geography of this country and, if one does so, one realizes that in terms of access to supply of energy, whether for home consumption for the operation of automobiles or for the operation and fueling of the industrial capacity of central Canada-which I know is sometimes the cause of comment in other parts of Canada-petroleum is significant, and Ontario is a land locked province. Any discussions in this House, any first ministers' conference, any statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on any aspect dealing with the supply of energy for all of the purposes I have mentioned do not end, so far as we are concerned, at the Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba borders but they concern us also deeply and vitally in this part of Canada.
So I think that we must look at this bill from the point of view of Ontario, and the first question we must ask of the minister is: what will this bill do under the present circumstances to ensure one more gallon of oil, one more cubic foot of natural gas, that could not be provided by reasonable consultation? I do not want any member of the House to think that the only people who are concerned about the proper interpretation of this badly battered British North America Act are the people of Alberta or the people of western Canada, because we in central Canada are very much concerned as well.
From the point of view of central Canada the significance of the first ministers' conference and of the proposed legislation, as well as all that flows from those two events, and indeed of the attitude of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is that if the power is given to the minister and to his department as set forth in clauses 36 and 52, then the people of central Canada can expect forthwith an increase in the price of fuel, in the price of gas, and in other prices.


Mr. Foster:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Walter David Baker: No, I will not permit a question. Let the hon. member sit down and he can ask me again when I have concluded my remarks. I am taking my cue from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An hon. Member:: What arrogance!


Walter David Baker: That is how important this is to the province of Ontario, and it is precisely for this reason, and also because there is a deep constitutional matter involved in this whole consideration, that the premier of Ontario, the Hon. William Davis, took the position which he was bound to take at the first ministers' conference last week. I think it is important that the people of Ontario, and the hon. members from Ontario on the other side of the House who represent people in Ontario, understand the importance of that position.
I heard the speech made by the premier of Ontario. In a statistical way he outlined what an increase in the price of oil might mean immediately. He told of the effect it could have on inflation, on employment, and on the development
Oil and Petroleum
of industry in the province of Ontario. It is important to Canada, just as it is important to all of us in Ontario and in any other part of Canada, that there be a reasonable opportunity for the continuance and development of the petroleum industry in western Canada.
Surely the essence of this debate is the balance of interest between the various provinces of Canada. When the minister, in the absence of a crisis, takes upon himself the powers this bill gives to him, or he asks this parliament to give to him, then I think anyone who has any feeling at all about this question of the constitutional balance between the provinces and the central government has to sit up and take notice, and ask why and what the effect of it will be.
I certainly would agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who said, in effect, that the whole constitutional process of this country has been one of consultation. I think this is one of the few times when there has been an attempt by the federal government to amend by a statute the British North America Act, and it is really an attempt to do indirectly what it could not do directly. There is not one member of parliament or anyone in the country who would say, given a demonstrable crisis or an emergency, that the government ought not to have the powers it asks for, but there are very few people in this country who, in the absence of that emergency or crisis, would willingly allow this unilateral amendment to the British North America Act. The leader of the government has indicated that if he is given this power-and that is why he is asking for it-he is going to raise the price of petroleum. That is not to say that the price of petroleum ought to stay the same forever. Of course it cannot.
There is something unique about this country. The constitution of this country came about because some fairly wise men in 1867 decided that it was worth while to build a nation in the northern half of North America. Given the state of affairs and the threats they were confronted with at that time, and the advantages which would accrue to nationhood, they sat around a table, consulted, came to an agreement, and the country was born. It is a pretty fragile thing, a country born out of agreement and consensus rather than revolution and war. That fragility has to be nurtured at each turn of the road, and this government is about as far removed from the good constitutional gardener as I can imagine.
There have been some in my part of Canada who have called the premier of Alberta a blue eyed Arab, and a number of other things. Much of this has emanated from the press. Much has emanated from the mouths of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In all of this they have perhaps done more damage to the cause of confederation than anything else.
I have listened very carefully to the speeches which have been made, I have read the reports and the statements, and I think that it has to be recognized that a provincial premier has a legitimate part to play in the national scene, and that, if he failed to play his part, most Canadians in his province would repudiate him. I think that the premier of Alberta adopted at the conference a reasonable attitude with respect to this situation, having regard to his interest and the national interest. It is that kind of attitude of reasonableness which ought to be

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
seized upon by the government rather than immediately legislating into place the power the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources just loves to wield. Perhaps an element of understanding, which even he may be capable of from time to time, should be wheeled into place.
It has to be demonstrated to this House that all consultation has failed at the time that agreements run out, that there is indeed a crisis in terms of supply, that there is a difficulty with respect to the development industries- those things must be balanced-and if there were a referral to this parliament of that situation then I am satisfied that this parliament would react in the national interest, and that would be understood by the people of every province.
The BNA Act does not just sit on the statute books to be ignored or to be circumvented. This problem is so important that the minister ought to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Central Nova and refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to have the constitutional position satisfied. The minister said yesterday that he was basing his case on the regulation of interprovincial commerce. That is his whole case. He puts upon himself the clothing of a constitutional lawyer, aided and abetted by a questionable opinion from the Department of Justice. Others in the constitutional debate say that that is not so, and that it deals basically in the field of property and civil rights. It seems to me that the issues are very clearly defined. They are the kind of issues, in terms of jurisdiction, which ought to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. It may be that the reason why the minister is not referring it to the Supreme Court of Canada is because of some doubt about what might be the outcome.
In any event I think it is worthwhile, not just for the idle fighting of a case in court but to establish the constitutional position, that the minister consider very carefully the suggestion of the hon. member and of others, that the issues are just that important in terms of our constitution, that the varying provincial and regional interests are just that important in terms of our country, and that the interests of the people of the province of Ontario in terms of price must be balanced equitably and justly with the interests of the people of the province of Alberta in terms of development.
But, most of all, no one should sit idly by in this chamber and accept the word of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he must have these powers, particularly when he and the leader of his government have indicated that they intend to use them immediately in a way which will likely be detrimental to the country as a whole. I ask that the minister consider this point of view. It is not just a western problem, it is not just a problem of the producing provinces, but also a problem which affects consuming provinces. I ask him to consider very carefully whether it is wise, in all of the circumstances, for him to proceed along the lines he is proceeding, in view of the importance of this issue.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, that was an interesting intervention by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton. He suggested that in putting forth this bill I am counselling the ignoring of the British North America

Act-that is a direct quote-that I am proposing the circumvention of the constitution, and that the policy involved is against the interests of the people of Canada. He used a very interesting sentence which I noted carefully. He said that a provincial premier does have a legitimate part to play and that most citizens in his province would repudiate him unless he speaks for the interest of that particular province.


Walter David Baker: It was in the "national interest". You heard me.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Let the record be checked.


