1975-03-18

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

Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-383, to protect the indexing of payments made under the Canada Pension Plan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since January, 1974, when the Canada Pension Plan became fully indexed, a number of anomalies have appeared in various aspects of the plan with the result that the full effect of indexation has often not been passed on to those who are supposed to receive it. This bill is aimed at ensuring that the pensioner, not the insurance company, should benefit from the indexing of payments under the Canada Pension Plan.


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

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-384, to amend the Farmers Creditors Arrangements Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is simply to give to farmers in other provinces of Canada the benefits which the present bill gives to western farmers.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister on the subject of the consensus among the principal elements of the economy about which the government has been talking since last September. Now that the Prime Minister has devoted some 16 days to seeking the missing link in the European Economic Community, is he prepared to devote even eight days between now and the Easter recess to trying to find a consensus in Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the concern that the Minister of Finance has been expressing with regard to increasing Canadian costs and settlements and the danger that these hold for Canada-hence the importance he attaches to the consensus- would the right hon. gentleman make a statement in the House or get one of his ministers to make a comprehensive statement in the House before the Easter recess as to what the government is seeking a consensus about and what the progress is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the question of a possible statement and the timing thereof with the Minister of Finance and let the Leader of the Opposition know.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Having read the letter in the Globe and Mail this morning written by the Minister of Agriculture on this subject, and allowing for the fact that any minister of agriculture who works seven days a week will lay an egg from time to time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I should like the right hon. gentleman to indicate whether he would be prepared to establish a public inquiry so that his ministers, at least, will know what the consensus is all about.

March 18, 1975
Oral Questions


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF POSSIBILITY OF LABOUR AND MANAGEMENT REACHING CONSENSUS ON GUIDELINES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Now that the meetings between labour, management and the government have been going on for several months in an attempt to reach this consensus, has the Prime Minister any reason for believing that labour and management are any more likely today to reach a consensus on guidelines to control inflation than they were five years ago when the government made the attempt and it fell apart? If the Prime Minister does feel there is reason for such confidence, would he please outline to the House why he so feels?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are cautiously optimistic about the possibility of bringing the inflationary spiral under control.


George Harris Hees: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister has once again refused to answer a straightforward question, as he did on the results of his European trip yesterday, is the Prime Minister engaged in trying to wrestle this consensus into some form that can be used effectively, as he has been on inflation, and does he feel that he is going to be a little more successful in this wrestling match?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a contradiction in terms here in regard to wrestling and consensus. It strikes me-


George Harris Hees: You are getting involved now; you had better stick to the simple stuff.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is true that the Minister of Agriculture has laid an egg, it seems to me that some of it is on the face of the hon. member.


HARBOURS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On February 27 the minister told the House of Commons that Joseph Lanza and Delbert Hickey were not reappointed to the Hamilton Harbour Commission because the government was suspicious of their ethical standards. Was the minister's decision based on information provided by the RCMP and, if so, when did he receive that information and when did he act upon it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of confusion about the Hamilton port matter, not amongst hon. members, because they followed it fairly closely, but because the problem was two-fold. There was first the problem of what seemed to be internal corruption, since two persons have been condemned, and then the problem of collusion between the

companies which attempted, let us say, to defraud the government. The matter is now before the courts; I therefore can pass no judgment. Mr. Speaker, we delayed appointments because we did not know whether Messrs. Lanza and Hickey were mixed up in the first phase of the internal corruption which allegedly existed at the port of Hamilton.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that on February 27 these two men were not reappointed-I did not say appointed, but reappointed-because the government was suspicious about the ethical standards of these men. Was that the reason they were not reappointed and, if so, was this decision based on information received from the RCMP, when did the minister receive the information and when did he act on it? It was the minister who did not reappoint them.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, let me go back to what I was saying. The first steps in the case of the port of Hamilton were taken by the board itself and by the city which withdrew its representative, Mr. Elliot. At that time, because the situation was rather confusing, we ourselves had no evidence against Messrs. Lanza or Hickey. However, because of the circumstances, we decided, instead of suspending them, to appoint them for only six months, to find out exactly what was going on.


