1975-04-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
McGregor travel agency-motion under s.o. 43
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43, involving what appears to be a rather unusual procedure by the management of Air Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Minister of Transport cause an investigation pursuant to the Inquiries Act into the legitimacy and propriety of arrangements between Air Canada through Mr. Menard its former vice-president for marketing and Mr. R. Y. McGregor of McGregor travel agency of Montreal wherein Mr. McGregor in return for, among other things, "influencing governments and trade in the Middle East and Latin America," was paid $100,000 in advance on November 29, 1974 by three separate authorizations for expenditures dated the previous day and that the minister request the proper officials of IATA investigate the relationships generally between Air Canada and travel agencies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of great importance and urgency.
Because of the very important role of the Auditor General of Canada, entrusted as he is with the heavy task of scrutinizing government expenditures which must be performed with the widest possible latitude to ensure the efficiency of his work and inspire public confidence, and also because of the serious recommendations recently made by Mr. J. R. Wilson's committee in this regard, which bring to the fore the debates of 1970 and 1971 to which the
government did not respond seriously, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House now discuss the status of the Auditor General, the need to broaden his mandate and powers, the need to amend the act in order to authorize auditors to scrutinize the expenditures of government corporations as well as those of the departments, and also the need for facilities to be made available to him both from the technical and personnel points of view.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to seek permission to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Cambodia has fallen into Communist hands and South Vietnam's very existence is being threatened by Communist aggression and because of the fact that this government has in the past officially condemned acts of aggression in other parts of the world, and therefore, with no statements on recent tragic Communist offensive aggressions in Southeast Asia it could be assumed that this government is in fact approving this inhumane takeover of democratic governments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs be instructed to condemn the tragic and inhumane attacks on both the Cambodian and South Vietnamese governments as well as the helpless populace in order to demonstrate this country's opposition not only to war crimes but to the cancerous spread of Communism into vulnerable democratic and previously peaceful states.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion proposed under the provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.

April 17, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the apparent fall of Phnom Penh to Khmer Rouge insurgents and the Khmer Rouge indication that those associated with the previous government or sympathetic to it would be liable to execution, is our government, either through the United Nations or on its own, prepared to take any initiatives to assist political refugees, either with safe passage out of Phonm Penh, or more directly, in terms of accepting any such refugees who may seek admission to this country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if any initiatives have been taken but I shall inquire.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question also for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the decision by our Commonwealth sister, Australia, to recognize the new regime in Phonm Penh, can the Prime Minister indicate at what stage our own government's evaluation of the recognition question is at present?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the general principles of a measure of stability and durability have been established we would extend recognition but this is a matter of judgment. It is a matter of getting information from other friendly countries, particularly in Asia. In view of the fact that Canada does not have any immediate national interests of great importance involved I think the question does not have to be answered urgently.


IMMIGRATION
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister assure the House that any Cambodian students or nationals living in Canada who might, for political purposes, find it difficult and unsafe to return home, will, in fact be allowed to apply for more permanent immigration or resident status and not be forced to return home?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that Cambodian or Vietnamese people who are in Canada temporarily would not be asked to leave while the present emergency and confusion exists. When that situation is clarified, the degree of which I obviously cannot indicate now, we will review the situation. In addition, as I have already indicated publicly as well, people who are outside Viet Nam or Cambodia but from those countries who apply to stay in Canada on the grounds of being refugees,

would be judged in terms of our normal refugee program and policies.

[DOT] (W10)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his earlier replies about the use of multilateral aid channels for getting food and medical assistance to this area in question, can he say if there are indications that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his staff have been or will be allowed to play a full role to alleviate the distress of refugees in this area.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak specifically about the High Commissioner for Refugees, but I can say that the food aid and other aid Canada is providing to international agencies is being made available in all parts of South Viet Nam and Cambodia regardless of the group which is in control.


VIET NAM-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADIAN AID BEING DISTRIBUTED IN ALL AREAS
Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs did not say by what means aid is being distributed. I should like to know if by any chance there are reports from our man in Hanoi, for example, saying that the refugee situation in the area overrun by the PRG is also being dealt with in the same way under this assistance program.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The High Commissioner for Refugees is one of three international organizations through which we give relief and the information we have is that this kind of relief is being given in areas controlled by the PRG and in Cambodia.


CAMBODIA-SUGGESTED EARLY RECOGNITION OF NEW REGIME TO MAKE AID PROGRAM MORE EFFECTIVE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question relating to the same general area to the Prime Minister. As it is the desire of Canadians to give as much help as possible to countries like Cambodia through aid and rehabilitation, and as this can be done more effectively if we have contact with the de facto government there, will the government speed up its process of assessing when recognition should be accorded.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I answered the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, the government is trying to assess the situation and is

consulting with friendly governments in the area to determine how speedily the process should take place.


VIET NAM AND CAMBODIA-SUGGESTED CO-OPERATION WITH UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering the grim prospect of the refugee problem in Indo-China reaching horrendous proportions, can he advise if Canada as a UN member has taken or will consider taking any initiative with Prince Sadruddin, so that that man and his organization might take immediate steps to deal with what obviously will be a very serious problem along the lines of his excellent initiatives in Bangladesh which are fully in accord with the 1967 protocol.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, our relations with the High Commissioner are very good. He has looked upon Canada as one of the most co-operative countries in the world and I am sure we will continue to deserve that reputation.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Can he advise the House whether the bargaining in connection with the striking longshoremen in the Quebec City, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres ports is progressing and, if so, can he assure the House that a final settlement is forthcoming?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there have not been formal discussions. Informal bilateral discussions have taken place between some of my officials and the parties concerned, but I cannot predict at this stage whether there is any hope of settlement in this particular dispute.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the reply the Minister of Labour has just made, can the minister advise the House whether the picket line will soon be withdrawn, so that millers may get their supplies from the Montreal and Trois-Rivieres terminals?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been applications for injunctions but I do not know at this time if any applicants have been successful with further injunctions.
Oral Questions


ALLEGED DIRECTION TO CANADIAN LONGSHOREMEN BY UNITED STATES UNION NOT TO UNLOAD SHIPS DIVERTED FROM STRIKEBOUND QUEBEC PORTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Labour concerns the strike to which the hon. member for Bellechasse alluded. What action is the minister taking in connection with directions given by United States union officials to Canadian longshoremen who are not on strike to refuse to unload ships diverted from any of the three strikebound Canadian ports?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is not much in the way of any formal action the government can take. I realize it has been suggested there has been this type of interference by the head office of the international union in the United States. Generally speaking, I think this is the type of action that Canadian unions repudiate. Also, I think all members of this House repudiate it. This type of interference should be resisted and I trust that the longshoremen in Canada will resist it.


John Allen Fraser: In the debate last night, the Postmaster General, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, spoke extensively on this problem in view of the fact there was an arbitration related to it with regard to a specific order that Canadian longshoremen not on strike refuse to abide by any directions from American officials to refuse to unload. Has the minister had any discussions or does he feel the most he can do at the present time is to depend on the good faith of the Canadian union? Is the minister powerless in this regard?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am not powerless in the sense that if there are unionists, longshoremen in this particular case, who set up illegal pickets, whether it be of their own volition or at the instance of some foreigner, as is the suggestion in this case, they can suffer the penalties if we are successful in a legal action. The hon. member may know that an application for an injunction was taken out, particularly in the Saint John situation. My latest advice is in that particular case, the court turned down the application for an injunction.


LONGSHOREMEN AT SAINT JOHN-ALLEGED REFUSAL TO UNLOAD SHIPS DIVERTED FROM STRIKEBOUND QUEBEC PORTS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as some days have gone by since the directions were given that I have spoken of, are Canadian longshoremen not on strike at Saint John still refusing to unload cargo from any ships diverted from Three Rivers, Quebec City or Montreal?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my latest information is not of a specific nature that I can reply with any degree of accuracy to the hon. member. I hope to be in a position to do so later today.

Oral Questions


LONGSHOREMEN AT SAINT JOHN-POSSIBILITY OF INTERFERENCE BY UNITED STATES UNION OFFICIALS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister inferring that the interference by Mr. Gleason and Mr. Sullivan of the United States International Longshoremen's Union is the cause for the union men in the port of Saint John not working? Is this what the minister is inferring or have I misunderstood?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have to answer this in a hypothetical vein. If it can be established that the Canadian membership took this action at the sole instance of direction from Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Gleason, then, of course, this is the type of action that should be repudiated. There is also the suggestion that the membership could act on its own and perhaps some did indeed act on their own.


AIR CANADA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I regret I did not have the document or I could have taken this up with the minister in committee. Will the minister cause an investigation under the Inquiries Act into the circumstances whereby the president of McGregor Travel of Montreal received $100,000 in advance late last year ostensibly for three consultant tasks involving relationships with provincial governments and, according to two of the letters of agreement, influence governments and trade in the Middle East and Latin America for the benefit of Air Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Who
received the $100,000? I did not get the name.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The name is Bob McGregor-R. Y. McGregor of McGregor Travel, Montreal.


Jean Marchand: He received the $100,000?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: May I put one further question to the Minister?


Jean Marchand: It is a serious question but I shall have to inquire because I was not aware of that fact.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Would the minister not agree-assuming that this is right, and I have the documents for him-that this type of approach by Air Canada through a travel agency official could be misinterpreted by the governments of other nations and also impinge on the prerogatives of some of the Minister's colleagues including the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as being questionable business ethics which could involve the jurisdiction of IATA. Is he not concerned about the implications of what Air Canada is apparently doing, not

through regular channels such as the international affairs division of our airline, but rather through a travel agent?


Jean Marchand: When I have the information I will give the opinion the hon. member is inviting.


MEDICARE-ALLEGED SETTING OF TIME LIMITS FOR MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: A question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In view of the threatened withdrawal of several practising physicians from the medicare plan in one of the provinces which is scheduling examination time allotted for patients, a gross interference with the consciences of the doctors and the quality of medicare, I should like to ask the minister whether any of the provinces have consulted with him regarding this new departure, the setting of time limits for medical examinations?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, the only information I have is what I have read in the newspapers.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would the minister agree with me that this is a dehumanizing restriction? Since the medicare legislation protects the quality of medical care in all the provinces, does the hon. gentleman not agree he has a direct responsibility in this matter?


Marc Lalonde: The answer to both questions is no. With regard to the first question, what I have seen reported in the press is that doctors will be required to spend a minimum of time with their patients, not a maximum. So there does not appear to be any intention of restricting the time spent with patients. Rather, doctors are being expected to spend sufficient time with their patients to enable them at least to know what is wrong with the patients.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Would the hon. gentleman get in touch with his provincial counterparts to ascertain whether he is correct because, if the situation is as he says, time might well be wasted.


Marc Lalonde: I have sufficient confidence in the ability of my provincial counterparts and in the medical profession in this country to deal with this matter.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE   DATE OF APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY MINISTER OF DEPARTMENT-POSSIBILITY OF SPLITTING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the critical importance to the Canadian economy of the activities of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce particularly with reference to Canada's precarious position in the
April 17, 1975

auto pact and lessening export sales, would the Prime Minister advise us when a deputy minister will be appointed to this department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Next week.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With the estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce down from last year, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the department has been in a state of freeze pending a review to determine whether it should not in fact be split up with one part given to DREE and another part to the Department of External Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will ask the deputy minister what he thinks about that.


ATHABASCA OIL SANDS-LETTER FROM HOME OIL COMPANY-MINISTER'S REPLY AND REQUEST FOR TABLING
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding a letter he received some weeks ago from the Home Oil Company requesting concessions similar to those which have been granted to the Syncrude consortium? In view of the fact that this is the only Canadian-owned oil company that has any immediate prospect of entering the development of the Athabasca oil sands, and in view of the need for supplies of oil to meet the critical situation predicted by the National Energy Board, has the minister replied to the letter from Home Oil Company and, if so, what is the nature of his response and would he be prepared to table the letter in view of the fact that he tabled the letter he received from that company?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do so. My recollection is that the nature of my response was substantially in the vein of my testimony before the committee.


ATHABASCA OIL SANDS-REQUEST OF PETROFINA FOR PERMISSION TO EXPORT SURPLUS TO UNITED STATES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a partner of Petrofina of Canada has told the National Energy Board that they may not proceed with the construction of a plant in the Athabasca oil sands unless, among other concessions, they are assured that they will be allowed to export to the United States all the oil that is surplus to Canadian requirements, can the minister assure the House that no such guarantee will be given having regard to the need for Canadian self-sufficiency of oil supplies in the future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board Act provides for determining the appropriate point to
Oral Questions
review any exportation. This is a new and additional condition that has not been included within previous applications, and I would think it is a condition that we would not accept.


ATHABASCA OIL SANDS-POSSIBILITY OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION PARTICIPATING IN DEVELOPMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reluctance of many of these companies to enter the Athabasca oil sands project, and in view of the fact that they are imposing more and more conditions, is the minister examining the possibility of the National Petroleum Corporation entering the field, either as a joint venture with any provinces that are interested or on its own?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the National Petroleum Corporation, Petro-Canada, will be entering into Syncrude as a partner.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Could he assure the House, in a clear and precise way, that millers have free access to the Montreal and Quebec City ports to obtain their feed grain supplies?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council whose official duties, I understand, include the difficult task of concealing all documents that are painful or embarrassing to the government or too esoteric to be disclosed to public view. Would the hon. gentleman now agree to table the model bill regarding the Auditor General prepared by an internal committee, which is alleged to suggest very considerable extensions of the power of that official, so that the members of the House will have an opportunity of judging what is in the bill?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the government is ready to present a bill to the House, it will be presented. Whether it will be exactly along the lines of the bill that had been prepared in the past, I do not know. I would hope we would be
4936

April 17, 1975
Oral Questions
influenced by the report of the group that is advising the Auditor General.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the views of this House, certainly the views of members on this side of the House as illustrated by the motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 this afternoon, would the minister take into account our views that parliament should have some input into the preparation of the bill because of the special relationship between the Auditor General and parliament, rather than just vetting the mild version that the government will probably prepare?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the government, when it exercises its responsibility, will want to act in the interests of parliament as a whole and will be very ready to accept any amendments that are useful and in the interests of the adequate control of the public purse.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs relating to questions asked of him yesterday regarding the energy conference in Paris that started on the seventh, and in respect of which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said on March 5 the government of Canada would keep in close touch with these discussions and make its views known to all participants with whom we have diplomatic relations and, in particular, with members of the International Energy Agency which will be participating. Does the minister stand by his response yesterday, that we were not in attendance at that conference, therefore how could we have expressed our views, not being there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the general view of the Canadian government on the conference is that we would have preferred that it concentrate on energy and closely related matters. As I understand the situation, however, this view was not shared by all members of the committee who attended. Had we been present we would have sought a compromise, but we were not there and, as the hon. gentleman knows, so far the efforts to get the conference underway have not been successful. As I told him yesterday, however, these efforts are continuing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs whether in fact the government of Canada made any representations regarding the position that should be taken at the conference, or made any representations for example through the International Energy Agency as to that position? Did the minister in fact make any representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the views that the government expressed were the views we made known to the International Energy Agency. My understanding of the position is that these developments took place in the last few days, and we were not called upon specifically to comment on them. I have expressed the view, which I have expressed again now, that we would prefer a conference that was devoted specifically to energy and related matters. At that preparatory conference, however, some of the underdeveloped countries wanted to extend the ambit of the conference to a wider scope, and the preparatory conference broke down on this question. We are still hopeful, however, that some compromise can be reached.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, even if the minister or some minister in the government did not keep in close enough contact to make his views known while the meeting was going on, has the government of Canada made any representations since that time as to the scope of the agenda it would have preferred? When the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs said a moment ago that Canada would have preferred some compromise did he mean to indicate that although Canada's preference would be confined to a discussion on energy or petroleum, Canada would be prepared to enlarge the scope of the conference to include other raw materials?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we would prefer the conference to be held, but we would not want a conference that was so wide in its scope as to have very little influence on the field of energy, which is our prime interest. We are in favour of a compromise.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Since on April 2, Mr. Poirier, the federal mediator in the longshoremen's dispute in Quebec, stated that he was unable to meet the two parties and since the negotiations were interrupted at that time, I want to ask the minister whether he has met with Mr. Poirier since April 2, what the discussions were, and what kind of measures the minister invited the mediator to take to settle the dispute.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet with Mr. Poirier I believe on the date the hon. member mentioned. He indicated he had been meeting with the parties but negotiations had broken down, and that he felt there should be an interval of time for the parties to reassess their positions, at which time there might be hope for further mediation.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour.
Since the minister considers it necessary to let some time pass before the negotiations can resume, when will
April 17, 1975

the minister ask Mr. Poirier to take the necessary steps toward such a resumption, so that Quebec producers can obtain justice?


John Carr Munro: There was no specific date, Mr. Speaker. When Mr. Poirier was down here he was instructed to make himself available to the parties at all times, particularly since he was here, in the hopes of arriving at a settlement. In that sense he was under a constant mandate to try to bring the parties together if they were prepared to come together.


RESOURCES
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, when speaking to the American Society of Planning Officials the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Barney Danson, said he would be very hardheaded about sharing energy resources, but a much softer line would be appropriate where renewable resources like water were involved. Was the minister expressing government policy when he made this statement and, if not, what is the Prime Minister's opinion on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this statement was drawn to my attention and it was stated quite clearly by the minister that he was expressing personal views. If the hon. member wishes to read the report he will see that this is made quite clear.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister participated in or is he aware of any discussions with the United States regarding the use of Canadian fresh water supply by the United States, and what is the government's policy on the export of Canadian water to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no approach that has been taken, at least in recent times, by the United States on this subject. There has been no decision made nor is any contemplated by the government of Canada on the export of water.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I know I could direct this question to three different members of the Cabinet, the right hon. Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, but I think the Minister of Justice is the man to answer this question at this time. My question arises from a recent example of the decision and the verdict of a jury being overruled by an appeal court and again by the
Oral Questions
Supreme Court, all of which is of grave concern to the future prospects-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he be kind enough to put it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: This is of grave concern to the future prospects of the jury system in our administration of justice. In light of what has happened, in present cases of persons being convicted and sentenced to hang for capital murder, will the Cabinet also overrule and void the sentence of the ultimate penalty, even where no recommendation of clemency has been made by the jury or a majority of the jury?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member's point of order at three o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, what action if any does the government of Canada contemplate in light of the refusal of the government of South Viet Nam to allow exit visas for dependent children of landed Vietnamese immigrants in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, of course we cannot interfere with the decisions of other governments, but we will certainly take whatever action we can in an attempt to reunite families of Canadians or Canadian landed immigrants.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs receive an application from me if I gave him sone information?


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I may have to discuss it with my colleague but I would be glad to receive it.


PROPOSED NATO SUMMIT MEETING-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF NEED FOR MEETING
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of President Ford's statement that he endorses the idea of a NATO summit meeting, will the Prime Minister support such a summit meeting, and also what would Canada's position be at that meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with that question about a week ago, I believe. He indicated that he had expressed some reservations on the timing of the summit which had been discussed for the end of
29557 -37l/2

April 17, 1975
Oral Questions
May but indicated of course that if one were to be held we would certainly consider favourably the opportunity to participate in it. As of now, there has been no date announced. I believe the NATO Council is meeting tomorrow at Brussels and we will know whether or not the summit meeting is to take place at the end of May.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. gentleman again distorted somewhat the answer of the Acting Prime Minister on April 10, as noted in Hansard when he dealt only with the timing. Does the Prime Minister not now agree that the changing situation in respect of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Turkey requires NATO consultation at the highest level to affirm once again our cohesion and common destiny?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a very important and urgent situation that is developing. Really the only question is the timing for that particular meeting. The fact that the hon. member mentioned two countries which already have indicated they would not be represented at the summit makes one wonder if it will be all that important to have the council sitting at that particular time. I repeat that the Secretary of State for External Affairs expressed his views on that to various people, including Secretary Kissinger. We are not holding back on the meeting which is not confirmed. We think there should be one. The only question is one of timing so that there would be sufficient preparation for it. If the meeting should take place, which is hypothetical, I assure the hon. member that this government will be represented at the summit.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria on a final supplementary.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman could explain his statement about me mentioning two countries which will not be attending. I was quoting the President of the United States who intends to attend this conference to "affirm once again our cohesion and common destiny".



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Has he received any complaints from Corporal Cox and Corporal Materie members of the National Crime Intelligence section which complaint alleged that there has been a very serious breach of security? Has he received that complaint and what was the nature of the security breach?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the names. Would the hon. member tell me whether this was recent or some time back?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, it has been in the last year. I might put the question to him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the light of that, perhaps the hon. member might better seek that information in another way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been sued in the Federal Court because of a breach of security? Has he been served with a statement of claim in this regard?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, from time to time I receive complaints from members or ex-members of the RCMP. I have been sued by some individuals. I cannot recall names. I will have to look at the records in order to find this information.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the evidence that at the White Dog and Grassy Narrows reserves, out of 17 Indians examined, Dr. Newberry found 15 to be suffering from Minamoto disease or mercury poisoning, would the minister advise the House what arrangements he has now made after his belated acknowledgement that they should not eat the fish to see if there are some other alternative protein sources for those bands. Second, what arrangements have been made for alternate employment or an alternate livelihood beyond welfare.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in an earlier reply to the hon. member that we felt the logical alternate employment would be a move to another location. That has been discussed with Chief Keewatin on the Grassy Narrows Reserve. He and his band were utterly opposed to making that move, so unfortunately that alternative is not available. We are pursuing the other aspect with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare to see if there are some other short-term arrangements we can make.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary may I ask the minister whether he would advise what steps his department has taken to ensure that the native people on those reserves will receive adequate compensation from those responsible for the destruction of their livelihood because of mercury poisoning? What steps has he taken to assist the Indians to help themselves to obtain just compensation for the destruction of their livelihood.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, when I met with them last fall I discussed the possibility of taking the company involved to court.
April 17, 1975



ASBESTOS LEVELS IN LAKE SUPERIOR-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO STOP ASBESTOS DISCHARGES AT SILVER BAY, MINNESOTA

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What immediate action are the federal officials taking to stop asbestos discharges at Silver Bay, Minnesota which it has recently been revealed are leading to asbestos levels in Lake Superior which are higher than allowable and which United States scientists consider to be dangerously high.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend would be pleased to make his representations to his colleagues in the Ontario government since the health aspect of water quality is controlled by provincial and municipal health departments in Canada. I might also inform my hon. friend that the Health Protection Branch scientists in my department are co-operating in a large scale study in the United States in respect of the health aspects of ingested asbestos.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister will he stop attempting to avoid his responsibility for problems which occur outside the jurisdiction-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. My question is, when will the minister and the federal government recognize their responsibility for problems which arise in the United States, a foreign jurisdiction outside the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, when there are concentrations of asbestos which have moved in the last three years from a point where they were considered not to be dangerous to a point where they are now considered to be dangerous? Is he suggesting that the Government of Ontario has jurisdiction over a situation which arises internationally in the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer my hon. friend by asking when he will learn to get his facts straight.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is the minister telling the House that the Silver Bay-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. On Monday the Prime Minister promised to check with the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see if there had been any
Oral Questions
discussions with United States authorities concerning NATO in light of the growing threat of Communism which is now menacing Europe. I should like again to ask the Prime Minister if he has had any discussions with the President of the United States on this matter and if a summit meeting is called for May or later is it his intention to attend and can he tell the House what Canada's position would be at such a meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated the answer to that in respect of a previous question earlier today when I indicated that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had indeed discussed this matter with Secretary Kissinger at the last meeting. On that occasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs repeated the position he made public that we would go along with the idea of a summit if it was thought necessary but we had some question about the timing.
On the other part of the question, I also answered in my previous answer that in the hypothetical case of the summit meeting being held at that point, I indeed would go and represent Canada. I hope I will have the support of hon. members opposite. As to the position we will take, I will have occasion to report to the House on that in due course.