Walter David Baker: You check it
tomorrow.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The interesting thing is that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton may have neglected to notice the fact that the position of the premier of Ontario, the provincial treasurer of Ontario and the Ontario government-which at one time he supported-was not just support for a measure to deal with oil and gas prices in general, not just that some provision to be used in the event of an emergency should be carried into enactment by this parliament, but specifically that Bill C-32, this legislative proposal, should be enacted by this parliament as soon as possible. If the hon. member had been following the events of the conference last week he would have noted that the premier of Ontario referred to that several times.
I draw that interesting conclusion as evidence of the extent to which this is just another area in which that premier has lost the support of the province. I have some belief at least that he was seeking to appeal on behalf of the citizens of Ontario in asking us to take this action to protect the consumers of Canada from unilateral action on the part of other provinces.
The hon. member raises the question of whether this is an appropriate action that we should be taking. I am not asking him to believe me. He does not have to accept my word, but if he is going to reject my word, and this bill, he is also significantly rejecting the premier of Ontario and the government at Queen's Park.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, I rise to intervene in this debate because I was astounded on a number of occasions, yesterday and today, by the remarks of various hon. members, particularly those to my right, and most particularly the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has reminded me that these are the same people who were proposing price controls a short time ago. We have not heard much about that in recent months. Now we are getting it from the other side as well, and they won an election opposing price controls.
We supported this legislation on second reading on the grounds that the Government of Canada should have the power to control these prices, or to set them if agreement cannot be reached. We have also taken the position that there is absolutely no justification for oil price increases unless all the extra money derived therefrom goes into exploration and development production. If that is not the
April 15, 1975

case, then there is no legitimate reason for a price increase.
I understand why my colleagues to my right and some other people in the country feel sorry for the oil industry, but I do not agree with them. It was the premier of an oil-producing province-not the premier of Ontario or Quebec-who said that if there is to be any increase in the price of oil it should go into an energy security fund to be controlled by the people of Canada through the federal and provincial governments.
The minister has no assurance, nor have my hon. friends to my right, that the oil industry will do any more exploration than it is doing at present. One could assume, perhaps with a degree of certainty, that it would put some money into exploration, but unless all the money is allocated to exploration, development and production of energy resources, whether oil, gas, uranium, electrical power or whatever, then there is no justification for an increase. We agree, however, that in the final analysis if there is no agreement then the federal government should have that power.
I can understand why there is no agreement from at least one producing province. There was an agreement in March of last year and Saskatchewan lived up to it. Every nickel of its windfall money went into a capital fund, as had been agreed. It would have been nice, of course, to spend that money on roads, or on health and welfare, but it all went into a capital fund to be used for exploration and development. But this minister, the Minister of Finance, and the government doublecrossed us. I have urged the premier of Saskatchewan to keep his back to the wall and his gun loose in his holster the next time he comes to Ottawa, and to make sure that he gets everything in writing. In spite of that betrayal, however, the premier of Saskatchewan was the only one who returned here last week with a positive proposal.
Last night the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said that Saskatchewan says it can steal and Alberta says it can steal. I do not know about Alberta, but the premier of Saskatchewan said that we will not steal and that, even though the resources are ours, if there is a price increase all this money will go into energy research development and exploration development.
It seems to me that a lot of this debate is not concerned so much with the constitution of Canada or the security of energy resources for the future as with the welfare and good order of a lot of multinational oil companies. What assurance do we have that the majors in the oil industry will use the funds derived from a price increase for production and exploration? The premier of Saskatchewan provided ample information. We have no assurance at all, and the evidence is to the contrary.
In spite of the fancy advertisements shown by Imperial Oil during the hockey games about how they are going to save us all in Canada, the evidence is to the contrary. While their profits after deduction of all expenses, taxes and royalties, were going up, they were not doing anything extra in exploration and production. From 1965 to 1974, with the exception of one year, their net profits from Alberta and Saskatchewan increased. In 1966 they took out of Alberta and Saskatchewan $160 million in net profits, and by 1974 they were taking $786 million. They made
Oil and Petroleum
that much after paying taxes, royalties, expenses, lifting costs-the whole bit. And what did they spend in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in 1974, for exploration and development? They spent $220 million. Where did the other $566 million go? I say that anybody who says that any amount of increased oil and gas prices should go to the industry is betraying our country and betraying the possibility of security of energy resources for the future. The companies had their chance and they blew it.


Mr. Balfour:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Were the figures he mentioned production profits taken from Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are oil industry profits, in Canada, in millions of dollars.


James Balfour: Is the hon. member sure?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Wait; they are profits in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am sorry. They represent oil industry profits from all over Canada. I may have been out by a few million dollars. I do not know how profits made in those provinces compare with oil profits made in the other eight provinces. Most profits were made in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am glad the hon. member drew my attention to this fact.
The point is they made $786 million in net profits after taxes, dividends, royalties and allowing for reserves. How much did they put into exploration in all Canada, including Alberta and Saskatchewan? If you say they put $659 million into all Canada, that leaves $129 million-odd unaccounted for. Yet some people are proposing that we should raise oil prices and pay some of the increase to the industry.
Let us see what happened in the years when their cash flow was going up. What did they do in exploration? Back in 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, the companies made a large base profit after paying all operating expenses, including royalties, and after paying income tax, extraordinary items and discretionary expenses-whatever that means. Perhaps, in the oil industry, discretionary expenses means donations to the Liberal and Tory parties. I don't know.
Around 1965 their cash flow was in the neighbourhood of $430 million or $440 million, and the oil industry spent on exploration between $170 million and $180 million in all Canada. In Alberta and Saskatchewan they spent around $120 million. When you look at the figures for 1972-74, you will see that their cash flow was in the order of $800 million, $1,200 million and $1,600 million. Did exploration expenditures for all Canada go up proportionately? No way! They certainly did not. Their exploration expenditures went up to a total of $600 million for all Canada. Therefore the proportion is lower. Their exploration record in Alberta and Saskatchewan is even worse. The expenditure stayed where it was, in the area of $180 million to $200 million. And some people want the oil industry to get part of any increased price for oil and gas.
When the industry's cash flow climbed to the $1,600 million mark in 1974, the proportion spent on exploration went down. Why should any part of a price increase go to the industry? Some say some or all of any increase should

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
go to the industry. Really, Madam Chairman, I find that difficult to accept.
We agree that the minister should have this power if he does not get agreement. I agree with what some hon. friends to my right have said. There is good reason for at least one province, after the double-cross of last year, to say, "Bring in your budget, and we will see what we shall do. We are not prepared to make the kind of agreement we made last time. We are not prepared to play a game in which the rules change half way through it, because that is what the government did last time." The government wonders why it has difficulty getting a consensus. It will find it difficult to get any consensus even on the time of day after what happened in its dealings with certain provinces.
We hear a lot about the difficulties of independent companies, and a lot of weeping and wailing. Someone has to do the weeping and wailing for the independents, the drilling and exploration companies in Canada. Really, the big seven do not do the drilling and exploration in this country. They have done a small amount of it in the past, but the major portion of the activity has always been undertaken by independents, most of whom are Canadian-owned and who have the expertise.