HAMILTON HARBOUR COMMISSION-PERSON RECOMMENDING JOSEPH LANZA AND DELBERT HICKEY FOR INITIAL APPOINTMENT
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that Joseph Lanza and Delbert Hickey were federal appointees to the Hamilton Harbour Commission, were they appointed in the first instance on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, federal appointments to harbour commissions are the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. These people had not been recommended by me, but they were regularly appointed on the recommendation of the Department of Transport.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, from 11 to 11.30 p.m., I watched the televised account of his recent visit to five European countries. The leader of the government was answering questions from reporters who followed him wherever he went. Does the Prime Minister know exactly how many reporters accompanied him during this trip to Europe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 do not know the exact number, Mr. Speaker, but there must have been something like three dozen travelling with me on board the Canadian Armed Forces jet which flew me to Europe. I think, however, that it is customary to charge them the commercial rates to allow them to travel on board this plane. There must certainly have been something like three dozen when we met on board.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister has just said that they pay the regular fare of commercial flights on armed forces planes. Is the government paying part of those reporters' expenses either for their fare or their accommodation in Europe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check, but as far as I know, the answer is no. I think that reporters not only pay their plane tickets, but also their expenses for hotels, meals and entertainment if any. Mr. Speaker, it is possible, however, that some telegraph services cost something to the government, even if they are paid by the press company involved, but I would have to check. I know that the press gallery has been concerned about the problem and discussed it, I believe, at its last annual meeting.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a final supplementary question.
I understand that the employers probably pay the travelling expenses of their reporters, As regards the CBC, which is a Crown corporation, do reporters pay their own expenses or does the CBC itself pay them? I would ask the Prime Minister to say whether this would be considered as a bribe or a tip for CBC reporters.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must say to the Social Credit leader, that as far as I am concerned, I never had the opportunity to give a bribe or a tip to reporters for the good reports they wrote about me.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, through you I should like to welcome back to the House the Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: -and ask him if he has any magic answers to the difficulties we are facing in his area of responsibility. Could he advise us whether any progress has been made in PSA negotiations and whether since yesterday the government has indicated to the parties any limitation on how long the government is prepared to postpone any action to effect the resumption of grain shipments?
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I thank the hon. member very much for his good wishes. May I indicate to him that the public service falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who is prepared to answer the question.


John Allen Fraser: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, under the circumstances, the government has indicated any limitation, as I asked the Minister of Labour, and may I at the same time put another question and ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to the designation as essential of the work of the grain weighmen so that even if the PSA dispute continues, shipments of grain will be resumed. Is the government prepared to take such action?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I must reply that it would not be advisable at this moment to reveal what is being discussed at the negotiation table. As regards the second part of the question, I take good note of the hon. member's suggestion.


John Allen Fraser: I am, of course, not asking that the discussions be revealed to the House, but the country is asking whether there is any limitation in the foreseeable future as to how the government is prepared to postpone taking action to get the grain shipments moving from western Canada to our overseas customers.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said previously and I will repeat that those employees have the right to strike, and we respect that right to strike. The House has not indicated to me that we should withdraw the right to strike.


John Allen Fraser: Can we infer from the minister's answer that the government has no intention of taking any action, no matter how long this dispute drags on? Is that the answer the President of the Treasury Board is giving to this House on behalf of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my position is that I believe in collective bargaining.


SUGGESTED PRIORITY FOR SHIPMENT TO BANGLADESH- RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEMURRAGE CHARGES
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact it has been reported that the largest shipment of grain ever to leave a port is waiting to be loaded at the port of Vancouver, and it is bound for Bangladesh, I wonder if the minister can tell the House whether this boatload of grain will receive any priority, and while it is waiting to be loaded who will be paying the

Oral Questions
demurrage charges, will it be the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian people?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check into the second part of the question with regard to a particular vessel. The Wheat Board, the railway companies and elevator companies are all prepared to give top priority to the loading of vessels as soon as the movement of grain begins again, and of course those vessels already loading are usually the first ones back, and this is one in that category.