HOUSING


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister inform the House what action he has taken regarding the charge by the Liberal minister of housing in Nova Scotia that threats had been made by an official of CMHC to the effect that Mr. Fitzgerald must toe the line or a squeeze would be put on CMHC funds for use in Nova Scotia?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard of these reports, and I have asked for an investigation. I will be calling Mr. Fitzgerald. I doubt if anything like that could conceivably have taken place, considering the integrity of the officials of CMHC.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is the
minister implying that Mr. Fitzgerald, when he said, "such threats from a CMHC official are highly irregular, and I am prepared to take the matter up with CMHC president William Teron and federal urban affairs minister Barnett Danson," was lying?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned that I had not spoken to Mr. Fitzgerald. I just read the report, just as an hon. member heard reports about my selling water somewhere. I have to get the facts straight. I would

April 17, 1975
Oral Questions
rather hear the facts by speaking to the person directly than by going by newspaper reports.



PROPOSAL TO EXAMINE CMHC CAPITAL SPENDING BUDGET IN COMMITTEE-MINISTER'S POSITION

Flora Isabel MacDonald: Given the intensified criticisms of present policies of CMHC which are being voiced at the provincial level right across this country, will the minister now say when he intends to fulfil his commitment to bring the capital spending budget of CMHC before the standing committee so that that corporation's policies, which are causing such consternation at the provincial level, can be examined in detail? Is he not prepared to tell us when he will fulfil his commitment?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to appearing before the committee and discussing everything as openly as possible, including the capital budget.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell us when additional members will be appointed to the pension plan appeal commission and does he know that there is no co-operation from Quebec for the operation of that Commission? In addition, does he know that Quebec having appointed its own Board is demanding the return of any Quebec file connected with the operation of the appeal Commission?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members will be appointed in the very near future. I must point out to the hon. member that there have been constant consultations with the Quebec government on the matter during the past year and that the developments up to now are in accordance with the spirit of the provincial and federal legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Is the minister stating to the House that the province of Quebec has the right, under the federal act and pursuant to the agreement passed between Canada and Quebec on that matter, to take away any record and set a jurisdiction that is complementary and perhaps divergent at the Canadian level? What are the rights of Canadians and Quebecers in each jurisdiction?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly does not expect me to give a legal opinion to the House on the respective rights of the two levels of government in that field.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In its consideration of criminal court action against members of designated groups in the recent blue collar strike, has the Treasury Board decided whether there should also be action against PSAC higher ups who planned to put the designated groups on the picket lines, or will the law only be applied to "Joe Lunchpail"? I was going to say "Joseph Boardroom", but I will say to union brass.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we apply the act as it is written and we prosecute all those who have infringed it. Does it include union officials? I do not know, I do not think so, but I will check and report to the hon. member.



BILINGUALISM


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister now in a position to report as to his investigation of the Fares language school for civil servants specifically regarding the renewal of the school's contract with the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I investigated the matter and the contract will not be renewed until the inquiry is completed.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Before embarking on his trip to the western cities, will he "consult with legal authorities in the Department of Justice on the legality of demurrage charges being forwarded to innocent third parties, namely, farmers, and not being picked up by the unions and management organizations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the questions of demurrage which arise, will, I think arise either in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board or of individual private owners of grain, and in each case they will have their own legal advice.


Arnold John Malone: Is the minister suggesting that the board has no direct obligation to find out, in view of the fact that

April 17, 1975

so many farmers across the country are asking about the legality, and the Wheat Board is the only institution being sued, but represents all farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: There are many private individuals who own grain involved as well, but of course the Canadian Wheat Board is very careful about its contractual arrangements and obligations and obtains constantly very good legal advice.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On March 21 I asked the minister about the future of the Mackenzie highway, and in response to my question he said that the cabinet was currently examining the matter. I wonder if he can tell us if the cabinet has made a decision, and if not, when we can expect a decision.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this matter is still under consideration. I am not certain that I said cabinet. I thought I said department. The matter is still under consideration, and we have not yet taken a decision.



TOURISM


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is actually a supplementary to one posed by the hon. member for Kootenay West last Tuesday to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If he will check that tourism map which is published in the National Geographic magazine, he will find that the city of White Rock, British Columbia has been exchanged for Blaine, Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Benno Friesen: I think this is carrying international trade too far. Since White Rock is known for its recreational beaches, I wonder if the minister will be good enough to check his records to see if that city really is there.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I do not need to check to assure the House of that fact. That city is very well represented in this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare mislead the House in making in answer to a question of mine, a mis-statement of fact when he suggested that responsibility lies with the province of Ontario for a problem which is known to originate in Minnesota, outside the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario, and including an
Business of the House
international water matter within the jurisdiction of the International Joint Commission. I hope that the minister will correct the record and that he will accept his responsibilities.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the record tomorrow will show exactly what I said.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the President of the Privy Council about the business for the rest of this week and for all of next week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will give the intended business for today, tomorrow and Monday. Today we will continue with Bill C-32, the petroleum administration act. Tomorrow we will take, in this order, Bill C-3, Bill C-5 and Bill C-20. On Monday, if the report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates has been made and we are in a position to proceed, I intend to call Bill C-44. I am not certain of the business thereon because I am not sure how long these items will take.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: On the same matter, Mr. Speaker, in view of the undertaking given by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to have his capital spending estimates brought before the Standing Committee, I wonder if the government House leader would consult with his colleague and see what can be done about having that reference made as quickly as possible so that the committee could get on with this important study.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader with respect to his announcement that on Monday we might be dealing with Bill C-44? Is it clear that no attempt will be made to proceed with this bill on Monday unless we have a reprint of the bill as it was amended by the committee, and also the reports of the committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope that will be possible, Mr. Speaker. I had not realized there might be any delay in that respect, but I understand the concern of the hon. member and I will try to speed up the progress of the report. At least we will have a reprint of the bill before us, I would hope.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to House business, may I also ask the government House leader when there will appear on the order paper the bills to amend the Old Age Security Act about which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been making pleasant noises?

April 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure my hon. friend will show his customary zeal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, regarding the business of the House, I want to draw to the attention of the government House leader the fact that there were 11 committees meeting this morning, mostly in consideration of estimates. This deprived a number of members of the opportunity to carry out their responsibility to scrutinize the spending of the government. I should like to ask the government House leader if he would take under consideration a more proper scheduling of these committee meetings so that we can carry out all our responsibilities in all the committees.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I should like to address the President of the Privy Council and make a fresh attempt for the umpteenth time. The throne speech mentioned the presentation of new legislation on unemployment insurance. I asked the President of the Privy Council many times when this legislation to amend the 1971 act would be brought forward. Did the President of the Privy Council keep his promise to get information from the Minister of Manpower and if he did, when will the bill to amend the present act be presented?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall make inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 27, 70, 673, 771, 1,221, 1,225, 1,523, 1,559, 1,570, 1,771, 1,781, 1,797, 1,798, 1,815, 1,829, 1,839, 1,840, 1,841, 1,867, 1,933, 1,934, 1,963, 1,970, 1,978, 2,008, 2,128 and 2,147.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 881 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the complete list and the exact description of each promise or undertaking to the Canadian people made public by the Prime Minister or by anyone acting on his behalf between May 1, 1974 and July 8, 1974?
2.	What is the estimated cost in each such case and what is the estimated total cost for all such promises or undertakings?

3.	Will the government proceed to enact all such promises or undertakings within the next twelve months and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what are the specific promises or undertakings that it will not enact and what is the reason in each such case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. From May 1 to the dissolution of the 29th Parliament government policy, as is the custom, was disclosed to the House. From the commencement of the election to July 8, 1974, the Prime Minister on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada outlined a series of policies and objectives which the government if re-elected would pursue in its full term of office. The Throne Speech of September 30, 1974 and the government's legislative program itemise the measures introduced to the House and Senate to this time. The Liberal Party of Canada will make available, on request, policy documents of the Liberal party issued during the election period.
2.	Costs of government policies will be disclosed in the customary way, that is by Estimates and Supplementary Estimates.
3.	The government will proceed with its policy program during the full term of this 30th Parliament.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Where and on what date during the last federal election campaign did the Prime Minister state that he and his government are prepared to "wrestle inflation into the ground"?
2.	Since making that statement, what steps or actions has the Prime Minister and the government taken to commence this wrestling match and, if none, on what date will the Prime Minister and the government take any steps or actions of this kind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Etobicoke, May 27, 1974.
2. See Speech from the Throne, September 30, 1974, and the Budget Speech, November 18, 1974.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the newspaper column appearing on October 23, 1974, in the Lanark Era and other Canadian weeklies, and headed "Priorities for the 30th Parliament by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister", what are the names and addresses of all persons who had anything whatsoever to do with compiling or writing this column in whole or in part?
2.	Are such persons government employees and (a) if so, what are their job designations (b) if not, are they employees of the Liberal Party of Canada?
3.	Did the Prime Minister see and approve all the material in this column before it appeared in print and, if so, on what exact date and
time?
4.	Will the Prime Minister continue to permit his name or that of any Cabinet Minister to be shown as the author of newspaper columns that have been written by paid public relations functionaries of the Liberal Party of Canada and, if so, for what reason?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
The column is signed by the Prime Minister and he alone is responsible for it.
April 17, 1975

3.	October 7, 1974.
4.	The question is of a hypothetical nature.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 306, wherein the Department stated that Mr. Donovan Joy was allotted priority one space on a DND 707 flight, Comox to Ottawa, on April 22, 1974, and the purpose was "to advise the Minister upon the completion of reports", were the Minister of the Environment and Mr. Joy on the West Coast for several days before they flew East together and, if so, for what reason did Mr. Joy not report to the Minister in situ instead of occupying priority space on DND 707?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: This matter does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the present Minister of the Environment (see Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Form-Fourth Edition, citation 171 (LL)).


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	Did sirens warning of a possible nuclear attack sound in Southern Ontario during the last week of December, 1974 and, if so (a) how many sirens sounded (b) in which municipalities (c) for how long did they sound (d) for what reason did they sound?
2.	(a) Who is responsible for the maintenance of these air raid sirens
(b)	how much was paid for their maintenance in the calendar year 1974
(c)	what measures, if any, have been taken to prevent any accidental triggering of these sirens in the future?
3.	In the event of the air raid sirens sounding, which members of the Cabinet, if any, are to be so advised?
4.	Were any members of the Cabinet advised of the soundings that occurred during the last week of December, 1974 and, if so, which members and on what date?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No. The sirens were triggered and emanated a flat monotone sound but the attack warning signal was not given. The attack warning signal is a waiting, undulating sound, (a) 162. (b) The municipalities in which the sirens sounded are: Newmarket, Markham, Stouffville, Richmond Hill, Maple, Woodbridge, Aurora, Oak Ridges, Thornhill, Oakville, Streetsville, Brampton, Malton, Cooksville, Port Credit, Toronto, Georgetown, Milton, Hamilton, Action, St. Catherines, Beamsville, Niagara on the Lake, Welland, Niagara Falls, (c) The duration of the sounding varied from 15 to 45 minutes, (d) The activation of the sirens was due to an act of vandalism by two teenagers using powered rifles.
2.	(a) CFB Toronto-Base Construction Engineering Section, (b) $8,490. (c) Within the design of the system there are physical, mechanical and electrical safeguards to provide reasonable assurance against the sirens being activated accidentally. All accidental soundings in 1974 were attributable to lighting, ice storms or vandalism. Measures to preclude all possibility of accidental sounding would be cost prohibitive.
3.	The Minister of National Defence or the Acting Minister, is to be advised if the attack warning signal is given.
4.	No. The minister is only advised if the attack warning is sounded. Accidental soundings are reported to the
Order Paper Questions
regional commander for corrective action and advice to the public.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the full name and job designation of the person on the Prime Minister's staff who informed the press that it was not possible to reveal where the Prime Minister would spend his recent vacation "for security reasons"?
2.	Was such a statement by the member of the Prime Minister's staff an attempt to create an air of importance designed to attract public attention to the Prime Minister and members of his family for political
purposes?
3.	Did the Prime Minister or anyone acting on his behalf request secrecy from the Jamaican Government concerning the vacation and (a) if so (i) on what date and by whom was such a request made (ii) what are all the details of the request (b) if not, what was the basis or consistence in the attempt by the Prime Minister's Office to shroud the vacation in the secrecy at the outset?
4.	What are all the reasons that details were withheld at the outset from members of the Canadian news media when the Prime Minister was aware that on arrival he would be met by the Prime Minister of Jamaica and members of the news media in that country?
5.	(a) Is the Prime Minister aware that President Ford of the United States recently vacationed in Colorado and, if so, is he aware that there were no pompous attempts by the President's Office to shroud the vacation in secrecy (b) is the Prime Minister aware that the President talked freely to members of the public and the news media while on vacation and is the Prime Minister giving consideration to following President Ford's example?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Courtney Tower, Assistant Press Secretary.
2.	No.
3.	(a) No. (b) None.
4.	The Prime Minister's vacation was a private occasion.
5.	(a) No. (b) The Prime Minister regularly talks freely with members of the public and the news media.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Since January 1, 1974, how many passes have been in effect and at any time issued by Air Canada (a) what are the names and addresses of all persons holding such passes (b) what are the reasons in each case that a pass was issued (c) in each case, was the pass requested by the holder or someone acting on the holder's behalf?
2.	Have any passes been called in by Air Canada or returned by the pass holder since January 1, 1974 and, if so, what are the names and addresses of such pass holders and what is the reason in each case for such a move?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Air Canada has a program of limited personal free transportation for its 22,000 employees and their qualified dependents. The quantity of such passes, which are subject to the availability of space at flight departure, is sealed in accordance with an employee's years of service. A number of passes are provided each year for promotional purposes and the airline considers the names of persons receiving these individual trip passes as proprietary information. As well, passes are issued as required for employee business travel and to non-company persons such as cabinet ministers, Ministry of Transport officials with aviation responsibilities, Canada Post Office offi-
4944

April 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
cials, other airline heads, and to certain CN employees performing functions for Air Canada as well. These policies are similar to those of other Canadian airlines, (c) The pass recipient is usually the requestor except in the case of employees' dependents when the employee is the requestor.
2. Passes are generally not returned except on rare occasions when they are not used.


Mr. Blackburn: 1.	What were the names and official positions of employees of departments, agencies and Crown corporations who were holders of Air Canada passes as of February 3, 1975?
2.	Do such passes entitle the holder to first-class or to economy travel?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada's 22,000 employees and their qualified dependents are eligible for limited personal passes which are subject to the availability of space at flight time. Passes are also issued to company employees as required for business travel, and term passes are provided to non-company persons such as cabinet ministers, Ministry of Transport officials with aviation responsibility, officials of Canada Post Office, heads of other airlines, and to certain CN employees performing functions for Air Canada. These policies are similar to those applied by the other Canadian airlines.
2. Taking into consideration all pass issues, the majority entitle the holder to economy travel but these passholders may at times be upgraded if space is unavailable in the economy cabin.
Headquarters, who prepared orders and arranged for administrative and logistic support. Air Transport Command resources. Depot, workshop and repair facilities. Bases support in the despatch of personnel and administrative functions.
2. The proportion varied over the time frames between October 18, 1970 and January 4, 1971, however, as there were approximately 83,600 Armed Forces personnel stationed in Canada at that time the highest percentage directly involved was 9.6 per cent.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What specific steps are being taken by the government to discourage the non-agricultural use of agricultural land in Canada?


Len Marchand: The administration and regulation of use of lands is a provincial jurisdiction. The government of Canada is, however, undertaking a comprehensive review of all activities within its area of responsibilities that directly affect land use and particularly the use of highly productive lands including agriculture. As indicated in the Speech from the Throne of the 29th Parliament, discussions have been initiated with the provinces towards the development of a national land use policy. In addition the government of Canada requires the preparation of an environmental assessment and review of all capital projects undertaken by a federal department, in which there are substantive federal funds or occurring on federal lands. By this means the irretrievable use of highly productive lands, including those with a high capability for agriculture, can be controlled.


Mr. Brisco: Question No. 1,570-Mr. Kaplan:
1.	How many members of the Armed Forces were involved directly or indirectly in the government's response to the insurrection in Montreal in October, 1970?
2.	What proportion of Armed Forces personnel then in Canada did this number represent?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The number of Armed Forces personnel who were directly involved was as follows:
Period
Number of Personnel
October 18-October 31, 1970 November 1-November 30, 1970 December 1-December 15, 1970 December 15, 1970-January 4, 1971
8,066
7,200
4,211
Reduced to Nil
No precise number can be given for Armed Forces personnel who were involved indirectly. However, the following indicates the type of support involved: Staff personnel at National Defence Headquarters and various Command

1.	What percentage of the capital cost of operating the Creston Valley Wildlife Management area is paid for by the (a) government (b) Government of British Columbia.
2.	Are the salaries of employees paid by the provincial government or the government.


Len Marchand: 1. The Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area operates using funds derived from: (i) grants to a trust fund by the governments of Canada and British Columbia; (ii) appropriations by the B.C. legislature. Summary of funds provided to the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area for 1974-75: (i) Grants to trust fund 1974-75: Canada, $55,000; British Columbia, $55,000; (ii) Appropriation by B.C. legislature: 1974-75, $72,130; Percentage contributed by Canada, 30 per cent; British Columbia, 70 per cent. In addition the B.C. department of labour supplied $44,000 for summer help in 1974-75. All building maintenance is done by the B.C. department of public works. The C.V.W.M.A. also derives limited revenue from the granting of permits, campground fees, etc.
2. Employees are paid by the British Columbia government out of funds appropriated for the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area.
April 17, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 447 to the effect that Mr. Michael Pitfield accompanied the Prime Minister as liaison officer on a trip to the Mediterranean for a period of twenty-four days from August 16 to September 9, 1969, what was (a) the exact and detailed itinerary for each day involved including the location in which each day and night was spent (b) the names and owners of any ship travelled upon (c) the names of all persons present on any ship other than bona fide members of the crew?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The itinerary and mode of travel were those chosen by the Prime Minister since he was assisting the Prime Minister as referred to in Question 1,798.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 447 to the effect that Mr. Michael Pitfield accompanied the Prime Minister on eight specifically named trips to foreign places in the capacity of liaison officer (a) were these in reality joint holidays for the Prime Minister and Mr. Pitfield paid for in whole or in part from public funds (b) did Mr. Pitfield do any work whatsoever on these trips and, if so (i) what is a detailed list of the work done (ii) dates involved (iii) people dealt with during each of the eight listed trips?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is government policy that the Prime Minister may travel with an official or officials to give him administrative support and in order to provide for possible emergencies and that expenses thus incurred by the official should be paid from public funds.


Mr. Herbert: Is "conflict of interest" legislation being considered to cover employees of Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government policy with respect to conflict of interest of employees of Crown Corporations is set forth in the Prime Minister's statement of December 18, 1973, to the House of Commons.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the total cost of the "WHY NOT-POURQUOI PAS" Programme?
2.	How much of this money is for (a) buttons (b) newspaper ads (c) radio ads (d) television ads?
3.	What percentage of the budget is for the English language?


Marc Lalonde: 1. As of March 24, 1975, $890,296.
2.	(a) $19,857; (b) $314,337; (c) $140,305; (d) $159,677.
3.	Eighty per cent.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government taking steps to determine how many merchant seamen would be required to accommodate the staffing of the number of ships required to accommodate the movement (a) out of Canadian ports to foreign destinations (b) into Canadian ports from foreign destinations of 40 percent of the present liner conference rated cargo and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what are the specific steps and what department is responsible?


Jean Marchand: (a) and
(b) Yes, steps are being taken to obtain on a continuing basis, cargo statistics on which such calculations could be based, (i) Not applicable, (ii) The statistical problem here stems largely from the fact that conference vessels carry not only conference rated cargo but also non-conference rated cargo, i.e. cargo from shippers not party to the conference. In addition, conference vessels also make voyages outside the conference structure. As indicated in replies to questions 1,131 and 1,132, means are being developed to provide satisfactory statistics on the movement of liner conference rated cargo to and from Canadian ports. The Canadian Transport Commission and Statistics Canada have this work in hand. Thereafter the statistic will figure in the report on liner conference operations which the Minister of Transport makes annually to parliament under Section 12 of the Shipping Conferences Exemptions Act. With that statistic on cargo, and setting aside considerations of seasonal movements of goods, it could readily be calculated how many ships of a given size, loaded to a reasonable percentage of their carrying capacity, would be required to move 40 per cent of that much cargo in one year. An upward adjustment could be made to allow for repairs and times in drydock. By application of the Canadian Manning Regulations, as revised from time to time, the crew complement for each such ship could be determined. In order to provide for vacations and sickness, a further upward adjustment could be made.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government taking steps to determine how many (a) general cargo (including passenger-cargo) (b) container type vessels were employed in the liner conference rated international inbound and outbound seaborne shipping to serve Canadian ports within the most recent 12 month period and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what are such steps and what department of government is responsible?