James Balfour: How many remained in Saskatchewan?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sure, companies have left Saskatchewan and Alberta. They followed the multinationals. They are the slaves of the multinational corporations, which brings me to the point about which the hon. member for Regina East is concerned. If Imperial Oil can increase its profits by 176 per cent in four years and take that much out of this country, that is not a bad deal at all. If they decide to drill in the North Sea, or Indonesia, or Nigeria, the service and drilling rigs pack up and follow them. There is nothing new about that. They have been doing it ever since the first oil well was discovered. But you do not see Imperial Oil running around with drilling service rigs; nor does any other multinational oil company do this.
The point is that in Canada we have developed expertise that is second to none in drilling, exploration, and innovation. Why do we not explore more ourselves and drill for our own oil resources? We really do not need Imperial, Gulf, Shell, Texaco, Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, Petrofina, or Pan Canadian, the little subsidiary of the CPR. We could go ahead on our own. Even when the federal government, together with Ontario, Alberta and the Syncrude consortium made the agreement to go ahead finally with the Syncrude operation, one premier of a producing province suggested a way by which we could operate a publicly-owned Syncrude type operation. He suggested that if we put $2 per barrel on the price of oil and set that amount aside for development, each year we could spend $1.4 billion on a Syncrude-type plant. He was talking about adding a plant each year.


An hon. Member:: And what happened in Saskatchewan in 1950?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Listen to these free enterprise supporters crying. They keep saying, "We can't do anything unless the companies do it for us." Baloney. That is a lot of malarkey, and has always been. Even the blue-eyed Arabs

of the Middle East and South America are saying that we have been "had" all these years. They say, "We don't need those oil companies," and neither do we. We have exploration and drilling expertise. True, some of the companies went bankrupt. I have some relatives who were in the oil well drilling and servicing industry and I can tell you what happened to them at the tender hands of Imperial Oil and Gulf. They invested a lifetime of savings and effort and were left in the lurch, because these multinational corporations did not do the job they were supposed to do.
Do you suppose Imperial Oil operates on principles of altruism? Why do they operate in Canada? Madam Chairman, they operated here because they wanted the bucks. That is the only reason. Their operation had nothing to do with the welfare and good order of our country and the people living in it. How much longer will we cater to these people, especially when we can do this work ourselves?
This legislation would be good if it got the minister and the government off their backsides. We could undertake these operations, either with a totally publicly-owned Crown corporation or with a combination of public ownership and private enterprise; but the operation should be Canadian-owned and controlled. That is important. The government has not had the courage to go that far. The present price of the resource appears to be the only concern of the federal government. Apparently the minister is concerned about any return that the industry needs or has the right to expect if there is to be an increase.
If the minister is going to keep using the multinational corporations and not keep on letting them use him, he needs power in the legislation to require them to put all of that extra money into research, exploration and development, not only for oil and gas, but the whole spectrum of energy sources in this country. Instead of that, he is going to go half way.
I respect the Progressive Conservative party and their concerns. At least they stand up for private enterprise and the glories of it. However, the minister wants to go down the middle and have it both ways; a little bit to industry and a little bit to the producing provinces. He wants one price for consumers across this country. He is trying to do a little bit for each of them, but is not really doing anything. It is in the same mess as it was when the Conservatives were defeated. In fact, it has got progressively worse.
I hate to say this, and I will say it without any malice. When I took my family to Montreal in 1967 to see Expo, we were happy about our one hundredth birthday and proud of confederation. However, when buying gas for my car in Ottawa, Montreal and Three Rivers, I paid between seven and ten cents a gallon less than in Saskatchewan where we live right on top of the oil. For 13 years I did not hear anyone from Ontario, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces say there should be one price across Canada. They had the benefit of cheap off-shore crude, but they did not say we should even out that price. Western Canadians paid higher gas, farm fuel and heating fuel prices for 13 years than those in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. However, we did not hear one word about there being one price across
April 15, 1975

Canada. The Middle East countries have increased their prices and eastern Canadians now have to pay more. So all of a sudden we need to have one price across Canada, and we are to have a two-price system.
Alberta and Saskatchewan have made their contribution to confederation. Both agreed to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue that could have been theirs at the world price. What happened? They got double-crossed. Saskatchewan certainly did.


B. Keith Penner: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, I was hoping that these interesting tales from Scheherazade to which we were listening would be continued by the hon. member. However, we will get the next instalment later.
I want to comment on something that was said by the hon. member for Central Nova with regard to the question of emergency. As a matter of fact it would be rather simple for the government to establish to any intelligent and objective court that there was a state of emergency, and these powers could then be obtained. If you put before a court of this land the series of walking disasters that have been afflicted upon Canada, I am sure they would say that a country with a government like this is certainly in a state of emergency. There have been a few exceptions. The Postmaster General is now having a latter repentance about the genies he helped unloose from Pandora's box. I am mixing my metaphors, but hon. members will understand what I mean. He is trying to put them back, without too much success.
I want to ask the minister a few questions. Some are rhetorical, some are actual. He may answer them sometime during the course of the debate.
Through cases decided in the Supreme Court of Canada and by superior court judges, I have established, with the law as it now stands, that if a transaction takes place entirely within a province, it is for the province to regulate, even though the commodity is to its greatest extent being exported, or has been or will be going into the channels of interprovincial or international trade. That is the law as it has been laid down, with the following exception. If the intent of the provincial regulation or statute is clearly aimed at dealing with the regulation of trade and commerce, even though the transaction takes place entirely within the province, it is offensive and can be struck down. If that is not the case, if a transaction is entirely within a province consisting of a sale or a movement, it is for the province to regulate. The province can regulate, the federal government cannot.
In the first CalOil case a former deputy minister said that the federal government has not the right, despite clear evidence that the commodity in question was one which came from outside the country under the provisions of federal government legislation dealing with the import, subject to conditions, to have control with regard to movement from one part of the province to the other.
There was a situation in the province of Quebec where the processing and pricing of milk, which was known to be shipped out of the province to its largest extent, was squarely within the competence of the province. There
Oil and Petroleum
was a case in Saskatchewan where, despite the fact that 98 per cent of the crude in that province was being exported, the right to deal with it and in effect to fix pricing was with the provincial government. That transaction was entirely within that province. This is the law as it now stands.
What would be the situation if British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan acquired Crown corporations with the jurisdiction to buy crude petroleum being produced at the wellhead? What is the position of such a corporation if it purchases from the producer the oil which is produced? Is it subject to this legislation? I see the minister is likely to answer yes. If that is the case, it is a good thing to know. In that case the province of Saskatchewan, which would be acquiring at the wellhead through the agency of a Crown corporation the crude petroleum being produced, would have to pay the price prescribed in this legislation.
What would be the situation if a provincial agency, corporation or individual in the private sector purchased the crude at the wellhead and sold it to an interprovincial pipeline in a transaction entirely within the province? What would be the situation if a corporation producing crude petroleum sold to a storage facility which is storing within the limits of the province? What would be the situation if a refinery acquired crude petroleum from producing wells and from people who own the producing wells within the province?
If a refinery purchases the crude, refines it, and then sells the petroleum partly in the province and partly outside it, does such a refinery have to buy at the price prescribed in this bill? This question goes to the heart of the situation. I have been talking about petroleum but the same applies to natural gas.
If one reads clause 36, clauses 40 to 44 inclusive, and the corresponding clauses dealing with natural gas, one can only reach the conclusion that transactions taking place entirely within a province are subject to the provisions of the legislation, and that people buying or selling must do so at the price prescribed unless a party to the transaction fulfils the onus of establishing, by documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the minister or his officials, that the transaction was limited to production purchased and sold entirely within a province. This would include provincial Crown agencies. This being the case there is no question that the provisions of the bill are repugnant to our present law and repugnant to the constitution, and for these reasons we feel they should not be supported except subject to the amendments we have put forward.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other remarks I would like to make. The hon. member for Peace River made mention of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan which have set up Crown corporations. Here again we in this party would certainly like to hear from the minister and get any kind of verbal commitments-although we are a little leery of that because we tried that before, over a year ago, and look what it got us. But supposing the minister were successful in negotiating a small, modest price increase with the Province of Saskatchewan, say 50 cents, or a dollar a barrel, and all of that extra money was to be spent by the Province of Saskatche-
29SS7-31