EFFECT OF STRIKES AT VANCOUVER ON CANADA'S CREDIBILITY AS SUPPLIER-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the fact that Canada is losing its credibility as a supplier of grain, and also in view of the fact that the port of Seattle is stealing much of the business from the port of Vancouver, will the government undertake any new initiatives to resolve these labour problems so that we will not continue to run into these difficulties, thereby not only losing sales but also our credibility?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government, of course, is concerned about this issue and the exact initiatives being taken to attempt to lessen labour unrest in this country are more properly discussed by my colleague, the Minister of Labour. But I should say to the hon. member that while this strike is indeed unfortunate and a great deal is made of it in terms of our reputation abroad, it should be pointed out that the United States ports have certainly not been free from strikes. I think in comparative periods they have suffered every bit as much. While I understand that there are those who would damage our reputation abroad by emphasizing our vulnerability, I hope the hon. member will at least recognize that other countries, like the United States and Australia, have been equally vulnerable.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the commitment to the process of collective bargaining, which I think is shared generally in the country, and in view of the tremendous difficulty the government seems to be having with respect to collective bargaining with the Canadian public service, would the President of the Treasury Board assure us that the 35 per cent increase in consultants' fees, at least to a large extent, will go to improving the collective bargaining capability of the government, which in the present circumstances seems to be wanting.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. member is mixing these subjects because I think the latter is completely different from the problem of collective bargaining

with which I am faced. In regard to the other parts of the question, I will look into them.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I might say that the minister is having the same problem. He is mixing answers as well.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday he was asked whether the government know about a possible massive fraud prior to the fall of 1972, and the answer was, and I quote: "I am prepared to say that certainly no one in the cabinet knew."
In trying to clarify this matter I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he is confident that no minister of the government was aware of possible wrongdoing, of allegations or suspicions of fraud or irregularities regarding Marine Industries contracts prior to the complaints in the fall of 1972?


An hon. Member:: Put your seat on the line.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You put your tongue on the line and I will chop it off. Page 4150 of Hansard for yesterday, the second column.
# (1430)


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Churchill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill has the floor.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the current disputes which may disrupt the Canadian Post Office, as they have disrupted the Canadian postal service entirely in the past, and in view of the fact that the Post Office Department is currently running a television ad promoting the use of the Post Office for quick and efficient service and also the fact that we have only one television station in the Churchill riding, is the minister prepared to either have the ad withdrawn or charge the Post Office Department with false advertising?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to discuss

this matter with the Postmaster General. I can assure the hon. member that I think the premise of his question is not well founded.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt, but I thought the Prime Minister was about ready to answer the question I posed. He has been in consultation with the Minister of Transport and I would not want to interfere in this line of questioning. My point of order is this; is the Prime Minister not prepared to answer a simple straightforward question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dauphin.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. As the projected balance of payments deficit has been put at $4 billion, has the minister any indications as this quarter is almost over, if this estimate is still credible and likely to be reached?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the first part of the question. I am sorry.


William Gordon Ritchie: As the projected balance of payments deficit has been put at $4 billion and as this quarter is almost over, does the minister still feel that this estimate is credible and likely to be reached?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the current account deficit is somewhere between $4 billion and $5 billion for the year 1975.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister made any plans to meet the problems of this deficit or does he expect capital inflows to take care of the situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the dollar, of course, still reflects market forces but at the moment we are hopeful that a reasonable balance would be achieved between trade deficit and capital inflow.



OIL-SWITCHING IMPORTS FROM VENEZUELA TO MIDDLE EAST-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines
Oral Questions
and Resources about the growing evidence that some oil companies are switching their oil imports from Venezuela crude to Middle East crude thereby gaining an additional $1.30 per barrel in compensation payments. What steps is the government taking to plug this loophole which according to the present reports of his own officials, is increasing?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of Bill C-32, which is before parliament, give the government the authority to make additional regulations which would have enabled us to have changed the rather rigid system that we have, in effect, based on the estimates. At the moment, while we are taking a look at the possibility of making changes, I think I would be correct in saying that under the Appropriations Act we do not have the opportunity of passing regulations to deal with this, although we are giving it close examination.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. In view of the fact that some 145 million barrels of Middle East oil were imported into Canada in 1974 and this represents a very serious rip-off-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -
when the oil companies switched from Venezuelan crude to Middle East crude, thereby increasing the compensation payments they receive from the government by $1.30 a barrel, I want to ask the minister if he has approached the House leaders of the various parties to see if speedy passage could be obtained to an amendment to the legislation to plug this loophole which is costing the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could correct the hon. gentleman. We are, of course, paying only compensation for the taxes charged by the foreign governments to the particular oil companies. While it is true that our obligation on payments for Middle Eastern crude is higher than our obligation on payments for Venezuelan crude, this does not accrue to the benefit of the individual company. With regard to Bill C-32, I appreciate the suggestion. If we could overcome the pronounced delay that has occurred with regard to that particular bill and put it through, this would enable us to deal with this situation at an early date.	-