Jean Marchand: (a) and
(b) No, it is not proposed to make such surveys on an annual basis, (i) In the liner trades, ships switch from conference to conference during the year depending on cargo availability in various parts of the world. Some ships visit Canada frequently, others rarely. The number of different liner vessels visiting Canada in a year is therefore not particularly relevant to our work and lists are not compiled from port records on an annual basis. Special surveys are, of course, made from time to time, which can provide information for statistical breakdowns of the type requested. The most recent such survey was for the year 1972 and information from it was used in the replies to Questions 1,133 and 1,134. (ii) Not applicable.
29557 -38V2

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: What was the dollar value of total payments by Canada for shipping charges on Canadian imports and exports for each of the past five years?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that shipping charges on Canadian imports and exports for the last five years are as follows:
Canadian earnings from non-residents in respect of freight and shipping charges on exports:
* million
1970	938
1971	954
1972	987
1973	1,100
1974	1,320
Canadian payments to non-residents in respect of freight and shipping charges on imports:
S million
1970	812
1971	912
1972	1,052
1973	1,225
1974	1,383


Mr. Mazankowski: Did Air Canada expect to lose money on its Sun Living package tours to the Barbados and, if so (a) how much money was lost last year (b) what is the financial breakdown of the loss (c) to what extent did the leasing arrangements with Sunset Crest Ltd. contribute to the loss?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada's Sun Living programme applies to all its' southern destinations and is part of a wide range of tours, vacation packages and other services offered by the airline in order to provide a complete product line to the travelling public. Prevailing market demands, coupled with market research, determine the direction the company should take to maintain and broaden its share of the market. Such things as hotel accommodation, car rentals and transportation are involved and no separate financial breakdown is made for each component part.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Has there been a problem with brucellosis in the Carleton County and Northern Saskatchewan areas and, if so, what action has been taken in the two areas to curtail it?
2.	How great is the incidence of brucellosis in Canada in terms of (a) the number of cattle with the disease compared to the total cattle

population (b) the number of diseased herds in comparison to the total herds in Canada?
3.	How effective is the brucellosis vaccination in controlling and eventually ridding the country of the disease?
4.	What percentage of heifers vaccinated acquire immunity?
5.	At what age should female calves be vaccinated?
6.	Is a programme of private vaccination by herd owners recommended?
7.	Is vaccination of cows against brucellosis recommended?
8.	Can a vaccinated animal spread brucellosis?
9.	(a) How much and under what conditions is compensation paid regarding cattle with brucellosis (b) how is such amount determined (i) regarding grade cattle (ii) purebred cattle?
10.	How long after can a farmer expect to receive compensation for infected cattle after he has disinfected his premises to the satisfaction of a departmental inspector?
11.	Is it possible that a valuable cow infected with brucellosis can be placed in permanent quarantine instead of being slaughtered and, if so, in what manner and how often is it applied?
12.	What training and/or experience is required by those employed in the Department of Agriculture to draw blood samples from herds to be tested for brucellosis?
13.	Prior to the federal-provincial calf vaccination programme, what was the brucellosis infection rate in Canada?
14.	What was the estimated annual dollar loss to the cattle industry?
15.	As the result of the vaccination programme, what effect did it have on the brucellosis infection rate and the annual dollar loss to the cattle industry?
16.	What is a brucellosis control area?
17.	What was the result of the test and slaughter method and its effect on the reduction of brucellosis in Canada?
18.	What is the national infection rate of brucellosis in Canada?
19.	Did the Veterinary Director General in a speech state that brucellosis was eliminated in a number of countries and, if so, what countries?


Eugene Whelan: 1. A
general test of Carleton County was conducted between November 1, 1974, and February 28, 1975. Out of 42,232 samples collected, only 52 positive reactors were uncovered, and there were no heavily infected herds. A general retest of the high risk area of Northwestern Saskatchewan was done during the fall and winter of 1973-74. A total of 329,213 blood samples were collected from 6,538 herds and 3,044 cattle were removed as reactors. The reactors included cattle which were negative to the test but were ordered slaughtered when heavily infected herds were ordered depopulated. At the present time, there are only 0.14 per cent of the herds under quarantine for brucellosis in the entire province.
2.	(a) Between April 1, 1974, and January 3, 1975, out of a total population of approximately 15,000,000 cattle, 12,628 animals were ordered destroyed for brucellosis. Included in this figure are 5,813 cattle which were negative to the test but were ordered slaughtered in heavily infected herds that were ordered depopulated, (b) As of January 31, 1975, there were 734 herds under quarantine out of a total of 269,485 herds.
3.	From 1950, when the federal-provincial brucellosis vaccination program was introduced, to 1957, the infection rate was reduced from 9 per cent to 4.5 per cent. It is recognized that complete elimination of brucellosis cannot be achieved in conjunction with calfhood vaccination.
4.	Under usual field conditions, the vaccine protects about 60 to 65 per cent of the animals vaccinated.
April 17, 1975

5.	An officially vaccinated animal is one that is vaccinated not earlier than three months and not later than nine months after the date of the birth of the animal. It is recommended that a calf be vaccinated as soon as possible after it reaches three months of age.
6.	No.
7.	Definitely not. In fact, it is illegal to vaccinate cows.
8.	A vaccinated animal can be infected and may spread brucellosis.
9.	Compensation is paid for all cattle ordered slaughtered for brucellosis. The maximum rate of compensation for purebred cattle is $450 and for grade cattle is $200. The owner is paid the market value of the animal up to the maximum compensation that can be paid for grades and purebreds.
10.	A farmer can expect to receive his compensation in four weeks after his premises has been cleaned and disinfected to the satisfaction of an inspector from the Department except in unusual circumstances.
11.	It is a dangerous procedure to place a brucellosis infected cow in permanent quarantine; this has been done only on very rare occasions and only in the case of a very valuable cow under approved and controlled conditions.
12.	A new employee is trained in the field by a full time officer until the Department is satisfied that he is adequately trained to draw blood samples and to complete the required reports.
13.	It was estimated at 8-9 per cent.
14.	In 1957, at the beginning of the test and slaughter policy, the annual dollar loss was estimated to be $10,000,000.
15.	The vaccination program reduced the infection rate from 9 per cent in 1950 to 4.5 per cent in 1957. As a result of the reduction in the infection rate, the annual dollar loss to the cattle industry was also reduced.
16.	A brucellosis control area is an area that has been consituted by the Minister of Agriculture for the purpose of eradicating brucellosis. When the infection rate in brucellosis control area is below 1 per cent of the cattle and 5 per cent of the herds, the area is designated as a Brucellosis Certified Area. When the infection rate is not over 0.2 per cent of the cattle population and not over 1 per cent of the herds, the area is declared a Brucellosis Free Area.
17.	The test and slaughter method, whereby infected animals are identified by testing and are ordered slaughtered, has reduced the national brucellosis infection rate from 4.5 per cent in 1957 to less than 0.2 per cent at present.
18.	From April 1, 1974, to January 3, 1975, a total of 6,815 brucellosis reactors were ordered destroyed. Calculating this number of reactors against approximately 15,000,000 cattle represents a percentage infection rate of 0.045 per cent.
19.	Brucellosis has been eliminated in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, West Germany and Poland.
Order Paper Questions SWAMP FEVER


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How widespread is equine infectious anemia or swamp fever in Canada?
2.	How can this disease be detected?
3.	Is there any vaccine to prevent this disease?
4.	Is compensation paid to owners of horses with swamp fever which have to be disposed of and, if so, what is the (a) minimum (b) maximum amount?
5.	On what date did a programme of testing for swamp fever start in Canada?
6.	How many tests have been conducted for swamp fever since that time?
7.	How many tests have proved positive?


Eugene Whelan: 1. The
incidence of this disease is relatively low with a few isolated pockets of infection in widely separated parts of the country.
2.	By the testing of a blood sample drawn from the horse by a veterinarian.
3.	No.
4.	Compensation is payable to owners of animals ordered slaughtered under E.I.A. control program, (a) and (b) Compensation is based on the market value of the animal up to a maximum of $200. There is no minimum amount.
5.	February, 1971.
6.	Between February, 1971 and February 28, 1975, 202,566 tests were conducted.
7.	Between February, 1971 and February 28, 1975, there were 5,593 positive reactions.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	When were the latest studies of economic ordering patterns undertaken within the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	What were the results?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The development of economic ordering patterns is an inherent part of the procurement function and is done on a continuous basis. In some cases, such as in the replenishment of DSS stocked items a computer programme is used to assist in determining optimum reorder points.
2. Inventories are held to a minimum consistent with economic purchase quantities, adequate customer service and market conditions.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What aircraft, by type, does the Department of National Defence have and what is their respective use?
2.	Are any aircraft in the process of being phased out and, if so, what types?

April 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The types of aircraft and their respective use in the Department of National Defence are as follows:
Aircraft Types	Use
CC109 Cosmopolitan OC115 Buffalo CC117 Falcon CO 130 Hercules CC137 Boeing 707 OC138 Twin Otter CC129 Dakota	Transport Tactical Transport-Search and Rescue T ransport Transport-Tactical Transport T ransport Search and Rescue Training and Utility
CF100 Canuck CF101 VooDoo CF104 Starfighter CF116 CF-5	Electronic Warfare Air Defence Interceptor Tactical Fighter Tactical Fighter and Training
CH113 Labrador CI1113A Voyageur CHI 18 Iroquois	Search and Rescue Helicopter Medium Transport Helicopter Base Rescue Helicopter
CH124 Sea King CH135 Twin Huey C11136 Kiowa CH147 Chinook	Anti-Submarine Warfare Helicopter Light Utility Transport Helicopter Basic Trainer-Liaison-Utility Helicopter Medium-Heavy Transport Helicopter
CP 107 Argus CP121 Tracker	Patrol-Anti-Submarine 1 'at rol-M a ritime S u r veil lance
CSR 123 Otter	Utility-Reserve
OT134 Musketeer OT114 Tutor CT133 T-33	Aircrew Selection-Basic Trainer Basic Trainer (Jet) Training-Liaison
2. All types of Aircraft are currently in use.


Mr. Reynolds: Is the Doppler Navigation Systems to be retained for DND aircraft and, if so, is it being upgraded or phased out?


James Armstrong Richardson: Four types of Canadian Forces aircraft are equipped with Doppler Navigation Systems. There are no current plans to change or dispense with the systems.


Mr. Reynolds: What are the routine steps made in the procurement process within the Department of Supply and Services?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Following is a list of the routine steps made in the

procurement process. Some or all of these steps are followed to a greater or lesser degree depending on the nature of a particular procurement. 1. Consultation with customer department to define requirement.
2.	Price and availability determination.
3.	Receipt and recording of requisition.
4.	Acknowledgement of requisition.
5.	Allocation of requisition to purchasing specialist in a Product Centre or to a Project Manager.
6.	Review and verification of requisition.
7.	Facility surveys.
8.	Preparation of procurement plan.
9.	Establish list of eligible sources of supply.
10.	Bid solicitation (competitive or single source).
11.	Receipt and opening of bids.
12.	Bid evaluation.
13.	Contract negotiation.
14.	Contractor selection.
15.	Review, approval and award.
16.	Contract administration including: (a) monitoring of time, cost and performance; (b) expediting and follow-up; (c) design change; (d) contract amendment; (e) quality assurance; (f) delivery, acceptance and payment; (g) termination and settlement; (h) cost audit; (i) plant and personnel security.
17.	Contract close-out.


Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of providing a Crown corporation to develop and commercialize STOL aircraft for the short haul domestic service for all parts of Canada?


Jean Marchand: The
government has not yet decided what role STOL aircraft should play in providing short-haul domestic air services in Canada. In considering this question the government will study a number of options, among them the advisability of providing some of these services through a Crown Corporation.


Mr. Kaplan: Are there provisions in existing agreements relating to the United Nations Congress in Crime and Criminality scheduled for Toronto in September 1975, which in the opinion of the government prevent it from denying entry to Canada to representatives of terrorist organizations and, if so, what are such provisions?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Negotiations are still continuing between the United Nations and the Government of Canada concerning the text of the understanding that will set out the terms of reference for the 5th U.N. Conference on Crime to be held in Toronto next September. Until these are completed, it will not be possible to provide a
April 17, 1975

definitive answer to the above question. Meanwhile, the hon. member may rest assured that the Government is giving the most careful attention to the problems implicit in his question.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Since 1968, which departments or agencies have decentralized
functions or personnel to a regioiTbr regions and, in each case (a) what were the functions and the public ^service classifications of the individuals concerned (b) what was theN extra saving or extra cost involved?	''
2.	Is the Treasury Board, or any other agency of government, currently preparing, or now in possession of, a cost-benefit analysis respecting present or potential decentralization of public service functions or personnel to a region or regions and, if so, what is the (a) budget (b) personnel (c) estimated report date of that analysis?
3.	Has the government entered into consultation with any province or territory or any foreign jurisdiction to determine the experience of these other jurisdictions with decentralization and, if so (a) what are the other jurisdictions (b) what, in each case, is the specific purpose of the consultation?
Return tabled.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, in both official languages-Mr. Guilbault.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order concerning a matter I raised earlier in the question period. It arises because of my concern for the future of the jury system and the damage being done to it by the courts and bodies standing within the authority of the portfolio of the Minister of Justice. If appeal courts and the Supreme Court of Canada are ignoring and overruling the verdicts of juries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may have many representations to make in this regard. If he has some concern about his question being ruled out of order in the question period as a point of order, I may tell him that he clearly asked the minister to anticipate a situation that may come before him in the future, and to make a pronouncement now as to what he would do in the event of such a situation coming before him with or without a recommendation of leniency.
This has to be a hypothetical situation and accordingly it does not constitute a proper question. Neither do the
Oil and Petroleum
hon. member's remarks at this stage, as a representation, make a valid point of order. If the hon. member has some complaint about my failure to accept his question, however, I am quite prepared to hear it as a point of order. Representations about the jury system is not a point of order.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: With all due respect, my question is not hypothetical; it is realistic. This is happening today and has been happening, and we do not want it to continue to happen. To finish my point, in light of what I have outlined, is the cabinet also going to continue to perpetrate the same travesty of justice in the cases involving capital punishment now awaiting final decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Tabling of documents; the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(1), I am tabling on behalf of the Minister of Finance notice of ways and means motion pursuant to Standing Order 60(2). I would request Your Honour to designate an order of the day for consideration of the ways and means motion.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions on the order paper and I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary would be able to answer at least one or two a week. I am willing to be patient.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 15, 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 3-Binding on Her Majesty.
[Stage Direction]
April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, April 15, 1975, clause 3 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 3 carry?


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, in the debate on clause 2 last fall I made a rather lengthy and, hopefully, clear explanation of a concern I had about clause 3. I suggested at that time, because I was concerned, that I was prepared to move an amendment which would clarify the position. I gave copies of the amendment to the minister and members of the other parties in the House. Let me say briefly why I wish to move an amendment. Clause 3 of Bill C-32 reads:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province.
To a layman, it seems remarkable that the legislative assembly which I am addressing can take unto itself the right of binding Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province without producing some document which shows that the provinces have given it this right to bind them. When arguing last fall about the prerogatives of the Queen, I traced how power had passed from the monarchy to our people who live in the modern age. I pointed out that the power which in ancient times had resided in the Queen, in the monarchy, is now in the hands of the people and prerogatives of the Queen, or powers, which were passed on to a province were passed smoothly on to the people of that province. I am not speaking as a lawyer or constitutional expert. I know the subject of the royal prerogative is in the realm of discussion and I know there are no authorities which one can consult. I am simply expressing my concern.
I think parliament should make its legislation as unassailable as possible. Here, parliament seeks to pass legislation claiming to bind the people of a province without first having obtained the consent of the people of the province for that binding. In the debate last fall, the minister rejected my argument concerning the prerogatives of the Crown. He did not accept arguments dealing with consent which ought to be given to parliament before it enacts laws affecting the Queen's prerogatives. He did not accept my argument that if the people of a province are to be bound to do anything, parliament should first have from the people of the province and their government consent for that binding.
It was suggested that the recommendation of the Governor General is sufficient to indicate that we have power to deal with the Queen's prerogatives, that consent in this instance is not required, although it has been required when laws have been passed affecting the Queen's prerogatives. By the Queen's prerogatives, I mean the property of the people. I gave several examples to back up my argument. I alluded to the mineral rights on reservations in Canada. For years parliament assumed that we had full power in connection with Indian reservations because the land had been granted to the federal power. When the matter finally came before the courts about 20 years ago, the courts ruled that the federal power has power over the land but that the mineral rights belong to the owners of those mineral rights in the first instance, the people of the provinces.

We went through an embarrassing procedure in 1957-58 when a minister of the government of that day-a minister who had not been involved in past decision-making and advice given by law officers of the Crown in the preceding 20 years-had to stand in her place in the House and say, "We must do this the proper way. Consent has been granted." Then she had to prove, by document, that she had the consent of the provinces concerned for her statement.
The House ought to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for his research in this area. He has dug up some examples which suggest that parliament should not legislate in connection with the right of a province unless consent has been given to parliament. This sort of thing has only happened a few times previously: I am referring to bills being passed where consent had not been given. It was done with the Explosives Act of 1953-54. For obvious reasons, the federal government felt it had to act on the matter of explosives. The second example is the International River Improvements Act of 1955. Once again, one could claim that the federal power extends into that particular field. The third example is the Fisheries Act of 1970. Again, federal government jurisdiction has strong claims in that area. The fourth example is the Nuclear Liability Act of 1970. I understand that there is another act which could be used as an example.
To me, as a layman, it seems that this bill, which clearly seeks to deal with the property of the people of a province without their consent, is an aberration. It contains a clause which says that the act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province. The government has included this clause without showing evidence that any province has agreed to it. On the contrary, there is written evidence from ministers of the Crown and provincial premiers showing they do not consent.
My point is simple. If we are to pass a good bill we should word it in such a way that historians at least will know we are conscious of the dangerous ground on which we are treading, Therefore, I will read the proposed amendment. I think it will meet our objections and show the people of the provinces that we are aware of their rights with respect to resources.
The amendment reads:
That clause 3 of the bill on page 2 be amended by deleting line 9 and substituting therefor the following: province; and, where the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province, then to the extent that Her Majesty in right of a province consents thereto.
I should like to move that amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East, for the consideration of the committee. I made it clear when I spoke last fall that, as a layman, I was treading carefully in the field of constitutional precedent and the delicate field of the prerogatives of the Queen and of the people. I shall therefore put on the record, in careful phrases, what I tried to say when I made my speech last fall.
This is a case where it is easier to distinguish the relative jurisdictions of the federal and provincial fields by looking at the respective Crown prerogatives rather than the respective federal and provincial legislative powers.
April 17, 1975

The provincial Crown, as a prerogative, has property title rights in provincial property, just as the federal Crown, as a prerogative, has property title rights in federal property. These rights can only be legislated upon by the appropriate legislature and then only with the consent of the federal or provincial Crown, as the case may be.
It may be difficult to determine when the federal government, by legislation, impinges upon the provincial legislative field; however, it is not so where the federal legislature impinges upon a provincial Crown prerogative. One need only look to see if there is a record showing that the provincial Crown has consented to this impingement upon the prerogative. If there is no consent, then the infringement is invalid. While it may be argued that the federal government, by legislation of parliament, can bind the provincial Crown in matters not involving the prerogatives that are within the legislative competence of parliament, there is no doubt that the federal government, through parliament, cannot bind a provincial Crown prerogative without the consent of the provincial Crown. Indeed, parliament cannot, by legislation, bind the federal Crown prerogative in a matter of property rights without the consent of the federal Crown.
Clause 3 purports to extend all the provisions of the bill to Her Majesty in right of a province. This may or may not be constitutionally correct with respect to certain of the provisions of the bill, but so many of the provisions which purport to affect the provincial Crown prerogative of property rights in gas and oil or any incidence of those property rights are invalid. Even those which affect the federal Crown prerogative in property are invalid without the Crown's consent, although this can be cured in the present instance by the Crown giving its consent before or during third reading.
This amendment to clause 3 serves to point out the dependency of the federal government upon provincial government consent, through the provincial Crown prerogative, to many of the bill's provisions. It is curative, also, and should be adopted by the government; otherwise, if the act is subsequently challenged on this point, it will be held totally or partially invalid. The amendment provides for obtaining the consent. Probably, the provincial Crown could not give its consent to federal legislation without legislative authority from the provincial legislature.
That, Mr. Chairman, in careful language is the explanation for having moved this amendment. Going back to layman's language, I simply say we can make this a better act that will not be challenged by anyone if we add this phrase that I have read to the committee, and I will read it again:
-where the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province, then to the extent that Her Majesty in right of a province consents thereto.
In the particular situation in which we find ourselves, where we have before us a bill to put into legal effect the machinery to carry out the purpose of an agreement arrived at between the 11 heads of government last March 27, there should be in there a statement that there should be consent from the provinces. The provinces whose
Oil and Petroleum
resources are affected in this instance are primarily four in number. Alberta and Saskatchewan, Manitoba to a lesser degree, and British Columbia, which wants gas prices up but not oil prices, have already indicated their position with regard to having their oil and gas prices controlled. It all boils down to the fact that if this clause were put in, before anything is done with this legislation we would expect some indication from these provinces which I think should come through a statutory provision or resolution passed in their legislatures. As a substitute for that, there could be an order in council of those four provinces saying that they consent to the terms of this agreement arrived at by the heads of the provinces and the federal government last March 27.
The best argument I can make as an individual, supported by at least the party of Her Majesty's Opposition, to try to get across the idea that we would like to see action taken in this very necessary field of price and supply allocation is that it be done within the framework and under the umbrella of the constitution which we have in Canada. There is no question about whether my amendment will achieve this purpose. The question we now have to decide is, will the members of the committee accept this proposal and make this good legislation?


Gérald Laniel: I am sure hon. members took notice of the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Before I decide whether the amendment is in order and put it to the committee, I invite the opinions of hon. members as to its acceptability. I prefer at this time to reserve expressing my views on the amendment, although my first reaction is to put it to the committee. I do not want hon. members to feel that the Chair is not open to expressions of opinion as to the acceptability of the amendment, and if there are hon. members who have views they wish to express, they may do so. The Chair has to be very careful about commending the proposed amendment; there is the danger that it might be making a legal judgment or constitutional interpretation on the implication or application of this piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain spoke of the consent of Her Majesty. This bill does not deal with property of Her Majesty in her own right which would be transferred with her consent. It is very difficult for the Chair to get involved in the intricate aspects of this kind of proposition. In any event, if there are any comments I invite hon. members to make them and I will then make an immediate decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, unless there is sustained argument on matters which are very complex in nature and issues which are difficult such as this-and Your Honour said he had an inclination to put the motion-it is usually sound to follow your first inclination.