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
wan, through its Crown corporation-SaskOil-in exploration, research, development and production, would the minister then forget about counting that money against equalization? Will he assure us that the Minister of Justice will forget about taxing the Crown corporation?
If a producing province decides to take charge of the development of its energy resources, no matter what province, or whether it is oil, or gas, or some other form of energy, if there is a lack of leadership by the federal government and a lack of the provision of co-ordination, will the minister make it as easy as possible for them to do it? Or will he do otherwise in an effort to shore up-as I heard him say on television when he was being interviewed by the press a few Sundays ago-his own view that it goes against his grain personally if you are not using the private enterprise sector? I heard the minister say words to that effect on television on a national program.
Does that mean that, if any province wishes to launch into taking charge of the development of its energy resources, the minister will throw up any roadblocks he can to prevent SaskOil, or any other province? Does it mean that those provinces can look forward to all the roadblocks possible to prevent public ownership, operation and control of the development of their own energy resources? Unless we can get some indications about that from the minister he should be happy that we supported his bill in principle, let alone any way else. But what more can he tell us about his plans and his programs for the future?
Another point which was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was also made by the premier of Saskatchewan. I am not going to be shy about repeating it. Again, if you are going to increase the present price and the consumers of Canada pay more for old oil so that you can find new oil, are the people of Canada going to pay more for that again? In other words, are the people to be expected to pay twice for security of supply of an energy source?
This brings me back to the logical and indisputable position taken by our party, and taken by the premier of Saskatchewan, that the only possible justification for any further increase in the price of old oil-the present national production-would be if the money were to be used only for exploration and development of oil and gas or other energy resources. In fact the premier of Saskatchewan in his submission did not just talk about oil and gas. He mentioned hydro electric power, which should make people in Nova Scotia happy when they keep proposing the Fundy project, or Manitoba or other provinces which really want to get into hydro electric development and other sources for developing electric energy, a lot of which will have to take the place of heating fuels in the years ahead. Extra money could be used now for other energy sources besides oil and gas.
The record of performance of the private sector has been good in its terms, but it has not been good in the long term for our country. I do not say the private sector was deliberately trying to hurt our country, not one bit. I do not blame them. Their objective was to make a profit, and this they did. They did very well at it. I might complain about it, but I do not blame them for it. That was their purpose.

They were there to make all the bucks they could-the multinationals-and they did very well at it. But the suggestion now, from here on in, that we have to rely on them to save us, is just nonsense. We just do not need them any more. We can do it ourselves.
I suppose it would be way too much to expect that hon. members across the way would agree to doing this in the most sensible way-that it all be done through public ownership, public enterprise. I guess that would be too much to expect. But even a mix of private and public Canadian enterprise is something we could do. There is no reason in the world why we could not. We can send Imperial Oil back to their bosses at Exxon, and we can send Gulf and Texaco and the rest of them home. There would be no problem. They have done well already. I do not see why they should need to do any better.
When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain talked earlier about Alberta and Saskatchewan being able to steal, saying they can't reach an agreement but they can steal, I do not want to misquote him, but that is the way I understood him, I ask, who's been stealing from us? The very companies that have progressively reduced their research and exploration in both Alberta and Saskatchewan have continued to take larger and larger profits out of those two places.
Imperial Oil got $105 million in 1970, and then went up to $136 million in 1971-that is a 29 per cent increase. That is even better than the average runway sweeper got. In 1972 they went to $157 million, which was only a 15 per cent increase over 1971. In 1973 they rose to $228 million, a 45 per cent increase. That is when the exploration activities, whether by way of feet drilled or dollars spent, started to diminish. Their take home pay, if I may use a colloquial expression, went up by 45 per cent. Then in 1974 they jumped from $228 million to $290 million, a 27 per cent increase, yet what they spent on exploration went down even further.
They are now asking us for more money to explore and drill. If Canada wants its energy resources developed further, we need more dollars per barrel of oil, says Imperial Oil. I say no to Imperial Oil. In view of the record of what they have done, or perhaps what they have failed to do, in the last two years they have lost any right to expect or to ask for a further increase in the price of oil for their own benefit. This is especially so when they can give no assurance that they will spend any such increase on research and exploration in Canada, let alone in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
If the minister does not want to use Petro-Can or SaskOil, or some other Crown corporation, but insists on letting the multinationals have a piece of the action, why does he not put more teeth in his legislation and give the oil companies two choices in regard to exploration and development-that this is either compulsory or that they have to do it? If he would put that provision in the legislation he would get even stronger support for the bill from our party.
I do not question the minister's concern. He is responsible for the whole area of energy supply in Canada and I know he is making a conscientious effort to bring in
April 15, 1975