OIL-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF COST OF SWITCHING IMPORTS FROM VENEZUELA TO MIDDLE EAST

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the cost to the oil companies for imported oil for compensation payments on Venezuelan crude is $7.10, whereas Middle Eastern oil is $6.15 which represents a considerable increase in the return to the oil companies, may I ask the minister if the Energy Supplies Allocations Board has reported this matter to him? If so, when, and has he made any estimate of what the additional cost to the compensation fund has been as a result of this practice of switching from Venezuelan oil to Middle Eastern oil?

March 18, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will have noted from the press reports, this has been a matter of discussion between my officials and officials of the board. The primary difficulty is in the legislation, or absence of it, which would have enabled the government to have moved to block this particular situation.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and, if I may, I have a brief preface. In a statement made last evening the Solicitor General said that following Mr. Campbell's visit on September 11, 1972 to the former solicitor general's office, Mr. Cameron called the RCMP and the Department of Transport-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -about Mr. Campbell's letter and was told to deliver that letter to your office. Did you receive that letter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has indicated that he had a brief preface to the question. In fact the preface is brief and I think the question ought to be put.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the minister now if he received that letter and the documentation of Mr. Campbell from Mr. Cameron?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this matter has obviously been discussed in committee and it would appear, if I were to abide by your ruling of the other day, that I might appear to be withholding the answer, the answer to the question of the hon. gentleman is that it was directed to a special assistant of mine. I did not see the letter myself nor did I see Mr. Campbell.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a further question? Has the minister seen the letter since or when did he first see it and the documentation, if he has seen it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I said I had not seen the letter. I suppose I should put it in the present tense-I have not seen the letter.
* *



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In asking the

question perhaps I may be permitted to welcome him back to the House and congratulate him on the eloquence and elegance he displayed in the Irish walk last Sunday and his encounter with the Blarney stone last Friday. In view of the boycott of the postal code called for Thursday of this week by the CUPW leaders, and the severe penalties provided for delaying the mail, will the Postmaster General tell the House what steps he has taken to dissuade the union leaders from this illegal action?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no illegal action as yet of which I am aware.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. In view of the Postmaster General's success in Montreal last Friday with the letter carriers' union, would he now meet with representatives of the postal union to give them his direct assurance that long standing grievances are going to be dealt with in the contract negotiation now getting under way?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, they received that assurance from the Postmaster General and the representative of the Treasury Board when that representative appeared before the special committee. The problem of technological change, and the effects of technological change on the inside workers in the post office, were dealt with very adequately by Mr. Taylor between last April and December. If the same co-operation can exist in the future, there is no reason these men should have anything to fear.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Inasmuch as I know of no business where two parties can incur an expense and charge it to an innocent third party, has there been any investigation by the Ministry of Justice as to the legality of charging demurrage to farmers or will there be any investigation as to the farmers right to sue in relation to demurrage charges?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure those against whom demurrage charges are sought are fully aware of their rights with regard to civil liability and will defend accordingly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour whom I welcome back to the House. Has the
March 18, 1975