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member wish to speak on the procedural aspect of this amendment, or on clause 3?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, at this time I do not want to deal with either the acceptability or the substance of the amendment. If the minister is going to speak on this matter, I want to ask whether, for the edification of a non-member of the legal profession, he would begin by explaining clause 3 itself

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
because I must confess that I am at a loss in understanding it. The clause reads:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province.
Whenever I am confronted with legal terminology, I find myself somewhat at sea. I therefore appeal to the minister, as a distinguished member of the bar-I said "of the bar", not "at the bar"-to explain exactly what it means. I find it difficult to understand just how an act of this parliament can be binding on Her Majesty in the right of a province. Maybe this is the type of terminology that is used from time to time, but I have not come across it. Before the minister gets into the ramifications of the amendment being proposed, either with respect to its acceptability or its substance, I think all of us would be able to make a much more intelligent judgment on the matter if he would begin by explaining clause 3.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the committee knows, the bill provides for certain charges to be made under part I and also for certain compensation to be paid under part IV, and among the entities which will be subject to export charges under part I will be any agencies of the Crown in right of Canada, for example, Petro-Canada when it comes into existence or of the provinces which may be engaged in the export of commodities chargeable under the bill. The clause is similar to section 9 of the Excise Tax Act, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, chapter 12, and is necessitated first by the provisions of section 16 of the Interpretation Act which provides as follows:
No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner except only as they are therein mentioned or referred to.
It is, of course, Her Majesty in right of Canada who is being referred to in this situation, so the first part of clause 3 saying the act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada is in response to section 16 of the Interpretation Act which requires parliament specifically to state how the rights of Her Majesty are affected. I will go on to complete the circle with regard to Her Majesty's participation. As the committee knows, parliament is made up of three parts-this House, the other place and the assent of Her Majesty in parliament. In due course the Crown will be asked to assent to whatever enactment is produced by the two chambers.
When we go on to deal with the second part of the sentence, "and in right of any province", we are really getting to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. The position, basically, is similar to that under section 9 of the Excise Tax Act: the Crown in right of Canada, acting within its jurisdiction, has full authority to bind the Crown in right of any province or any entity of the Crown in right of any province. This is a position which is well established in the jurisprudence. I think I am right in citing the Gold Seal case as an example-the imposition of federal Customs tariffs on provincial Crown corporations.
To put it the other way around; in other words, where the Government of Canada has jurisdiction under the British North America Act, a province cannot defeat the exercise of that jurisdiction by taking an activity out of

private hands and putting it in the hands of a provincial Crown corporation. I feel this deals with the case of the royal prerogative. The legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada applies equally to a transaction whether it is in the hands of a private individual or a Crown entity in a province. I trust I have shown satisfactory reason and authority for extending this to the Crown in right of any province.
Dealing now with the terminology of the amendment itself, I would say the amendment is redundant in the sense that it makes no valid legal addition to the bill. It really purports to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. If it were found that the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada did not extend beyond a certain point, the amendment would purport, by the consent of Her Majesty in right of a province, to extend that jurisdiction. However, under our constitution it is not possible for the act of one parliament, of one level of jurisdiction, to extend the jurisdiction of another level.
It is possible to delegate a particular responsibility, as in the case of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, or in such a manner as was sanctioned by the courts in connection with the Prince Edward Island potato marketing legislation; but the hon. member is not proposing a delegation of that kind. The amendment purports to say that if the Government of Canada does not possess jurisdiction, the province can allow jurisdiction by consent. It is well established that this cannot be done. The only way by which jurisdiction could be added to the federal government or taken from the province would be by way of an amendment to the British North America Act, carried out in this case by the parliament at Westminster. In this case I would argue that the amendment should not be agreed to: it is redundant; it attempts to do something which is not in the power of either this House or the provincial legislation to do.


Mr. Andre:: I have a question for the minister concerning one aspect of clause 3 relating to the powers it would seek to exercise over Her Majesty in right of a province. Clause 89 in part V, at page 36 of the bill, gives the minister or his agent the right to enter any premises in which he has reason to believe there may be evidence of contravention of the act; it gives him, also, authority to seize records, to carry away such records, and so on. These rights being binding on Her Majesty in right of the province, it concerns me that under the terms of the clause the minister or his designate may enter the office of the premier of a province, seize his records and do all the things which clause 89 provides. The likelihood of this happening may be remote, but I think it would be extremely ill-advised for us in this assembly to pass any legislation which provided for such a possibility.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the hon. member is referring to clause 89 (1) (b). That is the authority to enter premises and seize documents, the kind of authority which is also found in taxation statutes such as the Excise Tax Act to which I have referred. It is true that since the law speaks in general terms, it would, of course, apply to any provincial entity which was covered by the provisions of the statute. I suppose the premier of a province could choose to carry on the buying and selling of petroleum products from his own office. However, in fact, in Alberta
April 17, 1975

that is not the case; it is the Alberta Marketing Corporation which does so.
It is really a matter of judgment that is involved here, rather than a legal limitation. I would take it that since the powers are well established, as I have said, a province cannot avoid the lawful exercise of the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada by setting up a Crown corporation and this provision would, of course, apply. I suppose that in the circumstances it would be done by consent. But the hon. member is right; in terms of the law, there would be the right to enter premises for the purposes mentioned.


Gérald Laniel: Order. Perhaps I should return to the procedural aspect of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and render a decision. I wish to thank hon. members who have expressed their views on the subject. Though they did not deal directly with the procedural question, they did put the matter into perspective. Apart from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, the minister was the only member who commented on the amendment from a procedural point of view. He said that the amendment was, in his view, redundant-not that it was unacceptable on procedural grounds.
The minister also said the amendment did not appear to add anything to clause 3. His conclusion was that the amendment should not be carried-not that it should not be accepted. Legislation is binding or not binding. It is not for the Chair, looking at an amendment and deciding whether or not it is acceptable, to consider whether the legislation is binding; that is a matter for the courts. In due time the courts have to decide the implications of attaching an amendment in the terms proposed to such an act.
I am ready at this time to put the amendment to the committee.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I want to put a further question to the minister.


Gérald Laniel: Putting the amendment will not prevent the hon. member from pursuing his question. It is moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain:
That clause 3 of the bill on page 2 be amended by deleting line 9 and substituting therefor the following:
Province; and, where the legislative authority of the parliament of
Canada does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province,
then to the extent that Her Majesty in right of a province consents
thereto.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, following my earlier question, as I had previously perceived the minister's position, this clause gives the minister or his designate the right to examine the books of a Crown corporation. However, I was not alluding to that; I was asking the minister whether it is true that clause 3, as it relates to clause 89, gives the minister the right to examine the records of the premier of a province and/or one of his ministers? Does the clause authorize the minister or his designate to enter any premises where there is reason to believe there might be certain evidence? It is conceivable, for example, that a
Oil and Petroleum
provincial premier or minister could have in his office records associated with a Crown corporation, if that were the vehicle through which the province pursued its activities in a certain area.
It has also been rumoured that one province, anyway, is contemplating, not the vehicle of a Crown corporation but, rather, a direct operation so that operations in the oil and gas industry would be administered directly by a government department, which means by a minister of a Crown, a minister of Her Majesty in right of the province. I am asking the minister whether it is true that this clause would give him or his designate the right to walk into the office of a provincial premier or one of his ministers and examine and seize any records he deems necessary to enforce this provision.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that, since the hon. member has expressed specific interest in clause 89(1 )(b), it would seem to me that an appropriate time to discuss various powers of entry, and so on, would be when we get to clause 89, rather than under the general provisions of this amendment dealing with the distribution of legislative jurisdiction. In other words, the consequences of the distribution of legislative jurisdiction are dealt with systematically clause by clause. I wonder whether it is not more appropriate to deal with each of these events when we get to that clause, rather than to argue them all on clause 3.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, with all respect to the minister, clause 3 is the relevant clause. A particular power is being sought in clause 89 and the clause may well be appropriate for corporations that come under the provisions of this bill. But I question whether the powers would be appropriate as applied to Her Majesty in right of a province. The interpretation that I perceive from clause 3 is that the minister would in fact have that authority. We are nearing the point of voting on clause 3, so I think it is highly appropriate at this point in time to get an interpretation from the minister, if he is willing to give one. I am reaching the conclusion that I am right and that this provision would grant the minister power to walk into such premises.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have just said that, Mr. Chairman. May I point out to the hon. member that I have just answered the exact question he is posing.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) some information respecting clause 3 of the bill. It should be understood that through that clause the federal government is granted unusual powers such as are not to be found in many acts. The minister admitted earlier, I think, that such a clause can be found in bills due to special circumstances only. Can the minister tell us whether before this provision was made in Bill C-32, he sought the opinion of the authorities in every province to know what their positions were in that respect and request their consent to that provision of Bill C-32?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no, because we are abiding by the precedent of the excise acts. The federal government is granted the very

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
same powers under section 9. In fact, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil from Canada, that power to tax provincial governments or any provincial government corporation is requested if the province has chosen to extend authority to a corporation or the private sector. Therefore, in order to levy charges on crude oil, to subsidize Quebec and other provinces, such powers are required, whether through the private sector or a provincial corporation. In that sense, it is exactly the same type of policy as the excise law policy.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your ruling; I think it was the correct ruling. My words now are in reply to the minister's remarks. I appreciate the difficulty of trying to put this point clearly. So far as the prerogatives of the Crown are concerned, I have left that question out of the amendment. It is an exotic field that I do not think we are expert enough here to explore. I am satisfied that I put my argument clearly enough in my speech last fall and again in the more careful statement I made today.
What this amendment is concerned about is the question of legislative authority. There is no question in my mind that this bill will give legislative authority to the federal government to impose an export tax. I also accept completely that the federal government has the power to impose an export tax.
Another part of the bill deals with price setting, and price setting is a power exercised only by the provincial governments. Related to this power to set prices is the value of the property concerned, and the property is clearly established under the constitution as being the property of the people in the province. In other words, we are moving in the legislative field into an area where it is very difficult to be absolutely sure the federal government has complete legislative authority.
The argument made by the federal government is that through its powers connected with interprovincial trade or trade outside the borders of Canada, it is given this legislative authority and, as I say, I accept that. But there is also an equally powerful law that provides that the property that is moving is property belonging to the people of the province concerned. So we are in a somewhat cloudy area here, and if the matter is brought before the courts I should like the justices of the courts to know that we in parliament were conscious of the difficulty and that we inserted into the act a clearly stated provision.
This clause arbitrarily states that this act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada and in right of any province. I am just adding these careful, extra words, that where the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province, and only in that case, then to the extent that Her Majesty in right of the province consents thereto, it will be binding. So there would be nothing to stop the government, if it accepted my amendment, doing what it wants to do if it is convinced, on the advice of its law officers, that it is within its legislative authority to do so.

If this matter is challenged in the courts and the courts rule that this part of the legislative action of the federal government is legitimate and should go forward, that is fine. If the courts should rule that another part of the legislative action is not legitimate, then we have covered our responsibilities as legislators by saying that if the courts rule that it is not legitimate, then we have this procedure to follow: the government gets the consent of the province if the courts rule it is a matter within provincial jurisdiction.
I think this amendment adds to the clarity of clause 3 and does not take anything away from the power the minister wants under this legislation or which he had before the legislation. I do not think I have to say anything more about it, as the argument has been made very clearly. We should vote on the matter now, but I want the record to show that we are simply trying to improve the legislation so we do not look silly if the courts turn down any of the federal government's actions under this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, as I understand clause 3 from the minister's explanation, it simply states that the legislation we are now in the process of considering, when passed shall apply to any agency of Her Majesty either in right of the Government of Canada or in right of a provincial government. Whenever I am faced with legal jargon, I always have to get it down into nickel and dime words. I take it that if the national petroleum company which is to receive some 15 per cent of the oil from Syncrude is set up and is in operation, it will be subject to the same laws and same inspections as any other company in Canada handling oil. I take it that SaskOil of the province of Saskatchewan, which is drilling for and marketing oil, will also be in the same class as any private company and subject to the restrictions and controls laid down in this legislation. It seems to me, of course, that this has to be the case, otherwise it would be possible to subvert the intention of this legislation.
My difficulty about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is that it suggests that where the legislative authority in this bill does not extend to bind Her Majesty in right of a province, the province must consent. But who is to determine when and to what extent the legislative authority in this legislation does not extend to the binding of Her Majesty in right of a province? Is the federal government going to make that determination? If the federal government makes that determination, and its decision is contrary to the opinion of the province, then of course the province will have to go to court.
The province will have to go to court, anyway, if under this legislation it feels that the federal government is using the authority given under the legislation in a manner that abridges its rights as set out in section 92 of the British North America Act. Therefore, I do not see what value the amendment adds to this particular clause. If there is an invasion of provincial rights, surely in the final analysis it will have to be settled in court. It is not going to be settled by allowing the federal government to determine whether in its opinion it has abridged the rights of a provincial government. To leave to the federal govern-
April 17, 1975

ment the right to determine whether it should seek the consent of the province, or whether it is not necessary to seek that consent, is not satisfactory because this is a matter that can only be decided in the courts.
I think the amendment is superfluous, but I can understand the good intentions of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain. I really cannot, for the life of me, see how the amendment would add to the effectiveness of the clause. I think the clause itself states clearly that the purport of this legislation will apply to Her Majesty in right of both Canada and the provinces, and that any agency set up by the Government of Canada or by any province which deals in petroleum products or natural gas moving across provincial or international boundaries shall be subject to the provisions of this act.
If there is an invasion of provincial rights, it can only be settled by referring the matter to the courts, and this situation is not going to be assisted, as far as I can see, by any provision that we put in this bill which states that the federal government must seek the consent of the province, because the federal government itself is to be the one to determine when it will seek the consent of the province. It is not likely to seek the consent of the province as long as it is convinced it is acting within the full ambit of the rights it enjoys under section 91 of the British North America Act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the explanation by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands with regard to Petro-Can and SaskOil outlines exactly the situation. As is habitually the case, explanations given of difficult points of law by non-lawyers are infinitely more comprehensible than those given by lawyers. The situation as outlined by the hon. member is exactly what this clause has in mind.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have a small point in reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He and I share the same bed today in that we know very little about legal jargon. The reason for my concern relates purely to Saskatchewan and Canadian politics. If we read the precise terms of the Alberta Natural Resources Act and the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act, we see that the words I am using are used in those statutes. Those acts admitted that the federal government has for many years done certain things wrong. The federal government said in the act that it will in future consider the rights of the provinces. It goes on to state in the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act of 1930-31 that changes can only be accomplished with the consent of the province of Saskatchewan in the form of a legislative resolution.
I maintain that the bill we are discussing affects the rights of the people of the province of Saskatchewan, and clearly under the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act and the British North America Act, changes in the statute of 1930-31 can only be made with the consent of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan. Here we are taking away the substance of that agreement of 1930-31 by making in this clause 3 the flat assertion that this Parliament says this is binding on the federal government and the provincial government. As a layman I am simply saying that I accept the position the hon. member for
Oil and Petroleum
Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is taking that really with all these possibilities it does not matter if this clause is there if the courts will deal with the situation in any case. I simply say that I know the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba believe that this legislation will be challenged. That means that the Parts that are challenged will be thrown out by the courts. I feel sure of that. When they are thrown out there is a course of action laid down in our legislation which they can follow. They simply need consent. The consent arranged for in 1930-31 was a result of action by the legislatures of the two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I would qualify that in modern days by saying simply that it should be by Order in Council to make the decision-making more rapid. I think not only is my amendment well meaning but that if the history of the next few years were known it will be face-saving for those of us to like to believe we are doing the best job we can and are being good legislators.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted to comment for a moment on the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. I cannot agree that this legislation is on all fours with the Saskatchewan resource legislation to which he referred, nor can I agree that the measure before us will interfere with the rights of the people of Saskatchewan with regard to the management of their resources.
In the case of the Saskatchewan resource legislation, we are dealing with the management of resources which was given to the province under the legislation of 1931. With reference to the development and exploitation of those resources, this legislation in no way interferes with that right. What this legislation does is to deal with price, and I cannot agree with the hon. member when he says the federal government has no right to interfere in respect of price. It has no right to interfere in respect of the price of a commodity sold within the province in which it is produced, but surely when a commodity crosses provincial boundaries or goes into export trade the federal government clearly has responsibility to deal with the matter of price.
There may be parts of this legislation with which we will disagree later, but in so far as the clause now under consideration is concerned, what we are saying is that a provincial agency comes under the same strictures and the same guidelines as any private corporation which is handling a commodity when it goes into interprovincial trade. In a number of places it is made clear that the provisions of the legislation do not apply to petroleum products sold within the province. Therefore, there can be no invasion of provincial rights when it comes to the matter of development of resources or the sale of them within the province. This legislation exercises that power when the product moves into interprovincial and international trade. It seeme to me there can be no argument about the jurisdiction of the federal parliament to legislate in that matter.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I must say, from my many years of experience in the practice of law, that when one has two persons who maintain they are laymen and express their apprehension about the legal language used,

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
I think it is time for a lawyer to be careful. I am convinced that the two distinguished laymen in this House, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, each of whom have held high positions under the Crown, probably know a great deal more about law than many lawyers. However, I shall exercise my great deal of experience in the law in an effort to come between them and make a settlement, without benefit of a fee.


Mr. Foster:: Confuse them both.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would present a proposition to the minister for consideration. He stated the law correctly, that in respect of an arrangement between governments, one government cannot delegate to another. One government, however, can in fact delegate, through the proper procedure and with adequate consent, to an entity of another government the right to exercise authority in a field which initially may be squarely within the right or jurisdiction of the first government in question. It is quite obvious that by this legislation a great deal of authority is given, for example, to the National Energy Board. It is my judgment that the National Energy Board, created under the act, is an entity of the federal government? Would the minister agree with that proposition?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister agrees. The National Energy Board is given very considerable power in respect of granting licences and the functions permitted under those licences. While the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands may be right under certain circumstances, I come back to the argument of my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, that if an arrangement is made by way of agreement-I believe under clause 22 an agreement need not be expressed in writing-it may well be to the benefit of the federal government to have a clause such as that suggested in the amendment of my hon. friend which would provide the statutory authority, so that the provincial authority could then, by the consent so given, give to the National Energy Board the authority which the licensing provisions required it to exercise.
I understand the other situation, and it might well be that the courts would decide on certain issues. We will argue that question later: we have a very good beginning. I point out to the minister and to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that the authority granted the National Energy Board would in some conditions involve the need for a provincial authority to express, by apt words, its approval of that authority. I put forward that proposition. Certainly, in that limited sense it may be that this amendment is required.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with that point, I suppose it goes back to the question concerning whether or not any addition is necessary to give the federal government the power to carry out the requirements of the statute. Whatever the merits of the proposition of the hon. gentleman, I suppose it is probably a moot question because we think we have all the powers within our own jurisdiction in dealing with interprovincial trade in this regard. So the question of delegation, for example, of the provincial jurisdiction to the National

Energy Board in our opinion does not arise. Here the federal government is exercising its jurisdiction under section 91.


Gerald William Baldwin: You might live to regret those words.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two on this clause because it deals, in essence, with the whole bill and allows for perhaps a wider range of discussion than that which has taken place between the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and others this afternoon. I am not going to get into the legal interpretation because, as I understood the remarks of the Chair, the clause is hardly needed at all. In fact, the latter remarks of the minister suggest that.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the Department of Transport. The Minister of Transport from time to time has stated that transportation and transportation policy is in a mess. In looking at the question of Canada's role vis-a-vis that of the provinces in regard to energy, if there is a mess in the transportation department there is a double mess in the energy department. The squabble that has been going on between the various levels of government occurred perhaps because over-zealous provincial governments are demanding more and more of the tax dollar. Certainly an over-zealous federal government is invading provincial jurisdiction, for one reason or another.
We had recently an energy conference. Many Canadians viewed it on television with a great deal of interest. I suppose some people in the Liberal Party in the province of Alberta would think that we recently had an Alberta
election-


Gerald William Baldwin: Are there any Liberals left in Alberta?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -based on the energy question. That is, indeed, if there are any Liberals left in Alberta. Who is wrong and who is right? Basically, after the energy conference the conclusion I reached was that it was a draw or a postponement of the real issues.
The purpose of this bill, in essence, is to set a uniform price, a stable price, to reach some kind of balanced price between consumer and producer. I suppose it is to allow the federal government to assert its authority over the petroleum industry and over the provinces. I think Canadians generally are fed up with the bickering which has taken place between the province of Alberta and Ottawa, and with the mess and the stalemate the politicians have created. Who is wrong? When will there be a righting of the wrong? After the energy conference, the Premier of Alberta went home to Edmonton and stated publicly that any increase in the price per barrel of oil would certainly have to wait until after the budget of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance immediately stated that he would not be bringing down a budget until the price of energy was known.
There, again, we witnessed two politicians vying for the same stage but questioning each other as to the right time to take that stage. All the while, Canada suffers. There has been a tremendous change in the position of the federal government in the last year over that which it took some
April 17, 1975

two years ago when it first intervened in the energy question. In watching that energy conference, it seems that even the Prime Minister-when he is in Canada- realizes that Canadians will be running out of oil in the near future and that it is not the question of price which should be concerning governments but the question of supply. If it is a question of supply, then the Premier of Alberta is certainly correct in saying that he wants to know what the federal Minister of Finance is going to do with regard to the question of double taxation.
It might be said that the resource industries for years have been pampered with regard to taxation and encouraged to develop and find resources, but certainly in the last year or two governments have made up for many slack years in taxing resource industries. Now it is quite clear that an increase in the price of oil would mean the federal government would receive the whole of the increase. If one considers the royalty question and the no write-off aspect for the oil companies, they have to pay, in essence, double taxation. Royalties vary. On the last price increase the province of Alberta took 65 per cent. The province of Saskatchewan took it all. It is no longer allowed as an expense.
To me, the principle upon which the federal government deliberately intervened was the reason the last energy conference broke down completely. We see that Ottawa is anxious to have a price increase, knowing that if the price increased $2 a barrel it would in the long run add the $2 to the federal treasury. Yet in putting the price up by $2 a barrel we see another situation developing whereby our exports of oil to the United States will be reduced. Then there will be less money with which to pay the subsidy to communities receiving a subsidy of $5.20, approximately, on all oil used east of the Ottawa Valley.
The federal government was prudent. If the situation is analysed, it took the only course it could. It had to advocate a higher price. A higher price results in less subsidy out of the federal treasury to all communities east of the Ottawa Valley. A higher price results in more money for the federal coffers, but not necessarily more profit for the provincial governments.
During the energy conference we were told repeatedly by the Prime Minister that the whole purpose of the higher price was to create more money for exploration. I suppose it could be said that with more money in the federal coffers-and by taking the socialist route-Ottawa could then promote Petro-Canada and become involved in exploration in earnest. The Premier of Saskatchewan advocated nearly the same thing, except that he would use the extra $2 or so per barrel to build up a fund earmarked specifically for exploration-again by the socialist route. We can only hope that the increase of $2 per barrel which has been advocated by some people, which would go 100 per cent to the federal government, will be used for the most part for further exploration in Canada. Rather than the Minister of Finance travelling abroad to try to settle some of the world's economic problems, he should be travelling to the producing provinces: he should be in Saskatchewan and Alberta attempting to iron out the squabble between the producing provinces and Ottawa, because it has continued long enough.
Oil and Petroleum
Canada will suffer because it will run out of oil: the last report of the National Energy Board makes that abundantly clear, because it says we will be net importers of oil by 1982. I think Imperial Oil stated some time ago that it estimates we will reach this position by 1983. But let us look at our rate of consumption, our rate of production and our rate of finding more reserves in Canada. Even in the last six months the falling off in discovering reserves has in fact exceeded all estimates. The National Energy Board and the oil companies estimate that our consumption has not been reduced by any appreciable amount, no matter how well the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources appears on television and shows Canada 100 ways to conserve energy by switching the light off a little earlier, and so on. There is a negligible amount of energy saving as a result of the advertising program. The minister has spent a lot of the taxpayers' money with some advertising firms, but I do not think he really believes he has convinced anybody to save energy.
What is the solution to the squabble over the energy question? I think Canada should get on with exploration. We are not fortunate enough to have the type of land formations that are abundant in oil reserves; in other words, Canada is not the best place in the world to be searching for oil. Of course, we realize now that oil will be a very expensive commodity for many years to come. We can talk about the break-up of the OPEC nations, but I think they have realized the power they hold and will maintain it.
In the past, the fedral government had the right to tax a commodity after it was developed. When we saw the OPEC nations increase the price of oil, we realized that the oil companies were going to make huge profits, so both the federal and the provincial governments jumped in to grab that profit. We must realize now that the principle of the royalty question, the tax on doing business within a province, should be allowed as an expense. That is, an initial charge in the development of a resource and traditionally it has been allowed to the provinces. The federal government's position has been to impose an end tax.
If the federal government felt the resource companies would make too much profit, there were two steps available to them. If they were concerned about the profits leaving Canada and being used to find oil in the North Sea, in Indonesia or elsewhere, they could have brought in a measure prohibiting the money leaving Canada; and if the money remained in Canada and was not reinvested in exploration, the companies could have been taxed on it. So far, the governments concerned have not found any solution to the squabble and the country continues to suffer.
In a speech made some months ago in Toronto, the minister said that between now and the year 2000, $100 billion would be poured into the exploration of oil and other energy resources. He must realize, of course, that he will have to go to the resource industries in order to find people with the knowledge and skill required for exploration, whether they be Canadians or non-Canadians.
How do we go about setting a uniform, stable price which will balance consumer satisfaction with producer satisfaction? I think we need a formula, Mr. Chairman. We