legislation and policies to try to alleviate this concern and provide more protection for the country in years ahead. But we are of the view that the minister is only going part of the way, that these half measures will not in fact accomplish the results that he and all of us want. They will not accomplish those results unless he opts to strengthen the legislation or opts for public development of future oil and gas reserves.
Saskatchewan would like to do this itself in regard to the oil fields that we know we have. This would eliminate an expensive form of development. We even have a small corner of the tar sands in Saskatchewan up in the Cold Lake area. But we have much more research and development to do in the handling of heavy crudes. We could refine our own heavy crude in Saskatchewan, but we are up to our eyeballs in asphalt, and what do we do with the asphalt? One kind westerner suggested that we should pave over Toronto and fill it full of wheat.
Saskatchewan would like to spend its oil profits on doing these things, but the Minister of Finance says that the deal is off for now. Two thirds of the money is put into the capital fund and will be counted against Saskatchewan for equalization purposes. This is going to cost Saskatchewan another $30 million to $40 million in equalization payments. We gave up $400 million by agreeing not to demand or try to get the world price, and I say $400 million is a fair contribution. Alberta has contributed three or four times that amount.
I also have the feeling that, even though the minister is a free enterpriser, his biggest problem is Alberta and the premier thereof. An agreement would have been much more readily reached had the federal government and the provinces been reasonably certain that there would not have been a lot of windfall money land in the tills of the big seven multinationals. The government knows that there is no way that the people of Canada will stand for that nonsense any more.
If my hon. friends of the Conservative party of Ontario could persuade their Conservative party friends of Alberta to do something more in a public way in regard to the future development of energy resources, and to make sure there would not be some more windfall rake-off, much of which would leave this country, then the chances of reaching an agreement between the federal government and the provinces would be much enhanced.
I suspect that the problems of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are much less with Premier Bla-keney. It may well be that in his heart of hearts he would have liked to agree with the premier's proposal, lock, stock and barrel. He did say that there was a lot to be said for the proposal, that it was worthy of serious consideration, but that he could not buy the whole package. I suspect this is because of the free enterprise syndrome that still exists in the cabinet, and in some members of his party and of the Conservative party.
The one concrete proposal that made sure that the Canadian people would be given some assurance of energy supply, particularly of oil and gas, in decades ahead came from a producing province that is still looked upon as a have not province, and which has also led the way in forgoing revenue to which it was entitled. Even if I had a nightmare I would have a great deal of difficulty visualiz-
Oil and Petroleum
ing the province of Ontario willingly giving up as much as Alberta has Mr. Chairman. If the issue here were nickel, or iron ore, or steel, I can just see the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton rushing into this House of Commons and saying: "We want to forgo $1.5 billion a year on this development for the benefit of Canada". I would really like to see him do that. I did not hear anyone from this part of the country suggest, when the western provinces willingly went along with paying higher prices themselves, that they should pay an economic price.
This brings me to another point. We have two prices for oil and two prices for wheat. I find that very strange. I wish that someone from Ontario, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces would suggest two prices for forest products, or fertilizer, or farm machinery, or steel, or asbestos, or nickel. But, no, I hear no such suggestion. Why two prices just for oil and wheat?
My hon. friends to my right often talk of western alienation. They talk of it in different terms and for different reasons than I. They express the attitude of people who think it is their turn to get their hand in the till. They want to take the money and to hell with the rest of the country. We have put up with that sort of nonsense for too long as it is.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources might remind his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, about how much he would be able to lower the price of housing if there were a two price system for forest and lumber products. People pay hundreds of dollars per thousand feet of lumber to build a home. This has nothing to do with cost of production; this is the price of lumber on the international market. Builders and home buyers are forced to pay the international price, which is exorbitant and outrageous. But I hear no one talking about a two price system for forest products. I ask, why not?
I say that Saskatchewan has made its contribution. It has more than shown its willingness to co-operate and to reach agreement. Having reached agreement, the agreement was then thrown out the window. In carrying on his bilateral discussions I ask the minister to reassure the people of Saskatchewan in particular-and I wish the minister lots of luck when dealing with the government of Alberta-that anything agreed to from here on in will be lived up to. Forget all this nonsense about taxing not only oil companies' profits but oil companies' expenses; even I as a socialist find that difficult to live with. I am not known to have a great deal of love for multinational oil companies, but no matter what kind they are and how they operate you should still treat them fairly.
To continue to perpetuate or support the legislation which taxes not only their profits but their expenses, namely, the royalties they pay to the provinces, has to be an example of bad faith. If the minister would like more readiness to agree on the part of the provinces he should persuade the Minister of Finance to get rid of the prohibition on deductibility of royalties as an expense. That must go along with any increase in oil prices. That is a must. One must assume that the deductibility of royalties from the expenses of the oil companies for tax purposes will be allowed if that money is to be available for exploration
29557 -31V2

April 15, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
and development in respect of oil, gas, and other energy resources in this country.
Let me close by repeating a statement by the Premier of Saskatchewan at the first ministers' conference. I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources heard it, but I wish to refresh his memory. It is time for Canada and the provinces on behalf of their people to take charge of the development and exploration in respect of energy resources, oil, gas, hydro-electricity and so on.
We can no longer depend on others. If ever we could depend on them we certainly cannot now. We can no longer continue our supine acquiescence to the board rooms of the multinational corporations in Houston, Chicago or New York. When will we stand on our own feet? We have the people, the money, the technology and the resources. Why do we not do it? We can. It will take some will and imagination. It will excite the imagination of the Canadian people. It will be for the benefit of all the people in the country, and there will not be any fast-buck artists running around with 19th century ideologies making all the fast bucks they can, and then running. We can put an end to that.
The minister has a golden opportunity to make these moves. He, in concert with three or four provinces, whether they are of the same or opposite political stripe, can get together now and really have wells drilled around this country to an extent that would make it look like a Swiss cheese. We could be engaged in development that would make 1947 look like a bare beginning. We have the opportunity, and it is up to the minister and the government to seize that opportunity.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I think it must be obvious to the House that the time has come when we must face reality in respect of this bill. The position of Her Majesty's Official Opposition has been made abundantly clear, namely, that we believe the government needs some form of a bill in order to carry out the agreement of March 27, 1974, in connection with achieving one price across Canada.
We believe this bill is necessary to provide compensation for those parts of Canada which must buy their oil offshore. However, on the bringing in of such legislation we have put forward, over and over again, the proposition that it should be a bill that will stand the test of the constitution and of the courts of this land. This bill will not stand the test of the courts of this land. The evidence to this effect is preponderant. Therefore we will be proposing a dozen amendments in an effort to improve this bill and to save it from the courts if it should be challenged.
The second point I wish to make is that no bill passed by this parliament in the interests of democracy, as we understand it, should give perpetual power to a government to the extent this bill gives power to the government. So our amendments will be moved in an effort to give assurance to the people that, even though we want to give the government the power to carry out the decisions of this parliament in relation to doing these things to which all parties agree, we do not want to destroy the type of constitution and rule of law we have.
I said yesterday that no consensus will be arrived at under the early clauses of this bill on the question of the

price of oil, natural gas, or synthetic oil until the irrational and asinine budget of May and November is departed from. The retreat of Napoleon Bonaparte from Moscow will be nothing compared to the retreat the Minister of Finance will have to make on this silly budget of 1974. I notice that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has left the House. I know he is a serious student of Hansard and will read my remarks tomorrow.
In my remarks yesterday I put into layman's language the legal decisions dealing with the question of who owns these resources. I put into layman's language the decision of the courts of this land on the question of who can do what to whom with regard to taxes. All the jurisprudence says that under the constitution these resources belong to the provinces, and that the only level of government that has the right to tax these resources 100 per cent and take it all legally are the provincial governments of this country. Therefore, to translate this into layman's language, I said that the only governments that have the legal right to steal everything, whether they be civil rights, property rights or resource rights, are the provincial governments. I do not think any person can quarrel with this. That is the reason I referred to this as a silly budget that was passed in this House last November. It was an attempt to get the federal government in the same field where it would have the right to steal some of the resources belonging to the provinces.
We know that the Minister of Finance will have to retreat in respect of his budget and make some sort of arrangement with the provinces, and say that they will have the power to make these various royalties and taxes deductible up to a certain amount because, with everybody stealing so much, there will not be enough to keep things going.
I was amused by the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre because he must have known that some of us remember the oil play we had in Saskatchewan around 1950. The premier of the province at that time wrote to all the oil companies asking them to come to Saskatchewan. He said that so long as he was premier they would not be taken over.
You never saw such a free enterpriser as the premier of Saskatchewan in 1950. Now he can sit here and smile as one of the newcomers in the House speaks about what a great socialist he is. All I can say to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is that he should make that speech to the steel workers of Hamilton. I will not deal with past records, although we know the provincial government of Alberta, ever since 1946, and the provincial government of Saskatchewan, the provincial government of Manitoba and the provincial government of British Columbia tried Canadian enterprise and turned over their resources of oil and gas completely to the international oil companies. They did that with amended types of regulations which they borrowed completely, word for word, from United States regulations.
The history of the betrayal by provincial governments of the people of those provinces is not what we are discussing here tonight. What we are discussing is what kind of government we are going to have in this country; will it
April 15, 1975