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
are not fortunate enough to have bountiful reserves of oil and energy, and we need all we have. We want to be as self-sufficient as possible, yet we want some of the benefits of having the resource. A formula should be established so that the other resource countries would know where they stand. The minister could say that in 1975 it will be 70 per cent of the world price, and by 1980 it could be increased 10 per cent or 20 per cent, for instance.
As a Canadian taxpayer, I should be able to buy oil cheaper from Canada than from the Arab countries. It is reasonable to expect to pay less than the world price for Canadian oil, but that price should not be determined periodically by a federal-provincial conference. That creates instability in the industry and thus instability of supply and, of course, there is no stable price without an assured supply. Setting the formula at 70 per cent or 80 per cent and letting everybody concerned know what the changes would be in the years ahead would reassure the oil industry and encourage them, whether Canadian or multinational, to explore for oil in Canada.
We read in the newspapers that the oil companies are making huge profits, but really most of those profits are not made in Canada at all. If an oil company has made a profit in Canada, it is because they have cut down on exploration; they are not spending the money and therefore the profits are high. The federal government, through taxation, should prohibit the flight of those profits into Indonesia or the North Sea of even the United States. It should consult the petroleum industry in order to bring about a stable, uniform price; but one cannot do this without a stable supply.
We should be ironing out the difficulties between the federal government and the producing provinces. In the long run, of course, we hope there will be ten producing provinces, not just two. The minister talked about needing $100 billion before the year 2000 for exploration and development. This money should be encouraged to stay at home, Mr. Chairman. Through taxation, the government could give a 150 per cent depreciation allowance for exploration carried out this year in any part of Canada: that would encourage the companies to spend some of their profits in this country. Write-offs should not be allowed to Canadian companies operating outside Canada. Certain measures should be taken along these lines to bring the producing provinces together with the federal government in order to create a stable, uniform price and a balance between consumers and producers.
I do not know which will come first, the budget or Alberta's demands for higher oil prices. In the long run, it will be best for Canada if the Minister of Finance comes forward with his budget and sets out criteria as to how royalties will qualify as an expense. The onus would be on the provinces to make sure that royalty charges adhere to criteria laid down by the Minister of Finance.


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


Mr. Schumacher:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. As the hon. member for

Crowfoot said, Your Honour's argument concerning the amendment could apply equally well to the clause itself. What the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and others participating in the debate on the procedural admissibility of the amendment said boiled down to this: the courts will need to decide what is under provincial jurisdiction and what is not. That being so-I hope the minister will reply when I have finished speaking-why include clause 3 in the bill?
When parliament passes a bill, it is binding on the federal Crown, but the federal Crown cannot arrogate unto itself the prerogatives and rights of any provincial Crown. I cannot understand why it is felt necessary to include clause 3 in the bill. I do not think the minister answered the objections of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain to clause 3. The hon. member interpreted clause 3 as an attempt by the government to intrude on the valid jurisdiction of the provinces. I suggest that by including clauses 3 and 36 the federal government is attempting to arrogate unto itself power it does not possess under the constitution for regulating the price of commodities the ownership of which falls completely within provincial jurisdiction.
Clause 36 purports to give the federal government power to set the price of various kinds and qualities of crude oil at the wellhead within a province. I understand the act of 1930 transferred the ownership of these resources from the federal government to the provinces. How can the federal government say that its claim to power to set the wellhead price of oil is constitutionally valid? It claims it is given that power by the British North America Act which gives the federal government jurisdiction over interprovincial trade and commerce.
If that is the government's position, it should say it has the right to set the price of any product which leaves one province and crosses the border of another. Surely, any bill which attempts to set the price of a product within a province is beyond the constitutional competence of this government. After all, much of the oil and gas taken out of the ground in Alberta will be refined and consumed in Alberta. I hope the minister will comment on that point. In what way does he feel the constitution of this country gives the federal government power to regulate the price of oil which is produced, refined and consumed within a province? I suggest that this is not a case which comes under the heading of interprovincial trade and commerce.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to answer the hon. member's first point, we are not purporting to set the price at the wellhead but, rather, the price at the point where the oil or natural gas moves into another province or into export trade. That is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. To answer his second question, the bill expressly excludes oil being consumed within a producing province.


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to clear up some confusion. We have been using the term "wellhead price". I suppose that is wrong; we should be speaking about price at the provincial border. If we use that terminology the provisions of the bill may become clearer.
I suggest that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is good. On the
April 17, 1975

other hand, I wonder what point there is in including clause 3 in the bill. That clause seeks to give the government of Canada power to interfere with matters coming under provincial jurisdiction. The minister himself suggested that this is not the intention, that the government is acting within its powers, and he mentioned law cases supporting his position. I say that the government could do what it wanted without needing to insert clause 3. I do not see the rationale for including that clause in the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have described our opposition to the bill as opposition in a constitutional sense to certain parts. I have said that over and over again. At times I think I see a glimmer of light on the other side, but then it disappears. That makes me bitterly disappointed. Some have compared the minister with General Giap and see him as thundering out of Ottawa with his socialist hordes, to envelop and encircle the natural resources of the provinces.


Donald W. Munro: This bill could be this country's Dien Bien Phu.


Gerald William Baldwin: My colleague from Esquimalt-Saanich says this bill might become the Dien Bien Phu of this country. I want to point out that if this amendment is defeated and the clause is accepted-and I will vote against it-a situation will develop where a province or its agencies can be subjected to penalties, searches and the seizure of documents in respect of a transaction taking place entirely within a province covering natural resources which belong to the people of that province. If that is going to be done without the consent of the people of the province, expressed through their government in the form indicated by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, it will be a situation causing great concern.
I want to comment on the point made by the minister in response to the situation proposed by the hon. member for Palliser. The minister should know this: his officials know it. Petroleum products and gas coming from the wellhead are not dedicated in any particular form for use within the province. In the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and British Columbia with respect to gas, the product that emerges at the wellhead will to a limited extent be used within the province. In Saskatchewan, it is to the extent of 2 per cent. I understand the total refinery capacity in Alberta is about 300,000 barrels a day, which could mean about 15 per cent refined capacity, and that may be used partly in Alberta and partly in Saskatchewan.
The minister has not been, nor do I think he can be, successful under this bill. This clause is symbolic of the situation of demonstrating that by this measure, the government is now taking control at the wellhead of the full production, which is a transaction taking place entirely within the geographical limits of a province. The minister knows that if this bill passes in its present form, it will be competent for the government, and to a limited extent the National Energy Board through its licensing capacity, to move into the wellhead and say at that point, "The price that must be sought and paid is our prescribed price." That
Oil and Petroleum
will be the effect of this legislation unless it is changed, and it is a proposition which I am not prepared to accept.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, with regard to the hon. member's reference to oil at the wellhead, and so on, I draw his attention to clause 20. The application is to crude oil that enters into interprovincial or international trade or that is mixed or blended with such crude oil.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the point.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Chairman, my intervention at this stage in connection with clause 3 of the bill under consideration is related to the search I carried out on the previous occasion when I put on the record a number of instances of this sort of legislation in Canadian law. That is on the record of the previous debate on this matter when I think we were in committee of the whole.
In the course of our work in the committee on the environment we had before us Bill C-25. In going through Bill C-25 I came across a further instance of this sort of wording that causes us to react and which caused the particular amendment before us to be formulated and presented to this committee. I think it is worth mentioning that in clause 2(2) of Bill C-25 the following wording is found:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province and any agent thereof.
We are in the same general field of the overriding nature of federal legislation. True, Madam Chairman, this chamber is not a court of law; we do not decide on the legalities of legislation. However, we must draw attention to matters in draft legislation that could conceivably run parliament into trouble. We know that the books of precedents of our courts are now pretty well filled. To encourage litigation, particularly in this sensitive field of federal-provincial relations, is something we should not do. We should not deliberately foster this sort of litigation.
My reaction at this time is to ask whether, in the absence of any other way of making their power felt, this government has a clause like this stashed away in the office of the drafters of legislation. If they feel the need to use it, they paste it into the draft legislation they are going to present to this House.
If my information is correct, we have already had three bites at this sort of legislation. Bill C-32 is the fourth and Bill C-25 is the fifth. In the committee studying Bill C-25 I asked for some jurisprudence on this particular clause so that we in the committee might know-and I think it would be relevant for this committee to know-on what constitutional ground the government feels it is entitled to produce this bald, overriding wording in legislation in a country which is a federal state and which has very clearly defined areas of jurisdiction.
Where there is no conflict of jurisdiction, of course, this is not needed; the writ of federal law runs freely across the country. One can see this in some interprovincial relations. On interprovincial waterways, for example, if there is the introduction of a pollutant upstream and this causes damage downstream, we see the need for something of this sort. However, I am not going to let that particular

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
clause of Bill C-25 go by without a similar amendment to that being proposed to Bill C-32.
I merely intervene at this stage to suggest that there seems to be a deliberate-well, perhaps I am imputing motives and it is just a matter of sloppy or unthinking drafting on the part of those who are preparing legislation. It might even be that the arrogance that comes from power permits governments, after a number of years in office, to feel they are entitled to bring forward this sort of legislation and hope it will slip through without anyone noticing. I think it is our duty to draw attention in the record of Hansard to this very dangerous element, this phraseology in our federal law which could impinge upon provincial jurisdiction.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I was speaking a few minutes ago but I had not completed my remarks when my time expired. However, in committee, as hon. members know, one can speak again after a brief period.
I was about to say it was not good enough to allow the oil companies a million dollar tax concession in lieu of royalty payments. The sum of $1 million has no relation to what a company may be paying out in royalties or may be prepared to spend on exploration.
The dispute between the provinces and the central government over jurisdiction now hinges on the need for more vigorous exploration and the improvement of supply. When we consider the question of jurisdiction in this country as between the federal government and provincial governments, we can make some interesting comparisons with the situation in the United States; the way in which authority is apportioned as between the central government and the individual states in that country. The powers of individual states are clearly defined and this results in a far greater degree of stability within the industry. In the United States one does not find the kind of squabbling that goes on in Canada between the producing provinces on one hand and the consuming provinces on the other.
Clause 24 of the bill deals with the manner in which prices shall be applied. To my mind it comes down to a question of the various formulae which have been used by the provinces and by the federal government down the years with respect to taxation. The tax a province levies has always been considered to be eligible for deduction when computing the federal tax. Only in the field of energy has the federal government departed from this practice, and that is the root of our problem today. That is why the federal-provincial conference, part of which we all saw on television, ended the other day without any conclusion being reached.


An hon. Member:: Bill Davis.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Bill Davis came out of that conference looking the best of all the premiers.


An hon. Member:: That is not what Walter Baker said.


Walter David Baker: Oh, yes he did. He looked a lot better than the minister did, too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Premier of Alberta felt that more money should be going into exploration, but he got no guarantees whatever from the federal government that if the price were raised, more money would go into exploration. He realized that the total increase in the price would go into the coffers of the federal government by reason of its taxation policy. Alberta is a province which realizes its reserves are shrinking and wishes to enlarge those reserves.
I would agree that the easy-to-find oil has, perhaps, already been found. I would not say, though, that it has all been found. We believe more exploration should be carried out and that more money should be allowed to go into exploration. The Premier of Alberta said that if there were any increase in price, royalties would be reduced from the 65 per cent level, but he realized that as a result of the present taxation system any increase in price would only bring about an increase in revenue to the federal treasury.
The federal government is not in the business of exploration. Exploration for natural resources comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, as the minister has admitted. The producing provinces do not believe the federal government has the know-how to develop greater supplies of oil. I should like to believe that every Canadian realizes we shall run out of oil by 1982. The longer we postpone the price increase, the longer we shall be at the mercy of the OPEC nations down the road somewhere. It is easy to assume, when one considers the minister's statement that $100 billion will be needed by the year 2000-


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but in order that the House may proceed to the consideration of private members' business it is my duty to leave the chair.
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 Humber St. George's Ste. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Transport-Need for icebreakers in Northwestern Atlantic-Government position; the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Suggestion standing committee question Mr. Johnson prior to confirmation as V ice-President.

There being no item under the heading of private bills on the order paper, the House will now proceed to notices of motions (papers).


Mr. Lefevbre:: On a point of order, I believe there is agreement that we continue the debate on notice of motion for papers No. 22 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) with respect to which there are 44 minutes left. I understand there is some feeling that this debate could be shortened and that a vote could take place. We might also go on with notice of motion for papers No. 21 standing in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) with respect to which there are 11 minutes left. Perhaps we could vote on that motion also before 6 p.m.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, on the point of order that is being raised, I think there is general agreement and that there is a disposition not to have a recorded vote on the order standing in my name. This will depend upon what the parliamentary secretary will say to me within the next few minutes, but I think we can accommodate him on the point raised.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, we have been in on these discussions and we would agree with what has been proposed. We would like to have a recorded vote on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Thomas Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, due to difficulties that have been encountered electrically in ringing the bells, would it be agreeable that the discussion on the first motion, No. 22, terminate at 5.30 to give us time to ring the bells and get the members in for the second?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not later than 5.30. It might be earlier.


Thomas Lefebvre: Yes, not later than 5.30.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Before proceeding to notice of motion No. 22, shall notices of motions Nos. 17 and 24 be allowed to stand and retain their place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 6, debate on the motion of Mr. Forrestall:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies, notes, position paper, memoranda, etc., relating to the requirements of
Shipping
Canadian shipping with respect to the proposed formula for import/ export conference rated seaborne trade, in terms of the number of ships required, the capacity of Canadian shipyards, the number of Canadian merchant seamen required, the level of ancillary shipyard related industries of design capability, etc., in the event Canada ratifies the proposed code of Conduct for liner conferences.
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be able to continue my intervention on this resolution. In doing so I should like to update some statistics that I placed on the record when I began my remarks a month ago.
In the first column on page 3858 of Hansard for March 6, when this debate began, I gave figures indicating the drop in the strength of the Canadian merchant marine from 1946 to 1972. The last figures I had then-figures provided by the Canadian Transport Commission, official government figures-indicated that in 1946 there were 203 dry cargo merchant vessels in the Canadian deep sea trade flying the Canadian flag. These vessels were over 10,000 tons. In 1958 the Department of Transport had to reduce the measure from 10,000 tons, because there were not very many by that time, to 3,000 tons in order to have an entry in their statistics. At that time there were five vessels, only three of which were over 10,000 tons, the others being between 3,000 and 10,000 tons.
In 1968 the total was down to three vessels over 3,000 tons. Then in 1972, again in order to have an entry in the tabulation, the measure had to drop from 3,000 tons to 1,000 tons, so as to give at least some indication of the strength. In December, 1972 it was indicated that there were six vessels over 1,000 tons, four of which were dry cargo vessels and two tankers. Two years later the report, again from exactly the same source, on the basis of the measure of 1,000 gross tons dry cargo vessels, shows the number down to three.
This is evidence, if any is wanted, of the lack of interest of this government, despite its protestations, in the regeneration and revitalization of the merchant marine. If this is not a sign of complete neglect, of a decision to bypass completely this very important service for Canada as an international trader, first of all, as well as an employer, as basically a maritime nation with-I think I am right-the longest coastline in the world, I do not know what is. Yet we have a merchant marine at the end of 1974 consisting of three vessels over 1,000 tons. Their total tonnage is 13,010 tons, not much bigger, in fact I think ten tons larger, than a Liberty ship. Here is a record of complete and utter neglect.
Last month we were delighted to see a press release issued by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) indicating some activity in the field of ship repair and shipbuilding on the east and west coasts. This is beginning to be, to my way of thinking, a chronic reaction by the government to present problems: issue a press release and the problem will go away. The minister spoke of a floating dock in Vancouver, and I am going to deal only with the west coast. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the Minister's press release with me, but as I say he spoke of a floating dry dock in Vancouver harbour and indicated that funds had been allocated for this purpose amounting to about $30 million, though I stand to be corrected.

April 17, 1975
Shipping
In the same breath, or rather in the same release, he mentioned the rehabilitation of the graving dock at Esquimalt costing $1 million or $2 million, but he did not say in his press release where the funds were coming from-another vague promise made by the government to rehabilitate an industry which has been the pride of the west coast, as it is the pride of the east coast, and as we have heard previously in this debate the pride of the industry along the St. Lawrence river.
Why, we westerners are bound to ask ourselves, especially those of us from Vancouver Island, should it be so difficult to find one or two million dollars when a $30 million allocation seems to be available without any problem at all? It is not that this floating drydock for Vancouver harbour is going to be built within the year. Some portion of that money could surely be put aside for the restoration and rehabilitation of the graving dock in Esquimalt harbour, but this is not being done.
I could go on to cite in the estimates many other examples, such as fisheries patrol vessels that are on the stocks. But let me just remind the House that the west does have a memory. We on the west coast recall the promise made in 1968 of the Estevan a weathership, which was going to be replaced by a new weathership. Curiously enough, and quite coincidentally I am sure, that promise was made in the middle of an election. It was pure coincidence that it should have been made at election time and that two Liberals were elected in 1968 in the area where the Estevan was required. But also perhaps by coincidence the Estevan was never built. Also by coincidence-though there might have been something in the minds of westerners that had an impact on this fact-no Liberals were elected in 1972, I suggest because the promise was made but not kept. The Liberals concerned were defeated in 1972.
There is a lesson here and I feel it might be worth recording. If you have got the goods, produce them. If you have not, don't pretend you have, because you really cannot fool the electorate forever. Either you are prepared to go back into the shipbuilding business and the merchant marine on the west and the east coasts on a scale that has been maintained at some cost in terms of credibility on the St. Lawrence, and I would underline that phrase "in terms of credibility", or failure to show your hand and produce the goods will render your conduct and your policies suspect.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I just want to refer briefly to part of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) in order to bring the debate back to the topic, if you like, not that it has not been good a good debate in itself.
The points raised in his motion, and with the indulgence of the Chair and the House I will follow these comments fairly closely because of the terminology involved in the various codes of conduct, conferences, and other phrases that occur fairly regularly, were related first of all to a request in December last as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all studies, notes, position papers, memoranda, etc., relating to the requirements of

Canadian shipping with respect to the proposed formula for import/ export conference rated seaborne trade-
As I said, we have had an excellent debate on marine issues, but one that has departed a bit from the particular request.
A reply was tabled on January 29, and I should like to go over that to some extent in order to amplify what was meant. At that time I asked the hon. member to withdraw the motion. The first point I made was that the bulk of Canadian seaborne trade is not carried by liner conferences. I think that is certainly borne out, and the intention here is to put the whole question in its proper perspective.