be one that is a strong central government and yet allows the provinces a certain place in the spectrum? This is the position of Her Majesty's Official Opposition and, I suggest, should be the position of every party in the House. The federal system we have is a unique central system of government. The federal system will not work if the central government, in the name of being efficient or strong, imposes on the rights and property of the provinces, and by provinces I mean the people of the provinces.
We have made our case as well as we know how. What we have to do now is to take this legislation step by step and do our level best to convince the government of the correctness of our approach. We cannot convince the NDP because they honestly and sincerely believe that the provinces should have no power and that they should become like municipalities. They want all the power at the centre. That is their philosophy, and they have a right to it. The Parti Quebecois has the right to call for separatism, as much as they have to call for all power to be at the centre. It is very clear how the NDP will stand, but it must be equally clear how we stand on our side of the House, and every person in the House must answer to the people of Canada.
I should like to remind the minister that there was a man who sat on his side of the House during the war and who received from the parliament in the crisis of those days the War Measures Act, and the War Supplies Act, which gave him all the powers that he needed to fight the war of 1939-1945. After the war was over, the War Measures Act was revoked.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Until 1970.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: But he
kept the other act, and it was not until 1955 when he came to the well once too often, and asked parliament for the right to continue using the special powers under the War Supplies Act at a time when the war had been over for ten years, that the opposition of the day fought to take away that power. The government heeded that advice and sent Mr. Howe on a holiday. The next year its ministers forgot themselves again and tried to impose something on this country in the pipeline debate. Canadians knew what the issue was and in 1957 threw out the government which had been in power for 22 years.
The same thing will happen to this government. Canadians are very sensitive to an attempt by a government to take too much power into its hands. We are willing to give this power to the government in the case of an emergency and for a certain length of time, but every so often this legislation should be brought back to the House to see whether we will need it, because the day will come when the oil will be pouring out of the wells off the coast of Nova Scotia and off the coast of Labrador.
The day will come when oil will be pouring out in our northern frontier areas, from secondary and tertiary recovery in the prairies, and when other forms of energy will be pouring through the pipelines and over the hydro system, and this whole question of emergency will then disappear. This bill should not become an act which forever hangs like a weight around the necks of Canadians.
Oil and Petroleum
Our amendments to the bill, which we will put forward tomorrow and as the debate rolls on, will all be aimed at trying to keep this bill within the walls of the constitutional framework that has protected and guided this country for over 100 years. We will try to persuade the government to look hard at some of these proposals which deal with some of the evils of the legislation which have not yet been mentioned in this debate, and which could more properly be dealt with when consideration is given to the clauses of the bill as they come up for debate.
I should like to suggest that we have said all we can say many times over, and it is up to the government now to make the decisions that have to be made, whether or not we produce a good bill. I think that is the issue before us tonight.
I would like to close now to allow us some time, if the House is willing to pass clause 2, and to get on with the business of passing the bill.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Binding on Her Majesty.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, we have an amendment to clause 3. In view of the lateness of the hour and the interesting and excellent debate we have had, perhaps your Honour might see fit to call it ten o'clock.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps we could hear the amendment first.


Gerald William Baldwin: My colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain, might produce his amendment so the minister can reflect on it for the next two days.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain does that, may I point out that he has mentioned that members of the official opposition have some 18 amendments. I think it would be helpful, before we meet again, if we could get copies of them. The government has already given us copies of its amendments, and if we could get copies of the hon. members' amendments, not necessarily now but sometime tomorrow or before the bill comes up again, I think we will be able to concentrate more on the clauses and thus avoid general discussion.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is a very good idea, and we will attempt to do that. We have been under the mistaken impression that the minister would see the light of reason and accept them, but that not being the case we will try to provide copies as soon as we can.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I did submit copies of this amendment to the House last year. I will be glad to do it again in case they have been lost.


Gérald Laniel: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House. Hon. members by

April 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate
then will have received advance copies of the amendment which can be considered at the next sitting.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, before you call the adjournment motion, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, or some cabinet minister of equal authority, would indicate what the business is for tomorrow.
Of course my authority is not equivalent, but I was advised through the usual channels that we will be proceeding with the bill on the Northern Canada Power Commission, Bill C-30, and Bill C-19. Unless I hear to the contrary, I will assume that that will be the business for tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the same information, so it must be correct.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, on January 28 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) if he was considering sharing the cost of programs with the provinces which are now left out and which the provinces carry on their own, and which are an integral part of the health care cost field. I have always felt that the minister was a very humane person with a very sympathetic understanding of the health care field. This has prompted me to urge him further to enter those fields of health care in which the federal government is not now participating.
The provinces are finding it increasingly difficult to meet those costs, and whether one is actively sick or chronically ill, care is still necessary. In the last meeting with the provinces the minister agreed to discuss and accept participation in lower cost areas if restraint could be practised in higher cost areas. I hope that this will be arranged.
It is true that active treatment costs might be cut by sending a patient to convalescent care a day or two sooner, or by sending him to his home and providing someone to give the necessary care. How do you remedy this situation and arrange for that further care outside active treatment for these patients? Let us be quite honest about this at the start when there is talk about active treatment beds and increasing costs.
[The Chairman.]
Indeed, if the active treatment beds were not occupied, it would mean there would be no doctor or nursing case required. But the cost would go down by only 20 per cent on hospital care. It follows then that it is a losing proposition to the taxpayer to have a hospital bed empty because the hospital staff and administration and upkeep costs continue. Thus the maximum use will likely be made of every bed in an active treatment hospital.
When a patient is ready to be transferred to chronic care or convalescent care, there is often no bed to which the patient can go. If the patient is sent home, there is often no one or no system to provide the proper care or attention required. Probably only a minimal amount of nursing care is required, but it is required around the clock. This should be a shared cost.
While home care at present does help, it does not meet the necessary requirements in the patient's own home. An eight hour shift does not meet the patient's needs for 24 hours. Yet it would be much cheaper to provide that care than to keep the patient in an active treatment bed in hospital.
When the patient is ready to go to a chronic care nursing home where the bed costs are approximately half that of an active treatment bed, we find that he or she has to spend weeks waiting for a bed in a chronic care nursing home. Over and over again I have heard that there are many chronic care beds in my constituency, but I have found that for periods of ten days or longer a patient often cannot get into one of these institutions.
In a chronic care nursing home the cost is $18.50 per day-this was increased from $17 on April 1, 1975-which leaves the patient paying $5.90 per day unless he is under the age of 16 years. This is a saving, on the average, of approximately $60 plus per day when compared with an active treatment bed, or $20 per day in a chronic care bed in hospital.
Nursing homes have the same economic pressures and labour costs as do hospitals, yet the government allows nursing care from one and a half to two and a half hours, and the patient load is eight to ten per attendant. For a patient who is chronically ill, this is probably more than an attendant can look after properly.
It would seem to me that we need to fund nursing homes or give incentives to allow them to make more beds available. This would relieve the situation and cut the costs of chronic care units by at least 50 per cent, and of transfer from an active treatment bed to a chronic care bed from around $80 to $18.50 per day. Obviously the place where the federal government can share cost to the greatest advantage and get the best value for its tax dollar is the nursing home.
I bring this to the attention of the minister in the hope that rising health costs will be met by efficiency in treatment and, with an aging population which is so often found in the nursing home, to carry it further by stating that all residential homes should carry 5 per cent of their beds as chronic care beds so that old people may be treated there for minor illnesses. This would not only be a financial saving but would be humane for the older person.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, nursing care homes should be a shared health care cost. Home care costs, where
April 15, 1975

feasible, should be a shared health care cost around the clock where necessary until the patient has a reasonable recovery time. All homes for the elderly should have sick bay units where those not needing full time hospitalization, or having minor illnesses, could be treated at the home as a shared health cost thus avoiding the trauma and expense of moving, and the expense of an active treatment bed.
The health resources program should establish a chair of geriatric medicine in all medical schools. This should be a demand program to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing elderly population with diseases peculiar to their age group. We have today only 26 or 27 geriatricians in the whole of Canada. This is a grossly neglected area when you think that at the other end of the scale there are around 1,000 pediatricians.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is well aware of the matter raised by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). In fact discussions began on this matter four years ago at the health ministers' conference held in November, 1970, at which time support was expressed for a re-examination of existing arrangements for health financing with the aim of developing an alternative to them. The stated objective was to encourage a rational, efficient and flexible reorganization of the health delivery system to increase effectiveness and reduce waste of costly resources.
Following nearly two and a half years of discussions and negotiation, the formal federal offer on health financing was placed before provincial governments at the federal-provincial conference of finance and health ministers in May, 1973, and was considered further at the first ministers' conference on May 25, 1973. The offer included a formula for grant payments related to GNP growth and a $640 million trust fund; it was designed to provide a reasonable rate of growth in the basic federal payments, a degree of risk-sharing, flexibility for the provinces to determine their own priorities, and assistance in the development of more effective and efficient systems of health delivery.
An important condition attached to the offer was that existing national standards of comprehensiveness, accessibility, universality and portability were to be retained with respect to the basic hospital and medical services. The federal offer also made it clear that the sharing of costs of major new health programs, such as denticare or pharmacare, would be a subject of separate discussion, if and when a consensus was developed by the provinces.
Following this conference, the provincial premiers met in August, 1973, and requested their ministers of health to develop a common provincial response to the federal proposal. It was more than a year later, at a meeting last September 25, that they produced a resolution which rejected the federal offer and outlined their position on new health financing arrangements. Of considerable significance in this resolution was the statement by the provinces that they were prepared to negotiate changes in cost-sharing of high-cost services in exchange for federal sharing in programs not now supported.
Adjournment Debate
At the conference of ministers of health in January of this year the minister advised the provincial ministers that the federal offer of a per capita grant had now been withdrawn. There followed a discussion of various proposals, including a specific proposal put forward by the government of Quebec. In the light of the discussion the minister then suggested a new approach based on the expressed willingness of the provinces to restrain the growth of high cost services in return for federal sharing in other areas not now supported. This proposal involves a broader interpretation of existing legislation which could permit additional cost-sharing.
The ministers agreed with the proposed approach and directed their deputy ministers to undertake immediately negotiations aimed at improving cost effectiveness and comprehensiveness of health care delivery systems, within the context of present legislative authority. The objective will be improvement in health care planning and development through a more flexible approach to financing, with continued emphasis on provincial priorities. The negotiations will entail identification of measures to restrain the growth of high cost services that provinces would be prepared to adopt in order to permit extension of federal sharing to equally effective but lower cost alternatives. Deputy ministers were asked to submit their recommendations no later than September 15 of this year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PERMITTING ENTRY OF VALENTYN MOROZ AND FAMILY AS LANDED IMMIGRANTS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on February 13 I attempted to move the following motion:
That the Prime Minister and the government of Canada convey to the government of the USSR the feeling of the people of Canada that they are willing to permit entry into Canada of Valentyn Moroz and his family as landed immigrants.
I did not get the unanimous consent that is required to debate the motion. During the question period I therefore asked the minister whether he would give consideration to this proposal. The minister replied that he would examine the question and give it consideration.
I then asked the minister if he would arrange for representatives of the Canadian government in the Soviet Union to ascertain the state of health of Valentyn Moroz. I did this because of information which has come to light that Moroz, while in prison, has been beaten and stabbed, that he is now in poor health and in the middle of a hunger strike. The minister suggested he would not do as I asked. He said, as recorded on page 3181 of Hansard for February 13, 1975:
... I have not agreed to such a move as in the circumstances I think it would very likely be counterproductive.
Valentyn Moroz was born in the Ukraine, which is part of the Soviet Socialist Republic. He attended the University of Lviv, where he majored in history. After graduation he taught history and geography. In 1965, he was arrested, charged with anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation, and sentenced to four years of hard labour.