An hon. Member:: It is carried by ocean-going vessels.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, but not by that particular category of vessels. The major shipping out of Canada is bulk freight such as wheat, coal, and potash, as I am sure is known to hon. members.
In addition there are liners operating outside the conferences such as tramp vessels, and the liner conferences themselves carry only a small proportion of Canadian tonnage. Officials of the department tell me it is probably in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
As indicated in reply to questions asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East at about the time this came up, we said we are attempting to develop more statistical procedures which will enable us to measure better the kind of things here referred to, that is, what proportion of Canadian cargo is actually carried by the conferences.
The second point made in that earlier reply was that if and when the convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences becomes effective, and is acceeded to by Canada and by Canada's major trading partners, it is not clear what influence the proposed non-mandatory 40-40-20 cargo shipping formula would have, Madam Speaker.
The UN convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences, which opened for signing on July 1, 1974, will only become effective when it is ratified by 24 countries having 25 per cent of the world value of general cargo and container ships. To date, and this is about a month ago, only six countries had signed this convention, and even those signatures are subject to ratification. They are Iran, the Philippines, Gabon, Guatemala, Equador and Yugoslavia.
In practical terms the attitude which Canada's major trading and shipping partners take to implementation of the code of conduct will necessarily affect its relevance to Canada. Most of Canada's trading and shipping partners are also members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. They were very split in their attitudes when the convention was negotiated. Denmark, Finland, Norway and other countries opposed it. Canada abstained, and other OECD countries such as Japan, Australia, and France voted in favour.
Canada is bound by the OECD code of liberalization of current invisible transactions. This code lists maritime freights as among current invisible operations in relation to which, according to Article 9 of the code, OECD members shall not discriminate as between other members. A
April 17, 1975

further note to the maritime freights entry makes that point even more clear. It states:
These provisions are intended to give residents of one member state the unrestricted opportunity to avail themselves of, and pay for, all services in connection with maritime transport which are offered by residents of another member state.
So we have that aspect of another international agreement to contend with as we look at this proposed 40-40-20 split.
Some parties to the code of liberalization believe that the code of conduct convention is incompatible with it. Of course the code of conduct convention can be interpreted in more than one way. It is possible, depending on how a country interprets and implements the code of conduct convention in its own national laws, that this need not be incompatible with that country's prior obligations under the code of liberalization. Whether this is so, and if so in what way the code of conduct convention could be interpreted and implemented, have not yet been determined by announced policies of countries that are party to the code of liberalization.
The margin for interpretation of this code of conduct of convention is very wide. There is the well-known 40-40-20 cargo sharing formula with 40 per cent of cargoes being carried in conference vessels of the exporting country, 40 per cent in conference vessels of the importing country, and 20 per cent in conference vessels of a third, or a variety of other countries. That is merely a proposed cargo sharing formula.
We said in our initial reply that the formula would relate not only to a member state's flag vessels but even to chartered vessels participating in a conference. Again this indicates, as I say, a wide margin for interpretation; that is the proposed code of conduct convention.
We said as well that it would depend on how the convention was implemented whether it would have any effect at all on flag registry, national shipyard, shipyard-related activities, or merchant seamen of an exporting or importing state, and I again refer to the merchant marine concept brought into this debate at the same time. Because of these circumstances studies have not been prepared on the hypothetical ramifications of the proposed cargo sharing formula for Canadian ships, shipyards, shipyard-related activities, or merchant seamen.
I would like at this time to go a little bit further. In recent years, as the hon. member is well aware, international shipping has undergone quite a revolution. Larger and more specialized ships have made it a very capital intensive industry, and this has led to consortia and a tendency toward cartelization of shipbuilding and the shipping industry.
At the same time we have seen an increase in the world of state-backed or state-operated shipping lines, some of which have a non-economic motivation. This latter tendency has been accompanied by movement toward more restrictive or protectionist shipping practices, toward bilateral shipping agreements and that kind of thing. This is certainly of extreme importance to a code of conduct convention, whether it is ever implemented, and it is in some of its aspects a further development of this new spirit of bilateralism in shipping arrangements, but only in so far as liner conferences are concerned. As I men-
Shipping
tioned earlier, they only carry a small proportion of Canadian shipping, perhaps 10 per cent to 15 per cent.
In January of this year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) tabled a consultant's study on "The Elements of an International Shipping Policy for Canada", and announced at that time the formation of an interdepartmental shipping advisory board to assist him in the coordination of present government activities in this field, and in the development of future policies.
What this means is that in the face of a period of revolutionary change in terms of international shipping, to which the hon. member's motion refers, this is but one manifestation that Canada is reviewing its position to ensure that our policies are well directed toward the protection and promotion of Canadian interests so far as shipping is concerned. It is on this basis that recommendations will be made concerning Canadian national policies, including policies with regard to a Canadian merchant marine, and not on the basis of an international convention which may or may not develop. We are not sure how it might develop in that situation. In any case, as I say, it relates only to a liner conference in the international concept of Canadian shipping.
I do not wish to belittle, if you like, the Canadian convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences and the possibility of that, the text of which many developing countries supported and which contains many useful provisions. This will continue to be given attention by the government, both in itself and as part of the over-all review in respect of shipping, but only in that particular context.
As I pointed out to the hon. member in my earlier comments in January, we have no particular studies under way. Only this morning in the transport committee one of the hon. member's colleagues criticized the government in respect of the amount spent on consultants to examine into this and that. I believe he would be critical of us if we had gone to any great extent in exploring the possibilities in this regard, which is a far cry from being a fact, and is not the number one priority in respect of examining the real needs of the marine and shipping industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I should like to remind the House that if the hon. member speaks at this time he will close the debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order I think the debate will come to a close in five minutes in any event. I wish to make two or three brief observations in respect of the remarks of the parliamentary secretary this afternoon and the other conversations we had at the time of my moving of the motion. At the close of my remarks I shall ask leave of the House to withdraw the motion.
The observations of the parliamentary secretary are very interesting. There are several things involved here. The motion arose from the position taken by Canada at the UNCTAD meetings which seemed, to all of us who are interested in these areas, to be a studied position. What escaped me at the time was how Canada could have a studied or reasoned position in respect of a particular

April 17, 1975
Shipping
matter if it had not bothered to look into it in some depth, and in respect of which it had not prepared positions or papers. I still think that kicking around in the cobwebs of the UN or somewhere else are our papers pertaining to this.
My immediate concern relates to the development of a deep sea fleet to move goods in and out of Canada. I am not particularly interested in whether we do it uniquely or solely under the liner conference. I am aware that we do not carry all our goods in that particular way. I am also aware of the liberalization code and have some feeling in respect of it. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that part of our concern is that we should become more keenly involved in, and develop a firm position, on the part of the government, parliament and Canadians, on Canada becoming involved in the deep sea and offshore business even if we do so through the liner conference, because if that should provide a rationalization for direct government entry into such movement then I am not prepared to dismiss that.
The Canadian Labour Congress, at its last meeting I believe, discussed this and suggested that the need was so important that perhaps the government should consider direct involvement. I am not prepared to dismiss that out of hand. I am particularly concerned because time is becoming a very critical element with regard to the movement of our extractive resources in the north.
If we do not develop our own capability then both the financial resource, the northern engineering and the maritime resource will be developed by the large cargo carrying vessels which operate in the north, and we will be precluded from operating there and will have lost yet another opportunity for Canadians. In the last five years alone, for what it is worth, we have been running some $3,684,000,000, in lost revenue in Canadian payments to non-residents with regard to freight and shipping charges on imports. That is a tremendous amount of money. In addition to that, of course, there is all the money we could have spent on a shipyard industry, and so on.
I am satisfied with the explanation of the parliamentary secretary on why there might be particular papers, studies, memoranda, or notes which could directly relate to the wording of my question. On that basis I would seek leave of the House for the purpose of withdrawing my motion with the final caveat that I reserve the right to introduce it in other words.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member have leave to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to the order made in this sitting, the House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 21.


LETTER FROM MINISTER OF JUSTICE TO SECRETARY OF STATE RESPECTING GRANT TO WOMEN'S GROUP
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fairweather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a letter written by the Minister of Justice to the Secretary of State, dated October 21, 1974, about a grant to a women's group in Saskatoon.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: For all intents and purposes the time provided under section 2 of Standing Order 48 for the consideration of this motion has now expired, but I would point out that the Standing Order also permits a 15-minute participation in the debate by a minister of the Crown, and an additional five minutes for the mover of the motion, after which the Chair is bound to put the question.
[Translation] '
I would like to remind the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) that it has been said that only a minister or the sponsor of the motion may have the floor at this time, unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is unanimous consent. The hon. member for Lapointe has the floor.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice opposed the motion for production of copy of a letter he addressed, on October 21, 1974, to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) concerning a subsidy to a group of women in Saskatoon because, as the custom would have it, the recommendations of the legal advisers of the Crown on government policy matters being included under confidential matters, their release has usually been refused. In this regard, I refer to May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, page 272, and Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 338. That guide line on notice of motions for production of papers was enunciated by the government and published as an appendix to Hansard on March 15, 1973 (page 2288). The fact that, in this case, part of the documents containing that ruling may have been made available to the media does not constitute a valid reason for breaking the tradition that requires such confidential documents not to be released. If documents of that nature were subject to disclosure, the freedom of expression and frankness that are essential to the proper management of state affairs would be seriously jeopardized, and the exercise of guiding the ministers of the Crown would be paralyzed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I would remind the House that if the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Madam Speaker, I will not use the five minutes which the rules allow me. I am one of those who do not mind breaking with tradition, and I am rather surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mar-
April 17, 1975

ceau) finds tradition such a motivating force for him and his government.
The issue, of course, is the right of the public to information. I suggest that if the minister had been responding to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) after a request for a legal opinion addressed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), then perhaps I would have a more difficult time preparing my argument, but what the Minister of Justice was doing was objecting to a program, speaking as the member of parliament for Saskatoon-Humboldt. That is quite a different category, and I am surprised that the minister should wish to take refuge in the traditions of confidentiality-I think very largely outmoded-by resisting my motion.
As I said earlier, we will continue to have leaks of information, letters, and other documents if governments persist in trying to hold the lid on consultants' memoranda, letters, and so on which, by their very nature, should never have been marked confidential. In any event I think the issue should be tested, and I will be glad to have it tested. I suspect that the Secretary of State has heard many more representations about this particular program than that of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), who is also the Minister of Justice of Canada, and I am surprised that all these letters should be locked away so that we, as representatives, and the public, are unable to judge the merits of those representations.
Once again I thank those who have participated in the debate. I am sorry that inevitably the majority is a tradition bound government and that will mean that I will not be successful, but I am sanguine about the outcome and I hope that some day this, or a succeeding government, will be much freer about making information available.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five hon. members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion los'<


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet).

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum



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 after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6:10 p.m. the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On Clause 3-Binding on Her Majesty.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose we were considering an amendment to clause 3. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) negatived: yeas, 6; nays, 25.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 3 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to on division.
On clause 4-Definitions.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At this point, Mr. Chairman, we start Part I of the bill, the provision for the petroleum export charges. Clause 4 is the definitions clause embodying substantially those found in the Oil Export Tax Act of 1974. I have an amendment to offer to this clause as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out line 23 on page 2 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"for delivery outside Canada or to use it as bunker or aircraft fuel
outside Canada by such persons in such circumstances as may be
prescribed by the regulations;"
[Mr. McCleave.J
The purpose of the amendment is to make certain that aviation fuel and bunker fuel from Canadian sources are included in the definition "oil product". Foreign aircraft landing in Canada which until now have been able to obtain fuel at lower prices than those current in the United States-in effect they come here, fill up with Canadian fuel and go away with a full load-from now on will be obliged to pay the export tax.


Gérald Laniel: To make sure there is no procedural difficulty, maybe the amendment could be moved by one of the minister's colleagues.


Mitchell William Sharp: I so move.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to thank the minister for letting us see the amendment ahead of time. We have had an opportunity to read it and we approve it.
Amendment (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have one question for the minister. According to the definition, "exporter" means a person. Am I right in concluding that "person" is a term which covers Crown corporations or any agency of the Crown, provincial or federal?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the Interpretation Act.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 5-Charge in April and May.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister ask his officials whether they could make available to us figures showing how much money has been collected up to the end of the calendar year 1974, month by month?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We do not have that information at the moment but I will get it and make it available to the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Perhaps we could stand clause 5, go on to the other clauses, and come back to it when the information has been supplied.


Gérald Laniel: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 5 stood.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Imposition of charge.


William Gordon Ritchie: I should like to make a few comments on this clause, Mr. Chairman. The setting of a flat rate of export tax has served some parts of the industry badly. In the finance committee the other day I asked some questions about the effect of the export tax in this form. I asked the Minister of Finance about the Fosterton fields in Saskatchewan, crude from which was shut out of the United States market because there was no demand for it there. The minister turned to Mr. Shoyama, who said:
One of the facts which was not foreseen at the time the oil price was increased in 1974 was that the flat amount per barrel was applied to all
April 17, 1975
COMMONS DEBATES__________________________________4967
Oil and Petroleum
existing levels and the effect of that was to narrow considerably the differentials which had always been maintained as among different qualities of crude and this has also had an effect, in a sense, overpricing them in the market but the provinces on the whole have been very resistant to any suggestions that their prices should come down to restore the differential-
My point is that it would appear that by setting a flat rate formula we have shut down one oil field in Saskatchewan, and I understand from reading news items that it is not likely to be reopened. Of course the minister will say that this stems from the argument between the provinces and the federal government. I assume that the province of Saskatchewan feels that if it gave in to what it regards as blackmail on the part of the federal government, it would destroy its case.
As I understand the situation, these fields are dependent on a type of crude that a refinery in Minneapolis is the only one that can handle it. We have no use for it in Canada. The fields have 10 to 15 years to run and are not big ones. If they were shut down they could never be reopened, or at least a substantial portion of them. I believe this clause gives some sort of variable, and perhaps the minister would comment on my point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. He is quite correct when he talks in terms of a variation being available. If I can indicate the variations that the National Energy Board have been recommending, and which the governor in council has been following, for light medium the export charge has been at the level of $5.50. For the Lloydminster heavy, it is $4.40; that is to say, there is a $1.10 discount below the light medium. For other heavy crude oils except Lloydminster, it is $5. Condensate is being taxed at the rate of $5.20. So it will be seen that we have set a range of export charges that is related to the varying value of the crude to the refinery.
Mr. Shoyama's comments were referred to, and they related in particular to the impact on the domestic market of crude pricing. As was said at that time, traditionally when the price was down in the $3 to $4 range Saskatchewan heavy was selling at a discount because of its heavier gravity and its sulphur characteristics. With the uniform increase in the price of the oil barrel, the relevant discount has not been continued. In the domestic market it is estimated there is a potential market in Winnipeg and Ontario for about 30,000 barrels a day of Saskatchewan heavy. In effect it has been priced out of the market.
We have had discussions with the Saskatchewan oil administration and suggested that there should be a differential pricing for the heavy, which would open up for that particular product some of the Canadian market. As for the export market, it is true that there has been some frictional competition in the Minneapolis market with alternative source products, and indeed even some alternative source oil that has been barged up the Mississippi. The principal reason for the lower take, however, by the Minnesota refineries has been the relatively lighter runs this winter. They have very high inventories of crude oil and, for this reason, they have not been taking as much Saskatchewan heavy.
29557 - 39
One of the problems is that there has been a reduction in the general take of heavy. Because of earlier representations from both producers and the producing provinces, we dropped the charge on Lloydminster by $1.10. There was an immediate move from other Saskatchewan heavy crude users to Lloydminster, which is the lowest cost oil, and that is one reason why the demand for Fosterton has dropped off very sharply. If there were a relative adjustment in the charge on Fosterton, some Fosterton production might come up but Lloydminster would go down, there being only so much export market for Saskatchewan heavy.
We suggested to Saskatchewan that a differential pricing for the Canadian market for Saskatchewan heavy could open up the domestic market and increase the flow over what it has been in the last several months.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the discussions with Saskatchewan about the differential, what has been the response of the Saskatchewan government to the proposal of the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact the hon. member may have seen it on television. I put that suggestion to Premier Blakeney and, in the words of Cole Porter, he didn't say yes, but he didn't say no. I think they recognize the merits of the suggestion, but this is one question which at the moment has not been decided. I think it would be in the interests of heavy oil production if they did agree to this, but at the moment a decision has not been reached with respect to it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Still on the same theme, Mr. Chairman, I know the minister has had representations from the oil producers of southeastern Saskatchewan, but has he been shown the unaudited books for 1974? If so, how much do they make on a barrel, or do they lose?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have seen their calculations in this regard, and it appears that at the current level there is little incentive for them to increase production since it would involve an actual cost rather than a return. We have suggested that it would be appropriate to adjust the royalty which takes 100 per cent over the given figure provided for this quality.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
proposal been made to the Saskatchewan government that if the provincial government reduced its royalties the federal government would indicate the extent to which royalties would be made deductible under the Income Tax Act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would not have authority to do that, Mr. Chairman. A statement of that kind would be in the nature of a budgetary statement.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, according to the news item I read, there is a possibility that the Fosterton fields might be closed down and may not be reopened. As a result we will lose some oil for an indefinite period. As I understand it, if oil fields are shut down usually they are not reopened again.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is certainly correct that it would take some time to get the flow on again, particularly with regard to the heavier crudes. It would take some

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum.
investment to get the more viscous crudes migrating, and therefore make them available for pumping.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Just and reasonable price to be reported.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister about the National Energy Board fulfilling its duties regarding section 83 of the National Energy Board Act in terms of establishing a just and reasonable price in relation to the public interest for oil in the export market for any given month. My question relates to the different qualities of crude oil that might be exported. Should there be a schedule of prices along the lines of clause 7? Will the National Energy Board be reporting a schedule of prices for the various grades of crude, or will it just be reporting one price, and to what type of crude would this one price refer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, what the board has been doing is in fact what the hon. member suggests and, indeed, as I suggested in my response, that is, indicating a range for the different qualities. This would likely take light-medium as the standard, and a standard qualitative differential would be applied on each side of the light-medium.


Harvie Andre: Would it improve that clause to indicate that. in fact it is a schedule of price, and the board is following along the lines of the wording used in Clause 7?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The schedule, or the range, is set out in subclause (3) of Clause 9, and represents the tariff that would be recommended by the minister to the governor in council. Subclause (1) really draws on the expertise of the National Energy Board in this regard, and on the basis of that we would then recommend the tariff to the governor in council. This indicates a quality of judgment involved as in the kind of questions referred to by the hon. member for Dauphin. This involves not only the question of what is a just and reasonable price in the United States, but also whether there should be an adjustment in the price in the interest of keeping that particular crude flowing, perhaps because of a high inventory in Minnesota and other points.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I know the government realizes this is a very important clause as it is one of the main mechanisms for the establishment of the charge. This is important to the government in the sense of determining what funds it will have available for the purposes of the equalization plan. The machinery is fairly simple, but I imagine a lot of thinking goes into it. The recommendation from the minister to the governor in council in respect of charges is to be taken in the first instance from the department and from the board for the purpose of determining what is a just and reasonable price.
Anyone who has had any dealings with the National Energy Board will know the reason for that clause, and how these just and reasonable prices are determined. What really interests me are the other two subclauses which refer to the public interest of Canada generally, and all the circumstances that appear to the minister to be relevant. I know the minister cannot advise us on the monthly price until his advisers go through it and make the recommendations, but this is going to be of some importance in the future. Precisely what are the basic

guidelines that animate the minister in making these recommendations in the public interest of Canada generally, and particularly with reference to all the circumstances that appear to the minister to be relevant? Are there circumstances above and beyond the public interest, or what are the guidelines that the minister will adopt?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Just by way of an example, this would involve a judgment we would have to make with regard to the heavier crudes. Because of the nature of the reservoirs, the heavy crudes are the most difficult to move. If the demand for crude is down in a particular month it has been the practice in western Canada over the years to use the light crude for the purpose of a surge tank, which goes up and down, leaving the volume of heavy crude relatively static, so far as that is possible. In that sense I think that would be a relevant circumstance to be taken into account. I think it can fairly be said that this would not be in the public interest of Canada so much as being a relevant circumstance which would perhaps cause one to set a differential to make sure that the heavier crude was kept moving, rather than to have a pro rated reduction of all crude types.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is sort of like the belt, suspenders and safety pin aspect. You are taking all the safety precautions you can to allow yourself the fullest freedom possible in setting the price.
There is another clause in respect of which we might raise an issue, as it will have to be dealt with either here now, or later. Could the minister give some idea at this stage, and it can only be an estimate, of what he views as the situation during the ensuing six to 12 months in relation to the amount that will be raised? What will be the extent of the charge, and how is that charge to be applied in respect of the forecast of the number of barrels of oil exported that will be required to recover the revenue necessary to meet the equalization process? What is the minister's judgment in this area? Can he say how much may be required to supplement the charge in order to provide for those importing areas in the eastern part of the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is difficult to be precise, but perhaps I might suggest some round figures that could be the basis for an instant calculation. If one goes on the assumption that between May 1 and the end of December, 1975, the average throughput will be 650,000 barrels a day, and of course between January 1 and June 30, 1976, that will be down to 550,000 barrels a day, the average tax per barrel might be in the neighbourhood of $5. Perhaps that calculation can be made while I continue talking. One also has to make certain round assumptions as to what the season of the year will be like and what the demand will be.


Gerald William Baldwin: Celsius.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Celsius will have a major impact on it. We would estimate that between July, 1975, and July, 1976, the necessary supplement from the Consolidated Revenue Fund would be somewhere in the range of $300 million to $500 million for the 12-month period. This would be the case if there were an agreement between the provinces and the federal government in respect of the change in price. I am recalling the figure from memory, but I think that if there is an assumption that the
April 17, 1975

price will increase $1 per barrel, the exposure in eastern Canada would be cut down by about $50 million on an annual basis. So there would be some savings if there is an increase, and we are talking about a range somewhere between $300 million and $500 million a year taken from general revenue to supplement the export tax revenue.
It has been confirmed that the deficit would be in the $300 million to $500 million range, and as you increase the price by $1 barrel you save about $70 million in each step up, so there would be a reduction if there was a price increase.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about what seems to be a free exchange of expression as it suits the circumstance. Under subclause (2) of Clause 6 there is an imposition or a collection of a charge which also applies under Clause 7, but then we have a payment of this money directly to the minister under Clause 10. Then when one goes to Clause 14 the charge becomes a debt due to Her Majesty, and under Clause 14(2) the reference is directly to the Excise Tax Act. What concerns me is that it appears the Government of Canada, through this legislation, is attempting to impose an export tax. The use of the word charge is merely a play with words. It is an export tax.
We know there are two corporations, one in Saskatchewan and one in Alberta, which may be the owners of oil. There is also, in addition, a national petroleum corporation which is a federal corporation in the process of being created. Under its statute it can become both the owner of and exporter of oil. Under what authority does the Government of Canada claim the right to tax a provincial Crown corporation, a provincial entity, or a provincial government, which in itself is the owner of the oil without the consent of that province? Second, where does the Government of Canada propose and how does it propose to charge itself a tax?
We say that the national petroleum corporation could be subject to being indebted to Her Majesty. How can Her Majesty be indebted to Her Majesty, and how can the terms and provisions of the excise tax under subclause 2 be applied? There are other questions of records, books, and accessibility thereto, and penalties for the failure to comply. I am wondering how we can get around the question of trying to dodge, by language, a tax which is said here to be a charge. I do not think anyone in Canada would be deceived into thinking that this is not a tax. I am wondering whether the minister can give us an explanation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There are really three questions involved here. First, why is it a charge and not a tax? The term "export tax" is understood to refer to the regime in existence up until the commencement of this particular regime. Fifty per cent of the proceeds were made directly available to the province, and 50 per cent were to be redirected by the federal government to the province. The shift from tax to charge marks a shift which takes effect in the new regime.
I agree with the hon. member that in substance a tax is now applied for export compensation purposes. There is no
Oil and Petroleum
more sinister intent involved than that. With regard to the provisions of clause 14(2), that really represents an incorporation by reference mutatis mutandis of the provisions of the Excise Tax Act. The hon. gentleman will recognize that the draughtman's shorthand is to prevent him having to repeat, again in extenso, the provisions which are already in the law in the Excise Tax Act. The third is how does the statute impose the tax or the charge on the Crown, whether federal or provincial? This of course is the question we debated at length this afternoon.
With regard to the federal government it is pursuant to section 16 of the Interpretation Act and the declarations involved in clause 3 of this particular bill, where the tax is imposed on the Crown in the right of Canada, and in due course, with regard to parliamentary action, would be imposed on the national petroleum corporation if it were an exporter of oil. With regard to the imposition of the tax on a provincial Crown corporation, that power is provided by clause 3 of the statute and is further to the provisions- to give the actual jurisprudence-of the case, the Attorney General of British Columbia versus the Attorney General of Canada, 1924 Appeal Cases at page 222, in which the Crown in the right of Canada was entitled to charge customs tax in that particular case against a provincial Crown corporation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I raised this question in order to get the minister to admit that this is an export tax. I have a different opinion than he has about the right, without the consent of the province, to tax property of the province. If it were not to be a tax how could we proceed in the House by way of a ways and means motion insofar as this particular bill is concerned? Unless it were a tax then it cannot in any way come forward as a ways and means motion and be considered in the House in committee of the whole.
So, we recognize here that if clause 3 falls to the ground this means that what the minister has said flows therefrom also falls to the ground, and that the lynch pin for the authority for the imposition of this so-called charge-I prefer to call it a straight tax-depends upon clause 3. It may be that there might be some judicial challenge on that particular point because it seems to me that the whole idea-and I do not wish to repeat the debate of this afternoon-is a denial of the essence of confederation and the ownership of the resources by the province, and that the federal-government by this bill is trying to arrogate to itself powers it never did have, does not have, and never should have. In any event the minister has cleared up the point. He calls it a tax. Therefore it is a tax. That clears up the procedural point I raised in this regard. I do not agree with the minister's concept, but there it is.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 9 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 9 agreed to on division.
On Clause 10-By whom charge payable.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. In looking over the provisions I wonder whether perhaps the minister, in view of his highland Scottish heritage, gave
295 57-39%

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
instructions to those who drafted the bill that it be in Gaelic and then be changed back again to English. I have difficulty understanding the Subclause 2 of clause 10. I believe what is meant is that anyone exporting oil must pay the export charge, but the way it reads is:
A person who exports oil on which a charge is imposed under this Part in circumstances in which there is no exporter who is liable under this Part to pay that charge is liable to pay that charge.
I find that confusing. Would the minister explain that provision for me and give me an example?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course the hon. gentleman would recognize, as I do, that this country is an Ecossocracy, that is to say, a society run by Scotsmen, and the draftsman happens to be a graduate of Edinburgh University. However, the purpose of it being expressed in this rather elyptical way is that the exporter is defined in the commencement of the part as being one who holds an export licence. That is the reason for the rather elyptical wording involved in subclause 2 of Clause 10.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I wish to place on the record the fact that in Clause 10 the word exporter appears. The minister explained earlier, in dealing with the definitions, that an exporter was a person and could include Crown corporation, or agency, or province, as well as the federal government. I, like the hon. member for Edmonton West, have the simple understanding of the constitution that one government cannot tax another.
If the governments of the provinces of Alberta or Saskatchewan are exporters under this definition, and if Sas-kOil, a government agency, is exporting, you have a real cause of clash. I have grave doubt about this, and I wanted to record it at this particular time.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member asked a question. Is he expecting an answer?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is no answer required, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 10 agreed to, on division.
On clause 11-Board to administer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, during one of the standing committee meetings I expressed my concern about the heavy burden which was being placed on the personnel of the National Energy Board with the administrative responsibilities which had to be added to their ordinary duties this last year and half. At that time the minister stated that they were strengthening the personnel of the board in the hope that they could carry these extra responsibilities. I do not have to point out to the minister that the administration of the bill now being put to the House will continue to add tremendously to the administrative burden of the National

Energy Board, and therefore the difficulties I noticed this last year and half in carrying out the operations of the National Energy Board will be compounded.
This brings me to my major concern. I was a member of the Diefenbaker administration which set up the National Energy Board. We wanted to give Canadians protection in the handling of their energy, protection they had not had before that time.
The first function of the National Energy Board was a judicial one. It was to decide matters which were brought before it pursuant to the National Energy Board statute. I have observed the actions of the board over this last 14 years, and my criticism has been on this question of administration. I think that the time taken in handling routine applications for changes of facilities along a pipeline, for example, has been too long. This has been costly for people applying, costly for the people intervening, and certainly, in the long run, costly to the consumer who has to pay for all this delay. For my part I would like to see a strengthening, a speeding up and streamlining of this judicial function.
Since there are only a few members on this board, the judicial function should take most of their time. In addition to this judicial function they have another extremely important function, and that is to act as a policy suggestion type of institution.
It was recognized back in 1958 and 1959 that Canadians had to look ahead. They had to be informed continually as to the supply situation. These figures should be provided by an independent and capable board. How much natural gas is it proven that we have? What is the best guess of the potential gas supplies to be found? How much proven oil do we have? How much potential can we expect to have, within a time frame, for the safety of the nation?
The failure of the National Energy Board to carry out these advisory functions, which are clearly laid down in the act as their responsibility, is one of the reasons we have been in this situation for the last two years. When the new chairman took over last year I questioned him on behalf of the opposition to see what his position was on this advisory function. He assured the committee that he would do everything he could to restore the operations of the board in the field of advisory function to the government and to the people of Canada.
Knowing something of the heavy load the board has had to bear these last 15 years, knowing a little bit about the tremendous extra administrative responsibilities of the last year and a half, and then to have added to it all these new responsibilities this legislation will entail, I see trouble down the road purely from an administrative standpoint. I think the minister would be well advised to inform his cabinet colleagues that the National Energy Board structure and the divisions of its duties into judicial, advisory and administrative will have to be radically changed. If the minister would give this advice to his colleagues I think they would respond favourably because the board will be the key for several decades to come in the administration and handling of our energy resources.
I would like to give an example of what concerns me. The changes in the movement of oil around the world have been so radical in the last two years that I doubt if there is
April 17, 1975

a single person in a single oil corporation who fully understands the significance of all these changes. Tonight we heard the hon. member for Dauphin ask questions about what is happening to the heavy and medium crudes of Saskatchewan. This is a classic example of how the resources of the country are hurt by not having staff on a board with time to look ahead and to visualize the impact of their decisions on the various types of producers of oil in Canada.
In the rush of quick decisions which were made last year and in light of the under staffed energy board, no one if about to point his finger at the board. But coming from the province of Saskatchewan and representing a constituency where a large percentage of its wealth depends on the health of the companies operating in nearly a score of oil fields, I see the populations of towns of 2,000 reduced by 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent because of the exodus of people working in these fields just because the board, at the request of the government in setting a price, did not think through what the disastrous impact would be from setting that price. When they were raising the price up to $6.50 and raising all grades of crude up the same amount, they did not have time to realize that this would destroy more than a score of small but very valuable oil fields in Saskatchewan.
The hon. member for Dauphin is quite right in suspecting that once a low viscosity oil field has been pumped for 15, 18 or 20 years and it goes out of action for two or three years, it is very marginal and dubious economics as to whether that oil field will be brought into production again. If that oil field is kept pumping constantly and the proper recovery measures are taken constantly, it may last another 10, 12, 15 or 18 years, providing a tremendous value in terms of energy to this country.
It is true that production in south eastern Saskatchewan in only measured in terms of 50,000 or 60,000 barrels per day, but 50,000 or 60,000 barrels per day times the number of day in a year times the number of years left in that field, with proper conservation techniques in the pumping and management of that field, amount to hundreds of millions of dollars over the next decade or so.
There is not only the threat that we lose all the jobs of the people who bought or built homes in this area expecting to have 30 years to work looking after these fields, but there is the fact of the stupidity of this country in not thinking ahead on the significance and impact of these increased taxes on the fields. No one on the Energy Board is to blame for this stupidity because there was not the staff to cope with the subject.
I suspect that what is true in southeastern Saskatchewan is also true in other parts of the west, that an understaffed National Energy Board was doing things which were not intentionally harmful but whose effect was disastrous. Now, a year and a half later, the minister is saying "We made a mistake and now we are consulting with the province of Saskatchewan to see if they cannot alter their royalties". In this particular case two guilty parties, two greedy governments, are trying to grab all the economic rent they can from these oil companies, and so great was their greed that the sum total of their tax liability is greater than 100 per cent.
Oil and Petroleum
When I asked the minister if he had seen the figures he said he had, and that every time they produce a barrel of oil it costs them money. The more honest way of saying it is that they are losing money on every barrel they produce. When companies only produce 20 barrels per day per well, if the number of wells they have is multiplied by 20 cents or 30 cents per barrel, it could come to as much as $20,000 or $30,000 per year. They can only carry that kind of loss so long.
I have in my possession letters giving their liability in exact figures. In one particular case the profit on a particular operation is $4,000 and the tax liability is $6,000. The owner of that operation is not going to keep it operating for too long, I should say.
I am making two points, Mr. Chairman. The first is that we have to strengthen the National Energy Board immediately, both in numbers and by restructuring it to handle these decisions more effectively. At the same time we must give it the quality of manpower that is able to understand the impact of its actions. In the theory of the government at Ottawa, a person who is a highly trained administrator in one field should be able to administer in another and could be taken from any department, put into the National Energy Board, and told to "administer". He might be told by the government to raise the price, but I would suspect that many of those administrators would not know the significance of having mediums or heavy crude and so on. This last mistake I referred to was very costly to oil companies in terms of dollars and cents, but it was also costly to the human beings who work and serve in the oil fields.
I am pleading with the minister, under this clause of the bill, to give high priority (a) to increasing the personnel and National Energy Board staff, and (b) to restructing it so that it can separate the judicial function from the administrative function more clearly. Above all I plead with him not to betray the people of Canada in the future by setting aside the advisory function of the National Energy Board. We have paid heavily for that failure in the last ten or 15 years.
I would repeat that when the minister goes looking for new personnel it is going to be hard to find them among civil servants, who usually have a limited knowledge of oil and gas. He will have to consider seeking them within the oil industry, so it will be necessary to set down very clear guidelines on the question of conflict of interest for these people, and to ask them to abandon all ownership of oil and gas.
I have deliberately taken the time of the committee to make this presentation of my feelings in regard to the National Energy Board, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is an excellent institution which has served this country well, but if it is to grow and be staffed in the usual method of institutions and agencies around Ottawa, we are in for some serious trouble. I hope my proposals are acceptable to the minister and that he can put them to his cabinet colleagues with all the energy he can amass in an attempt to give the country a better break than it has had in the last two years.

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word by way of explanation. The Board now has the responsibility of determining the export volume from month to month and of issuing export licences from month to month, so it already has substantial administrative responsibility. What we do here is impose upon the person who is to make the judgment and issue the licence a further responsibility which goes along with the basic one of collecting the taxes. We are not creating a separate agency in either the Department of National Revenue or my own department for that purpose. We are trying to minimize the number of government agencies dealing with the transaction.
As the hon. member says, I do not think there can be any question that these further responsibilities will impose a need for additional personnel employed by the board. In the past the entire personnel of the board has come from the private sector. The hon. member mentioned the problem of conflict of interest. In trying to balance that, I think it is essential to have people in this field with practical experience in the oil and gas business rather than take them from some other sector of the government.
There is one point on which I take issue with the hon. member, however. He said that in setting the price the government had not been flexible enough. As I pointed out to the hon. member for Dauphin, the government has been flexible in setting the export tax and this is the result of setting variable export prices for the various commodities. With respect to setting the domestic price, by the agreement of March 27 we set the maximum price.
It was the government of Saskatchewan by choosing to go to the full maximum in these particular qualities of oil that, in effect, made that oil non-competitive in the Canadian market. That was the essence of my observation to the hon. member for Dauphin, and the essence of my conversation with the provincial administration. If they would choose to go to the full maximum price, as they chose with lake crude, and arrange the price for sale in Canada with the customers' discount as in the past, it is the belief of my advisers that there could be an increased flow from these particular fields, and some of the hardships he referred to would not have been felt by the industry.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the minister, in the government's headlong rush to control the production of oil and petroleum in Canada we have seen something which is retrograde.
The establishment of the National Energy Board was the subject matter of the Borden Royal Commission on Energy and was set up as an independent body to advise the governor in council of certain action that should be taken by the governor in council, such as the approval of applications for export permits and pipelines. It was an independent body of experts. The National Energy Board was also to consider matters of production and the sale of electrical power.
There is also the question of uranium. All forms of energy were to come under the purview of the board,

which was to advise the cabinet about them. By this bill the National Energy Board is to be set up, first of all, as a tax collecting body. It must administer taxes levied on all petroleum products. Is it to do the same with the export of electricity, if the government should decide it will raid that field as well?
By this decision the government will destroy the independence of the National Energy Board. It is to become merely a further instrument at the behest of the minister and the department.
Certainly the collection of taxes, matters involving the excise tax, and all questions of distraint, recovery, and so on, can come under the Minister of National Revenue. This should not be done by the National Energy Board. After all, the Minister of National Revenue is responsible for customs on the one hand and the excise tax on the other. He collects the premiums payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the contributions made under the Canada Pension Plan Act. Why should the Minister of National Revenue not collect this tax and be responsible for the administration of its collection?
The minister opposite feels there would be an economy of personnel if it were done by the board. I suggest there will not be; there will be a different philosophy, a different policy governing the way the tax is collected. The Department of National Revenue possesses expertise in these matters.
My colleague from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was right when he said that at the heart of this matter there is a potential conflict of interest. In moving around personnel of the National Energy Board I do not see how the chairman, who is responsible for that board and must advise the cabinet about certain administrative matters, can maintain his sense of independence. The board, in essence, should be composed of experts. Somebody there, some member of the board, will become the administrator charged with the responsibilities given to him by this bill.
It seems to me that a potentially grievous wrong is being inflicted on the National Energy Board. Its value is being affected. I go further than my colleague for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. I say that all of these administrative provisions should be removed; they should not be the responsibility of the National Energy Board. If we are to have a tax of the kind proposed, its collection and the turning of the moneys over to the Receiver General of Canada should be a matter for the Minister of National Revenue. I think we would see a much tidier administration if that were done.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, obviously I will reflect a different viewpoint. The board is already, under the export provisions of the National Energy Board Act, responsible for determining on a monthly basis the total amount which may be exported and what amounts may be exported by individual exporters. We took the aoproach that, as less than 20 licensees are involved, the step we are proposing would convert the collection into a toll collection. In administrative terms it would add one relatively minor function to those already being exercised. In all logic, as we were dealing with fewer than 20 licensees, it seemed to the government to make more sense to add what is really a minor administrative
April 17, 1975

program to the responsibilities of people who are already totally familiar with the transaction, because they authorized it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Chairman, much of our discussions has centred on the National Energy Board. I do not disagree with my colleagues and will try not to be repetitious. I submit the National Energy Board has been somewhat negligent in carrying out its duties. Some time ago it published a couple of books dealing with energy and the right way to use energy. Then it published its report on our energy requirements and energy reserves. It came as a shock to many Canadians to learn that we do not have all the oil we thought we had, and that our reserves will run low in the near future. If the Canadian people had known this two or three years ago we should not be in our present difficulties. The oil companies knew as early as 1969. Certainly the National Energy Board should have known this sooner than it did, and should have informed the Canadian public.
Now the National Energy Board is doing a feasibility study on the Mackenzie Valley Oil Pipe Line. Did the minister ask the National Energy Board if the oil pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal is feasible, and whether it supports the building of that pipeline? I think it will be a political pipeline, not an economic one. I submit it will be uneconomic. I thought that more than a year ago, when the minister said, I think in the summer of 1973, that the pipeline to Montreal would be built and operating before that winter. Well, the winter came and the winter went, and the pipeline was not built. It was not even begun. When questioning the staff of the National Energy Board about its role as a collection agency and whether that role should be enlarged, he should also ask it if it thinks the pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal is feasible and economic. Or is this to be a political decision only? Will the pipeline be built only for the sake of politics?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I want to correct the hon. gentleman. The board has held a number of hearings and there was never any suggestion that the pipeline would be completed by the commencement of last winter. The initial timetable was for completion by December, 1975. Principally because of the intervention for environmental reasons of the province of Quebec, the time has moved up and it will now be in mid-summer, 1976. The board held its final hearing on Friday last and will be pronouncing its decision within a few days. The applicant is ready to go, having acquired the necessary right-of-way. Of course the government, to back up its policy, has assisted the applicant in two ways, namely, by ensuring the early delivery of the pipe, which is now being delivered, and by entering into the deficiency agreement which was approved by parliament at the end of the last fiscal period.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I will briefly sum up the minister's remarks as I do not want to misunderstand him. The minister stated that the pipeline will be finished in the middle of 1976 and that the National Energy Board will shortly be publishing its report on whether it is economic. He stated that the energy board held its last
Oil and Petroleum
hearing this past Friday. I gather from that that the government acted before hearing from the National Energy Board on whether it reached the conclusion that the project is economically feasible. I do not want to leave the chamber this evening with a strong assumption with respect to the minister's remarks.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, the hon. member does not quite have it right. The pipeline can only go ahead if the board makes the final judgment that it is economically sound. We will hear within a day or so whether that is so. However, he is quite right in saying that for policy reasons we judged it advisable to put that pipeline into Montreal from a national security standpoint. It is for that reason, at the time when pipe was in short supply, that we took steps to guarantee the availability of pipe. It was because of the potential of a deficiency that we came forth with a definite agreement. Under the law provided by parliament, it has to be the ultimate judgment of the board. I cannot anticipate that. This is why I cannot be final in saying that it will go ahead. My expectation is that the board's decision will be favourable, but we will have to wait until we get it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Exemption or reduction.
Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, this clause is giving me concern. It gives to the governor in council under certain conditions very broad powers with regard to what is in effect the remission, either prospectively or retroactively, of charges which are covered by the clauses with which we have been dealing.
I fear giving this power to any government without some safeguards attached to it. I am particularly concerned about giving it to this government whose track record, from the time of Hal Banks up to the time of the dredging companies, has not been too inspiring with regard to its assessments of people and corporations. We must consider that those who might be the beneficiaries may be some of the large corporations involved in transactions for the sale or shipment of petroleum products to the United States.
The governor in council is given the power solely on the indication by the board that it is in the public interest to so do. What is the public interest? Who is the judge as to what is in the public interest? Does someone on the board pick up the telephone and say "Mr. Minister, I think it is in the public interest that you exempt XY corporation from the payment of these charges"? This clause retroactively permits that a charge paid four months previously can be remitted, or the liability released.
There is presently a means of doing this under the Financial Administration Act. According to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules, authority is given to the governor in council on the recommendation of Treasury Board whenever he, that is the governor in council, considers it in the public interest. There is the same language. The governor in council on a recommendation of Treasury Board may, when he considers it in the public interest so to do, remit any tax, fee or penalty. I notice the word tax here. I listened to the interesting discussion of the hon. member for Edmonton West and the minister. In any event, that is covered by one of the subsections in the Financial

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
Administration Act, the remission clause, which defines tax as including any tax imposed, duty or toll payable to Her Majesty. I think that is wide enough to cover it.
In addition, there is in the remission provision in the Financial Administration Act, with the necessity for remissions to be reported to the House of Commons in the public accounts with statements, names and amounts in respect of anything over a certain amount. This is what alarms me about clause 12. There is nothing which compels the government, unless the minister can advise that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are applicable, to state that the government is compelled to publish a list of the exemptions with the names and the amounts.
Why is there the word retroactively? Why was that put in? Are there situations now in existence where the government is contemplating exempting people or corporations from charges for which they normally would have been liable last month, the month before, or the month before that? It may be there is something else in the bill of which I am not aware by which this will have to be done. However, as it now stands, the governor in council on the simple advice from the board, which does not have to be expressed in terms of a written certificate and can be done only by a telephone call, can deem it in the public interest that XY corporation, which three months ago was liable for charges in the amount of $100,000 or $150,000, is now exempt from that charge. Any member of this House is bound to be concerned about a bill which grants such extensive power to the government and its representatives when, side by side with that, is authority to provide for these exemptions.
I would like a more detailed explanation if there are people to whom the retroactive aspect is going to be applied. What assurance can we have from the minister, without us moving amendments, that there will be full and complete disclosure? Has the government decided that the provisions of the Financial Administration Act will be applicable, and will it publish in detail all of the facts surrounding any exemptions with the amounts, names and reasons? I believe this is a very reasonable request bearing in mind the rather awesome powers which this gives to the governor in council.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, the hon. member is referring to what is now Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. Under the export tax as opposed to the export charge provision, there were a number of remissions to the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries and for the purposes of Canadian Pacific aviation fuel. This arose from the situation on the west coast whereby Canadian crude goes to the Puget Sound refineries and is refined there and some of the product, but not all of it, is brought back in, for example in the form of heavy crude for the Council of Forest Industries or in the form of aviation spirit for CP aviation. That is the kind of case that has occurred in the past.
One of the reasons for the reference to retroactivity here is that at the time when there was some debate as to the appropriate level of price and hence of export tax for the export of Lloydminister crude, we indicated that while the

export tax system remained in force generally we would, subject to proof, be prepared to remit a defined portion of the tax to exporters of the Lloydminster product. Those exports have gone ahead, the applications have been received but, because the statutory authority existing at that time has now expired, we have included a retroactive provision in the bill so that we can honour that undertaking. This, of course, is done by an order in council which is made public in due course subject, of course, to the provisions of the statutory instruments legislation.
With regard to the comment about the provisions of what is now subsection 8 of section 17 of the Financial Administration Act I would be quite prepared to amend clause 12 by adding as subclause (2) thereof a provision identical to that in the Financial Administration Act, which amendment reads:
That Bill C-32 be amended by adding thereto immediately after line 22 on page 6 thereof:
A statement of each exemption or reduction of any charge ordered
pursuant to this section shall be reported to the House of Commons
through the public accounts.
I believe that is a correct paraphrase of the words used in the Financial Administration Act. I would ask my colleague to move an amendment along those lines. Perhaps we could pause at this point while the precise wording is being considered.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the kind of amendment which I praise the minister for his willingness to make. I must say it would put my fears within manageable bounds.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to add my own words of praise to the minister along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Peace River. When I read these words in the proposed legislation I was a good deal disturbed because the power of exemption does allow tremendous room for certain things to happen.
If I am not disturbing the minister while he is drafting his amendment I should like to ask him whether he would use this retroactive power in connection with the medium and heavy crudes of Saskatchewan. If he finds, after this legislation passes, that serious and proven harm has been done to exporters of those grades in Saskatchewan because the incidence of the export tax has priced them out of the market, and because of provincial royalties and taxes coupled with the decision as to non-deductibility for federal tax purposes, could the minister under this clause consider an order to return part of the export tax to these companies when they have suffered losses through no fault of their own?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think that is very doubtful. I am doubtful whether I should put that proposition to the governor in council, and I am even more doubtful that it would be accepted. It would involve a reduction of the federal revenue having regard to the level of provincial royalties. This, of course, is the subject of intensive debate between the federal government and provincial governments. The purpose we have in mind with regard to the Lloydminster crude in particular is that at a time when the market has been highly volatile in terms of marginal price differences because of the arrival of competitive offshore crudes, it is desirable to encourage exporters to go ahead and seek markets for a certain volume of this product in the United States.
April 17, 1975

If, in fact, it is found that the judgment which the board had to make-it is always difficult to make these judgments during a volatile market-put the tax too high, then the companies would be able to seek some kind of recompense. Any general remission because of the royalty level in the province of Saskatchewan, for example, would not, I think, be covered by the intention here.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
point I have raised is a crucial one for operators in Saskatchewan. I am not referring to Lloydminster crude, I am referring to the operators in the medium and light-medium field in Saskatchewan. If the discussions which I know must be going on between the Minister of Finance and the Saskatchewan ministers do result in the Saskatchewan government reducing its taxes and royalties and where it can be shown that the combination of the export tax, the provincial tax, the royalties and the non-deductibility provision in the budget has put companies in a negative earning position through no fault of their own, can these companies be compensated for losses they suffered in 1974 retroactively? I am assuming now it is possible to get agreement on the part of Saskatchewan to reduce its royalties. Is there any possibility of making retroactive payments under this clause?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course making a judgment of that kind would involve a political accord which has not been reached. The quick answer to that question would be that this would be one way of putting an exporter back into a better financial position.
We now have a more refined copy of the amendment I discussed with the hon. member for Peace River. I will ask my colleague, the President of Privy Council, to move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out line 7 on page 6 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"12(1) Where it is shown to the Governor"
That is an amendment to the first line of the clause so as to get subclause 2 in, and here the necessary amendment would read:
That Bill C-32 be amended by adding immediately after line 22 on page 6 thereof the following:
"(2) A statement of each exemption or reduction of $1,000 or more
ordered pursuant to this section shall be reported to the House of
Commons in the public accounts.