April 15, 1975
Adjournment Debate
In 1970, he was again arrested, tried, and sentenced to a long prison term. While in prison he has been beaten, stabbed, and, as I say, he is now in the midst of a hunger strike.
In November, 1972, Amnesty International, known for its non-partisan, non-political work on behalf of prisoners in every country who are being persecuted by a government, reported that Moroz had been gravely wounded by some criminal inmates in the prison in which he was incarcerated. After that he was transported to a prison hospital in Kiev.
In May, 1974, many of our most prominent Canadian authors and academics made an appeal on behalf of Valen-tyn Moroz in the Soviet Union. Among their numbers are included Pierre Berton, June Callwood, Professor Crowe of York University, Professor Eayrs of the University of Toronto, Northrop Frye, of that same university, Professor Gerald LeDain, who headed the commission study on drugs on behalf of the Government of Canada, Peyton Lyon, a professor at Carleton University, and many others. They all addressed an open appeal to the authorities of the Soviet Union.
As I say, since his imprisonment Moroz has been beaten, stabbed and confined with the criminally insane. Reports since January, 1974, indicate that he is confined to an isolation cell, where he is being pressured to recant. He is in extremely poor physical and mental condition, and concerned circles in the Soviet Union have expressed fears that he may not survive present treatment. The recently expelled dissident, Pavel Litvinov, has stated that Moroz will begin a hunger strike until death on the fourth anniversary of his arrest if his conditions are not changed.
People have appealed to the Soviet authorities to permit Moroz to leave prison. The minister said, when replying to my question, that my proposal would be counterproductive. That opinion might have been valid during the years whfen Stalin ruled Soviet Russia. But the Soviets have changed. They react to international public opinion. Solzhenitsyn was expelled, not imprisoned. Rostropovich was relieved of his passport after he left Russia, as was Medved. Pavel Litvinov, grandson of Maxim Litvinov, was permitted to leave. Thousands of Soviet Jews have been permitted to leave. Most have gone to Israel, but many are in Canada.
I make two proposals. First, I suggest that the government should tell the Soviet authorities that if Moroz's views are such that he cannot be permitted to live in freedom in that country, this country would welcome him and his family. Canada has already become known to hundreds of thousands of Ukranians. Second, the government should ask Soviet authorities to permit representatives of this country to visit Moroz in prison so that those who are concerned about his well-being, his health, can be assured that his health has not been broken, as he and his family allege, but that, indeed, he is well physically, mentally and emotionally, as Soviet authorities claim. I urge the government to act along the lines I suggested.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have actively taken up the cause of Mr. Moroz with a view to improving his living conditions in prison and ensuring
[Mr. Orlikow.|
that his state of health is good. They have also called for his release from prison and have supported the idea of his emigration from the Soviet Union, possibly even to Canada, although we have no evidence that Mr. Moroz himself desires this.
The government has taken a keen interest in questions relating to human rights wherever they arise. That said, however, the government is faced with a number of considerations that must be taken into account in deciding what role it might be able to play. As the representative of the people of Canada, it is turned to by Canadians to make representations for them to the Soviet authorities on Mr. Moroz's behalf. On the other hand, its possibilities for action on behalf of the nationals of other countries are limited by international considerations. The Canadian government respects the right of other governments to run the internal affairs of their countries, just as it expects other governments to respect its right to do so. This is a fundamental principle of international law and diplomatic relations among nations.
It is, of course, possible for the Canadian government to express the concern of its citizens over violations of human rights, and it has done so frequently. However, if Canada is to have any influence on the course of events in the Soviet Union, or anywhere else, we have to take a hard look at the effect that acting on the various possibilities open to us would have. If our voice is to be listened to on such matters, it will be only if the Soviet government respects our intentions and motives.
A slamming of the door is what would happen if the Government of Canada went beyond the bounds of what is regarded as acceptable in dealings between nations. When I see that, as a result of the quality of the relations that we and others have developed with the USSR, several thousand more Jews have emigrated from there to Israel, and several hundred more Soviet citizens have been able to join their families in Canada and elsewhere, I am anxious that there should be no slamming of doors.
To return to the specific question of Mr. Moroz, the Canadian government and Canadian officials have raised this case with the Soviet authorities a number of times in light of the humanitarian considerations involved and as a reflection of the concern of Canadians. As far back as 1971 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took the opportunity of Soviet Premier Kosygin's visit to Ottawa to speak to him about this case. In September the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) spoke to Foreign Minister Gromyko in New York in view of the reports of Mr. Moroz's deteriorating health. He assured him then that Mr. Moroz's health was satisfactory in all respects. Later reports that came to our attention on this subject were disquieting and further inquiries were made of the Soviet Ambassador in November. The ambassador assured us that the information received from Mr. Gromyko remained valid.
There have been suggestions that the government should seek his release from prison, or otherwise take a position on the merits of his case. Quite apart from the impropriety of making such approaches to the Soviet government on behalf of a non-Canadian, we believe that adopting such a course would require information on the case to which the Canadian government does not have
April 15, 1975

access, nor any claim to access. We simply do not have a right to call for information on which to base a judgment of the merits of such cases.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES CONCERNING TRANSPORTATION OF ALASKAN OIL ACROSS CANADA
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, as some hon. members know, as long ago as 1971 the government of the day under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a definite decision to discourage any oil pipeline from Alaska southerly along the Mackenzie valley and then southerly across Canada to the United States. This, of course, caused a great deal of debate, especially with regard to the fears raised by those in British Columbia who understandably were and still are concerned with the problems posed by tankers bringing Alaskan oil down the west coast of British Columbia through the narrow Straits of Juan de Fuca to refineries in the State of Washington. That concern, as I said, still exists.
In October of 1974, the then U.S. ambassador-at-large, William Eberle, was in Canada for several days. He made comments which clearly indicated that the United States was looking to the development of sources of oil for petroleum in the State of Alaska other than in the Prudhoe Bay area.
In the remarks the minister made it became obvious that it might very well be United States policy to ship that Alaskan oil out by means of a cross-Canada oil line down the Mackenzie to the continental United States. On October 10, 1974, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) whether he knew that discussions had taken place between United States officials and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) concerning this particular proposal.
I also asked whether it was Canada's intention to use the desire of the United States to establish an oil pipe line across Canada as a lever in negotiations to persuade the Americans to take the tankers out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Secretary of State was non-commital in his answer, but he did not deny that such discussions had taken place, and recently there has been increasing speculation that American policy is looking to a trans-Canada pipe line route.
Today, my colleague, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), was able to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on this very point. The minister answered by saying that no specific proposal had been put forward by the United States in respect to an oil pipe line but that extensive discussions had taken place
Adjournment Debate
between Canadian and United States officials with respect to a pipe line treaty which would govern the construction of any pipe line, either in Canada or the United States.
My question is specific, and in all the circumstances it requires a clear answer. Have any discussions gone on, or are any discussions going on, between Canada and the United States relating to an oil pipe line from Alaska through the Mackenzie Valley, and south from Canada to the United States? If not, have the Americans asked for any such discussions to take place, and what has been the Canadian response? Further, I would ask whether it is within the knowledge of the Canadian government that it is United States policy to negotiate with Canada with respect to arrangements which would enable Alaskan oil to be carried by oil pipe line across Canada to the United States?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the government position of strong opposition to the movement of oil in large tankers into the Puget Sound area has long been made clear. This position was made known to the United States administration at an early stage, and the Canadian government proposed that Canada and the United States explore together the possibility of alternate supply routes for the Pacific Northwest area of the United States. The United States agreed, and this course of action has been actively pursued, notably at meetings in Ottawa and Washington in August, 1974 and February, 1975.
In addition we are discussing with the United States such matters as vessel traffic management, environmental control, contingency planning and liability arrangements with a view to minimizing the possibility of oil spills and providing for clean-ups should they occur. These arrangements will have considerable value in themselves whether or not increased tanker traffic develops in these waters.
In the short term, a pipe line through Canada to carry Alaskan oil to market would not be feasible as an alternative to the Alyeska line.
In the longer term it is conceivable that sufficient oil might be available in the Arctic to justify a second pipe line which could transport both Canadian and Alaskan arctic oil. However, the necessary reserves have not been discovered. In addition, a number of factors would be involved in a decision to build such a pipe line. Having regard to the complexity of this question it would be premature to make any concrete assessment of this possibility at the present stage.
The hon. member asked me two specific questions this evening, one of which I do not think I have dealt with, but I will check into it and see that he gets the information.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
4849

Wednesday, April 16, 1975