Mitchell William Sharp: I so move.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Chairman, may I say a word about the amendment. May I preface my remarks by saying something about the exchange that has been taking place between the minister and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. I never fail to be amused at the way the minister always suggests that if an oil Company is in any difficulty the provincial government ought to reduce the royalties, forgetting that the oil belongs to the people of the province and that they have a substantial claim.
The federal government has moved into the oil field with a very heavy hand in its most recent budget. In the September, 1974, issue of "The Petroleum Industry of Canada" there is a breakdown of a barrel selling for $6.50.
Oil and Petroleum,
They point out that the amount paid in income tax for Alberta oil prior to the budget was 66 cents; under the budget it will be $1.96. For Saskatchewan income tax was 21 cents; it will now be $1.78. That is a very hefty intrusion by the federal government into the cost of a barrel of oil.
I do not think the minister can altogether avoid his responsibility by saying that whenever a particular section of the oil industry is having difficulty the answer is that it should go to the provincial government and ask for a reduction in royalties. As a matter of fact much of the difficulty that we are having now with respect to the oil industry is because in his recent budget the Minister of Finance introduced a provision whereby royalties paid to the provinces were no longer deductible for income tax purposes. The result of that has been that oil companies are now being asked to pay taxes on an expenditure, something that just has not happened in any other area of the economy.
I sometimes get the feeling that the Minister of Finance and Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are not playing on the same team. One seems to be pulling one way and the other is pulling in the opposite direction. I think the first ministers' conference which took place last week would at least have had a reasonable chance for success had the heavy hand of the Minister of Finance not intruded to the point where the provinces felt they could no longer either trust the federal government or expect from it any degree of fairness and equity. I express the hope that if on re-examination some of the oil companies in Saskatchewan, where they are handling medium and heavy crude oil with a very high sulphur content, can be reclassified, this is something that should be considered.
With respect to the amendment I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Peace River. When I read clause 12 I was exceedingly perturbed. I recognize-and the explanation of the minister has clarified the point for me-that there is a need for flexibility. I know something of the situation in British Columbia where much of our oil goes across the line, is refined, and brought back again. We depend on Vancouver Island for bunker C, for example, which is processed in the State of Washington. It comes through the Trans Mountain Pipe Line, is shipped across to the United States and then is returned to Canada. So I do not quarrel with the need for flexibility. I agree with the minister's explanation that flexibility is required, both with respect to retroactive exemptions and with respect to making rebates in certain instances.
I am not sure that the amendment proposed by the minister is a very satisfactory solution. It will be better than nothing at all, but we have had some unfortunate experiences with respect to rebates, as the minister will recall. I remember it was only a few years ago when a rebate was made to the Ford Motor Company of Canada of $75 million. I think we spent days and days in the House trying to find out why it received this remission, a very substantial sum of money. I recall that none of the other automobile companies received this concession.
Recalling the extent to which the public accounts committee seems to have difficulty in getting data and is always operating on accounts that are 15 to 18 months old, I am somewhat fearful that the amendment that the min-
4976

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
ister has proposed is going to meet the situation. I should like the minister to let the clause stand until we meet again so as to see whether he can find some more satisfactory way.
A number of things could be done. There might be a provision that all remissions that are made shall be tabled in the House within 15 days of the House meeting or, if the House is meeting, that they be tabled immediately after coming into the possession of the minister, and then referred to the public accounts committee. It seems to me that this would promote more publicity than merely sending these reports, dealing with what could be very large sums of money, to particular individuals or companies. First of all they should be public knowledge, published in the annual report of the National Energy Board, or tabled in the House within 15 days of the sitting of the House and referred to the public accounts committee. In this way not only the members of the public accounts committee but all members of the House would have an opportunity to see how large these sums are, and to whom they have been remitted.
I also think they ought to be categorized, with some explanation of why the rebates have been granted. Without casting any reflection upon the minister, which is the last thing I would want to do, the fact remains that this could become a gigantic boondoggle. I am sure the minister would not condone that, but the fact is we are passing legislation that is not just for this minister but for any minister of any government that may sit on the treasury benches. We should be extremely careful when we give the government power by order in council to pay back millions of dollars, certainly hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to exempt certain companies or persons from the payment of thousands of dollars. Surely there should be every possible safeguard so as to make sure there is no favouritism or any squandering of public funds. I suggest the proposed amendment could be strengthened very considerably.


William Gordon Ritchie: Would the minister clarify whether this clause applies in any way to offshore oil that is refined to any extent in Canada, presumably eastern Canada, and then exported to the United States or some other country? I believe a certain volume is handled in this way. Is the oil in any way liable to tax, does the tax have to be rebated, or does this clause apply in any way to that type of transaction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, under this part we are dealing with Canadian source oil only. The kind of situation the hon. gentleman has in mind does arise in succeeding clauses of the bill which deal with the import compensation or the recovery of compensation when the product is re-exported.
I would be glad to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to take a more elaborate look at this amendment to Clause 12, and unless other members have a wish to comment on this I would suggest that we stand that clause and move on to the next one.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have just one brief comment on that, Madam Chairman, and this applies to one of the reasons I was probably a little more willing to accept the clause than the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, although I certainly agree with him that it would be preferable to go the whole mile. We at least have an advantage under the Statutory Instruments Act, and the minister might look at this, in that an order in council of this nature must be one made public, and all orders in council now stand automatically referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which provides the members of this House and the other place an opportunity to examine the orders in council. That committee has the duty to examine all these orders in council to see that they are in accordance with the act. This is a little extra assurance, and I would suggest the minister have a look at this as well when he is considering whether this clause can be improved by the suggestion made.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that Clause 12 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 12 stood.
On Clause 13-Monthly Return of Export Sales.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, Clause 13 is an administrative provision which stipulates that persons required to pay the charge must each month make a return to the National Energy Board showing their exports of oil for the last preceding month, and they must pay the charge in respect thereof not later than the last day of the first month succeeding that month in which the exports were made. I would like to suggest an amendment to this provision which was proposed to me by the National Energy Board and really follows in the form of Section 55 of the Excise Tax Act, with the exception that "board" is substituted there for the word "minister".
The intent of the amendment is to provide a mechanism of alteration in the matter of time. There may be circumstances in which it is impossible for a person to comply within the strict time required in Clause 13(1). This provision or amendment provides the means of controlling the extension of the time limit. I see that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is waiting patiently to move this amendment. Before the minister does that perhaps I should read the amendment into the record, as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 43 on page 6 thereof, the following new subsection:
"(4) The Board may, before or after the day prescribed by subsection (2), specify in writing a later day for the filing of a return or the payment of the charge or any portion thereof; and when the Board has specified a later day
(a)	no penalty shall accrue or shall be deemed to have accrued under subsection (3) prior to such later day in respect of default in payment of the charge or portion thereof for the payment of which the later day was specified; and
(b)	failure to pay, on or before the later day, the charge or portion thereof for the payment of which a later day was specified constitutes a default for the purposes of subsection (3)."
I see the Minister of State for Urban Affairs rising to move this amendment.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I so move.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment carry?

April 17, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Danson) agreed to.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to know whether the Minister of State for Urban Affairs wanted to speak on this.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think the words of the amendment express exactly what I was going to say, Madam Chairman.


William Gordon Ritchie: Madam Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether the oil industry is such that in almost every case the exporter will have his returns accepted, except in rare circumstances? Is the financial pattern of the industry such that the amount is paid monthly following the sale, or does the exporter tend to incur carrying charges, or does he tend to pay the government ahead of time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Generally speaking, the first suggestion has been the prevailing practice.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Chairman, to be consistent let me register my caveat in respect of Clause 13. When this exporter happens to be the government of a province I foresee great difficulties in applying this clause, unless the consent of that provincial government to be so penalized is obtained. I would like to register this caveat, as I have done on previous clauses.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 14-Debts to Her Majesty.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, we have already discussed Clause 14, making the charges and penalties payable under the act. Debts are recoverable by civil process, and sub-clause (2) provides for the incorporation by reference of procedures under Section 52 of the Excise Tax Act, mutatis mutandis, in this statute. Section 52 has 15 sub-sections covering procedure, and this really represents the draftsman's shorthand.


Walter David Baker: Madam Chairman, I take it there are alternative procedures for collection under this clause? These are alternatives available to the Crown, is that right?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The alternative procedure is rather lengthy. As I said, there are some 15 subsections under the Excise Tax Act. Subsection (1) in fact declares the charges to be civil debts, and then subsection (2) provides a rather elaborate procedure under the Excise Tax Act whereby the sums payable and charged, mutatis mutandis, including penalties may be recovered at any time by an action in the Exchequer Court, which in fact now is the Federal Court of Canada, and it sets out the procedures there.


Walter David Baker: I confess that I am not aware of the provisions of the Excise Tax Act, but is there provision for imprisonment for debt?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is provision for recovery. The penalty may be set for prosecution and
Oil and Petroleum
recovery with costs by the Attorney General of Canada. There is no provision as far as I can see, and I feel there is none, for imprisonment in that regard. This is really a civil recovery as though it were a debt due under contract.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister tell the House how he would propose that the Government of Canada could institute a levy and restraint against a provincial government if the provincial government were the owner of the asset?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can
tell you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no purpose in providing for something that cannot legally be done. You cannot restrain from rent because there are no rents due here. You may try to obtain a judgment in the Federal Court of Canada and then, on refusal of the provincial Crown corporation to pay, the matter would be pursued through a court, through the sheriff in a province, because there is no way the minister could move directly himself. The minister would have to proceed through the sheriff of the judicial district where there are assets, either of the province or the Crown corporation, for a levy in execution in satisfaction of the unsatisfied judgment. I would invite the minister, as a lawyer, to tell me how he would proceed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There would be difficulties in certain respects. However, there is no difficulty in proceeding through the Federal Court and having this progress to the state of there being a judgment debt. I think one of the more probable ways of proceeding would be as provided by subsection 9 of section 52, in which it states that where a person is indebted to Her Majesty under this act the minister may require their attention by way of reduction or set-off by such amount as the minister may testify, that is, any amount that may be or become payable to such person by Her Majesty.
The nature of the thing is that there are inclined to be accounts running in both directions, and therefore a setoff. I am not sure of any practical example, but I referred earlier to the case of the customs duties or excise taxes which are now being payable by a provincial Crown. The federal Crown is not without remedy in this regard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would call that an invitation to war.


Walter David Baker: I know the minister is concerned in respect of the answer he gave about the remedy he is seeking, especially when the agency may be a Crown agency or when the federal Crown may be proceeding against a provincial Crown. The hon. member for Edmonton West mentioned the matter of one aspect of collection. There is of course the second aspect which would be levy and execution in the usual way. I have a question in my mind as to whether that is applicable in the circumstances. Again there is the whole matter of garnishee in respect of collection, and whether or not that is applicable in terms of the Crown. I know the hon. member for Edmonton West is not suggesting, and I am not suggesting, that the federal Crown should be in itself
4978

April 17, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
without remedy when under the laws of Canada something has occurred, or a lawful debt has not been paid, provided it has been incurred properly.
I am not suggesting that the federal government ought to be without remedy, but I wonder in the circumstances, particularly in view of this long section and in view of the minister's answer to the hon. member for Edmonton West, whether he would consider standing clause 14 for the moment so that we may see just what these remedies are. I think it is important in the federal-provincial balance we are talking about. The hon. member for Edmonton West referred to it as a possible declaration of war. I do not know whether that is right, but it is important that there not be involved in any statute a reference to a remedy in which there is some doubt that the federal Crown could act when dealing with a provincial Crown or its agency.
I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting the federal Crown should be without some remedy, but I want to ensure that there is a real remedy. If I may put it as kindly as possible, I believe the minister equivocated in his reply in respect of the question. I would ask the minister whether he would consider standing this clause. I am sure it could be dealt with quickly at some future time. Perhaps it could be stood, unless the minister has some references with which he could satisfy the House now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I see no purpose in standing it. There is a long standing procedure in respect of provincial governments and Crown corporations with regard to the Excise Tax Act. It has been established for a long time, since the 1926 appeal case that the provincial Crown is under this particular obligation. I think it is a fair judgment to make that on the whole provincial governments and provincial Crown corporations have a good credit rating; they have paid their debts. The hon. member for Edmonton West in his comments used the expression "an act of war". If it is an act of war the causus belli would have been the non-payment of the due debt by the provincial corporation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Possibly the levy.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, the Government of Canada of course is acting fully within its powers as in the Excise Tax Act, and it seems to me that the procedure is long established. There are some practical difficulties in applying some of the remedies. The remedies of collection, as the hon. member knows, whether we are talking about an individual, a corporation or a Crown corporation, vary in their availability from time to time.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 14 carry?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Clause 14 agreed to on division.
On Clause 15-Deductions and refunds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
clause 15(1) (b) it says, with reference to deduction or refund, that this can be made "where the charge was paid in error." I notice that in clause 13(3) where money is

owing the Crown in the right of Canada one can have a one per cent payment for default. Do I assume that where a remission is made for over-payment the same one per cent will apply, or will it operate in the same way as the income tax department where if you owe any money you pay interest and, if they owe you money, you receive nothing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What we have here under clause 15(1) are the two cases of payment due to mistake of fact and payment due to mistake in law. In both cases there is provision for a refund. I have to say there is no provision for interest running on an overpayment. On the other hand, the over-payment of mistake of course is a mistake on the part of the exporter who will have overpaid in the first instance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It
does not say that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, he first determines his liability and the mistake initially would be his.


B. Keith Penner: Shall clause 15
carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On
division.
Clause 15 agreed to on division.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, I appear tonight to follow up on my question of April 15 to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). My concern is as a result of the bill inadequate icebreaker service. Although my main and specific concern is with regard to my particular district of western Newfoundland, the need exists throughout the region.
This is an annual and persistent problem that I bring to the attention of the government every year. Certainly I have brought it to its attention most of the almost seven years I have had the pleasure to be here, but all I receive is the usual answer that the government will do something about the problem sometime in the future. In this case the minister replied that the government will build more icebreakers when it can pay the bill.
I want to make it clear that I have no quarrel with the officials responsible for the development of icebreakers.
April 17, 1975

They can only do what they can with the equipment on hand. I realize what they must experience when fishermen, port authorities, or freight handlers want their needs fulfilled on a priority basis.
At this very moment the lobster fishing season is about to open in district 11 on the west coast of Newfoundland. As a matter of fact, it opens on Sunday. Further along the coast the season opens May 5. Both these districts include an extended area along the whole of the west coast. They provide for many hundreds of fishermen a livelihood, or at least a large portion of their annual income.
I was surprised when the minister facetiously indicated that the government will provide more icebreakers when it can pay the bill. Through his parliamentary secretary I can tell him with the greatest respect that the bills and compensation fishermen and governments have had to pay over the years as a result of losses to lobster gear and other fishing gear due to ice conditions would have much more than paid the bill required to provide a reasonable and adequate icebreaking capability. It is still the old old story of the apathetic approach Canada takes to the fishing industry. I wonder what will happen over the next two or three months as a result of the lack of protective policy for fishermen. Will we have the same battle, when losses are suffered by fishermen, in trying to recover for losses? The season will again have to start late, with the resulting loss of income to fishermen. The same merry-go-round will persist to the frustration and discouragement of Newfoundland fishermen.
This problem focuses attention on the related need for implementation of an income support program. I was surprised to hear the Minister of State for Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) indicate that it will be another couple of months before it can be put into affect. I feel that he forgot to indicate that the introduction of an income support program is dependent upon the completion of the licensing program now in affect. If that is a fact, the minister's optimism, at least to my mind, leaves some doubt.
Returning to the main topic of my question, I appeal to the minister that some meaningful effort lie made to determine icebreaker needs in collaboration with the efforts of the environment department and the fisheries department in a closely co-ordinated plan to provide an adequate icebreaker service which will support a fast deteriorating fishing industry, something which is the result of this lack of support.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) makes reference to a reply given by the minister on April 15, and if I understood the hon. member correctly he implied that the minister was expecting fishermen to pay the bill for the icebreakers. He shakes his head in disagreement. I hope he does disagree because, in reading the minister's reply, that certainly is not what he said or meant.
I think the hon. member is well aware of the cost involved in supplying icebreakers and the fact that costs in this particular area, as well as other areas in the last few years, have gone up dramatically. I think that is exactly what the minister was referring to in his remarks.
I am sure the hon. member knows Canada has been and continues to be in the forefront in icebreaking technology
Adjournment Debate
with regard to hull designs, propulsion systems and techniques of this kind. The ministry has at its disposal about 25 icebreakers, and it is intended to begin building two more this year. Study is under way as to the possibility of a third and larger one.
I might also point out to the hon. member-and this may have some eventual possibilities for the Newfoundland coast-that last winter the ministry conducted very successful research into the use of air cushion vehicles to break up ice. They have broken up ice of quite a thickness. That is the kind of research that is new not only to Canada but to the world.
The hon. member asked on April 15, 1975, what actions were being taken with regard to the specific conditions in his area. As of yesterday the department informed me that all the requests for icebreaker support on the west coast of Newfoundland have been answered. There have been no complaints due to lack of support reported to the ministry. The hon. member may have different reports but, if so, our staff has not seen them.
I am advised that ice has been broken by the Louis St. Laurent, the Sir William Alexander and the Labrador in 12 different harbours on Newfoundland's west coast this spring and that, generally speaking, ice conditions are far better this year than they were last year at this time. That may not be of much consolation to the hon. member, but I believe the coastguard is doing and will continue to do everything it can to help shipping and to develop the kind of technology that would put in service more icebreakers, or more air cushion vehicles, or whatever, to accommodate this area.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-SUGGESTION STANDING COMMITTEE QUESTION MR. JOHNSON PRIOR TO CONFIRMATION AS VICE-PRESIDENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on March 24 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) if he would make a reference which would allow the Standing Committee on Broadcasting to question Mr. A. W. Johnson prior to the confirmation by the government of his appointment as executive vice-president of the CBC. That request was refused. On April 3 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the appointment of Mr. Johnson to the position, with the very generally accepted understanding that Mr. Johnson will rise to the presidency of that corporation by 1976.
There are three reasons why I want to discuss this question on the adjournment motion tonight. The first has to do with the very serious continuing uncertainty about who determines the mandate and responsibilities of the CBC on a day to day and year by year basis. I realize there is the statute, but there are also various agencies which are expected to have that power and there has been confusion among them. We are all aware in this House of the celebrated conflict between the CBC and the CRTC. The board of directors of the CBC do not know what their mandate is, where it stops and starts. The standing committee of the House of Commons is similarly in the dark. The question of who is to be interpreting the mandate of the CBC and keep it in touch with Canadian requirements needs to be clarified.

April 17, 1975
Adjournment Debate
The second matter is the general question of why important public appointments have to be made in private. The CBC is important to the nation; it can help to unify us or fragment us. Mr. Johnson himself has said, and I paraphrase him, that it is the most important national institution after parliament. Yet the public had no role in determining what action and what set of ideas is going to guide the future of that institution, nor did parliament have any role in the decision. Parliament was explicity excluded from taking any part at all in even questioning the man who would assume the role. I think it is fair for us, as members of parliament, to ask whether the best man was appointed; whether Mr. A. W. Johnson, for all his qualifications-and I recognize them-is the best man to serve that very important institution at this time in Canada.
Since others have spoken and written in other places of his qualities, let me speak about the weaknesses that should have been examined by the standing committee. For one thing his whole experience has been as a professional public servant. He has served in that rather rarified atmosphere in Regina, Saskatchewan, and Ottawa for almost 30 years. By his training and background he is skilled in compromise but not skilled in innovation. There are those who would argue that innovation is needed in the CBC. He has absolutely no broadcasting experience. He has no particular background in other media or in artistic fields which would help a president of that corporation.
One has to pay some heed to the observation of the Canadian journalist, Christina Newman, who in an article in the Globe and Mail wrote that one of the reasons for this appointment;
... has to do with the ways in which he's unselfishly paid his dues to Liberal regimes for the past 10 years.
Christina Newman there was referring not to partisanship in the normal sense, not to partisanship to a party, but very much to partisanship to a narrow view of Canada, a view which happens to be shared by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others close to the Prime Minister, such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). It has become well known that the major reason for Mr. Johnson's appointment to this highly sensitive position was that he learned to get along well with people like the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister and shares their views about this country.
His appointment is but the most recent in a series of appointments to important public positions of people who happen to share the view of the Prime Minister of Canada, who happened to share the Prime Minister's views on this diverse nation. I, for one, representing a region and being an individual, do not share that point of view. I think there is a danger in loading the top command positions in Canada with people who have a very particular and certainly not universally held view of the nature of the country. Mr. Johnson joins Mr. Michael Pitfield and the ranks of new deputy ministers who were appointed by the Prime Minister on the pretext they are modern, but who in reality were appointed because they share the Prime Minister's particular view of the country. It might even be suggested that this was the mode of choice of those people who were among the most recently appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
So here we have a situation where the command positions in a country that is marked by its diversity are held by people whose personal view is strongly centralist and who seem, on their record, to undervalue the diversity which, in my view, must be nurtured if this very diverse country is to survive. This is true of the CBC. All we know of this man who was appointed in privacy is what we read about him. If it is true of the president to be of the CBC, the situation is particularly dangerous with regard to that corporation which can unify this particular, peculiar country only by reflecting its diversity.
These are reservations which I, as a member of parliament committed to the independence, survival and thriving of the CBC, would have preferred to express before the confirmation of the appointment of Mr. Johnson. But we were not given that opportunity. Instead, we were told that it was none of the business of parliament to look into the ideas of the kind of man who is going to guide the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the next seven years. I think that was an unfortunate development and an unfortunate precedent. That was the second of my reasons for wanting to raise this question tonight.
My third reason has to do with parliament itself. If the responsible standing committee of parliament, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, which passes and approves the estimates of the CBC, cannot even question the man whose personal opinions, stemming from his personal background, are going to guide what he calls the second most important national institution, for the next seven years, what can we do? I think this is a particularly important question to ask now, since so much of the power to affect the decisions of parliament has been accumulated by the treasury benches and taken away from the committees.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the views expressed by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), are well known to my minister, to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and, indeed, to the whole House. On March 27 the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) responded to a letter from the hon. member through which he supported the views expressed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on March 11, 1975, in this House during question period.
Further, Madam Speaker, a motion was put to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts to whom the hon. member had been referred by my minister, a motion which would have directed the chairman of that committee to request the government to make a reference which would have allowed the committee to question the government nominee for the position of executive vice-president of the CBC prior to the confirmation by the government of this nominee. The proposed amendment, Madam Speaker, was negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion to adjourn to the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Friday, April 18, 1975