government entered into any discussions as to the limit of damages that innocent third parties should incur as a result of the right to strike by other parties, or is the government about to establish any limit on the damages that should be incurred by innocent third parties?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate at the beginning that I do not agree with the premise of the hon. member's question. It is not always the workers who are responsible for losses that may be sustained by third parties. It may be the employers. This is a dispute situation. In a dispute situation such as this, we could not get into the question of assessing liability on innocent third parties. That is an inevitable result when you have the right to strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Bar be):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact there are only a few days remaining before Easter, and in view of the fact the minister made a definite commitment to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that he would introduce veterans housing legislation before Easter, has a definite date been set as to when the minister will either introduce legislation or make a statement on motions as to the future of the Veterans Land Act?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, I hope to be able to come forward with a statement prior to the Easter recess.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since farm co-operatives and farm producers of the Quebec area are greatly concerned about the diminishing feed grain reserves week after week, can the minister inform the House whether the Feed Grain Board has taken or will take the necessary steps to ensure adequate supply for the coming weeks?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I met with a representative of the Canadian Livestock Association on Friday of last week. He assured me there is an ample supply of feedstocks for Eastern Canada and will be for some time to come. Our stocks in
Oral Questions
the Great Lakes area are larger than normal. They are sufficient to take care of our needs for some time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that Treasury Board sets the pattern for the escalation of pensions of retired public servants, retired RCMP personnel, retired armed forces personnel and others, and in view of the fact that under the present formula these pension recipients are always falling behind, will the Treasury Board undertake to study this matter with a view to bringing in a new formula to be applied to all of these various pension plans?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am taking good note of the hon. member's remarks.



STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP- GOVERNMENT VIEW OF EFFECT ON PUBLIC INTEREST

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the answers given this afternoon by the Minister of Labour, the President of the Treasury Board and the sarcastic reply by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government has yet determined if the strike that is going on, which is affecting grain movement and shipping out of Vancouver, is affecting the public interest at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about the degree of harm that can occur, particularly to the grain trade. We have considered this question. The answer really lies at which point the public interest becomes overwhelming and should overwhelm the basic democratic right to strike which has been given by parliament to the workers of this nation. That is the judgment this government has to make. It is the judgment that members opposite have had to make in previous circumstances when the government has brought in legislation to end a strike. It had the support of members opposite. The House knows this is the balance of justice which must be reached. As the ministers have indicated previously, we have not yet reached a conclusion that legislation be imposed in order to take away a basic democratic right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions TRADE



REQUEST MINISTER ENDEAVOUR TO INCREASE CANADIAN EXPORTS DURING TOUR OF SOUTH AMERICA

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I understand the minister will be visiting Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and Cuba from March 19, tomorrow, to March 27. I believe he will be the first Canadian cabinet minister to visit Cuba since the beginning of the Castro revolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In light of the fact that our exports are looking far from healthy, will the minister's export effort be confined to metals and minerals or will he throughout his tour endeavour to raise Canada's share in South American markets of high technology products by assisting Canadian business in establishing agents in these countries?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it will be concerned with all those areas; metals, minerals, high technology products and fishery products. I would also like to add agricultural products.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the ongoing assessment the minister and his colleagues are making of the Canadian economy, what, in their opinion, is the major factor that is leading to a continuation of the high rates of inflation in the economy at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that rather fully in the debate last Thursday on the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. This is certainly not the type of question I can answer fully in the question period. I would ask the hon. member to look at Hansard for that date.


James McPhail Gillies: The reason I asked the question was that I read the minister's speech very carefully and could not find an answer to that question. Does the minister feel that in the economy of Canada the cost-push factor rather than the demand-pull factor is causing the inflation we are faced with today?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I think it also concerns the Minister of National Defence.

Since, last Thursday, a Montreal daily paper referred to a very embarrassing climate at the Saint-Jean Royal Military College, where a suicide was reported to have been committed two weeks ago and where scuffles and drug traffic have taken place, has the minister been made aware of that problem at the Saint-Jean Royal Military College and, if so, could he make a statement in the House to restore to that military college the excellent reputation it always had.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: I am not
aware of that particular incident, but I will check with the RCMP to ascertain whether they have investigated or whether they are looking into that problem.



JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ACT


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. Last fall I asked him about plans to redefine the Juvenile Delinquency Act. He said at that time it was his intention to introduce a white paper in March. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House as to the progress of this piece of reform?


William Warren Allmand: We are
awaiting approval of our proposals by the provinces. As soon as we get this approval we shall table a white paper, one which we hope will also include a draft bill.



REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF SHORTFALL ON EXPORT COMMITMENTS-SUGGESTION SOME CUSTOMERS HAVE REQUESTED SHIPMENT THROUGH EASTERN PORTS

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: My question is for the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can the minister advise us what the shortfall is to date with respect to Canadian export commitments for the supply of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker; I could scarcely give the hon. member a precise figure since normal exports are based on the timing of the arrival of vessels. I could give him an estimate of the ordinary capacity of the west coast ports on a weekly basis, but that would not relate to specific export contracts.


Douglas Charles Neil: Apart from the decision of the government of China to insist on deliveries of 40 per cent of its recent contract through the eastern ports, have other customers recently required that a portion of their grain shipments be sent through the eastern ports?


Otto Emil Lang: The story about China having required delivery of 40 per cent of its supplies through eastern ports was inaccurate.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Was it 50
per cent?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Leonard C. Jones: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. What steps, if any, is the government contemplating to implement wage and/or price controls in certain sectors of the economy, in particular in the lumber industry, the building materials industry and allied industries? At the consensus meetings held by the Minister of Finance and others, have price and wage control levels been discussed or mentioned at all?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the
general policy of the government, it is fair to say that the government is not considering at this time any general statutory form of price and wage controls. I do not know whether the hon. member is making a representation or just asking a question.


Mr. Andre:: What about non-statutory controls?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, what is your problem?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Justice suggested a few minutes ago that the Minister of Labour might be able to give the House some information with regard to discussions he had been holding on the subject of methods by which disputes and strikes, interruptions of essential services, might be reduced. Is the minister really prepared to give us any more information about these discussions on this subject than is the Minister of Justice? Is the Minister of Labour prepared to make a statement in the House in the near future about the general drift of his efforts?


John Carr Munro: I can certainly indicate to the Leader of the Official Opposition the general drift of the discussions in which I took part, although I did not attend the latest ones. We discussed with representatives of labour how they see the economic future, what they believe to be the main problems, and we endeavour to isolate areas upon which labour, the business community and the government agreed. An effort is then made to develop some type of agreement as to measures to be taken. I think those meetings have been relatively successful.
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would it be correct to assume that the discussions in which the Minister of Labour took part did not relate to a consensus as to the way in which the gross national product should be divided, but rather to procedures and methods by which agreements could be reached?


John Carr Munro: I am sorry. The first question asked by the hon. gentleman obviously had to do with better means of dealing with work stoppages and strikes; I thought he was referring to the meetings held with reference to the economic situation generally. I might say that officials have been meeting with representatives of labour and business with respect to the particular issue the hon. gentleman mentioned in his question earlier; they have been informal discussions at the official level.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the Minister of Labour to make a statement to the House on this subject as the Minister of Justice has suggested he might do? Is it his intention to give the House any information as to any plans the government might have in this area or must we try to pull teeth as we have been trying to pull the Prime Minister's teeth for several months on the subject of consensus generally.


John Carr Munro: I do not like the exercise of pulling teeth any more than does the Leader of the Opposition.


An hon. Member:: We need denticare around here.


John Carr Munro: I have advised the Leader of the Official Opposition that informal discussions along the lines he has in mind have taken place with various labour leaders and leaders in the business community at the official level. That has been the extent to which this matter has been taken; nothing has gone on from there. In the circumstances, I think it would be premature to make a statement to the House at this time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Nothing has happened.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of a question I put to the Minister of Public Works a couple of days ago. Since that question has not been answered to my satisfaction, and in view of information I was given in Vancouver over the past weekend, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue what plans his department has made to move the premises of the Department of National Revenue in Vancouver? If no plans have been made, what are the deadline dates for making such plans or making this move?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: My
department has made recommendations to the Department of Public Works. I inquired this morning whether those recommendations have been accepted or not but so far I have not received an answer.

March 18, 1975
Oral Questions INDUSTRY



SHIPBUILDING SUBSIDIES-POSSIBLE HOLDBACK OF PAYMENTS TO MARINE INDUSTRIES LIMITED-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to dredging irregularities and to questions raised in the House before-


Some hon. Members:: Where were you last night?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Glad you missed me, anyway. My questions relate to matters raised in the House last week. For instance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce left an implication that he was taking as notice a question relating to certain subsidies granted to Marine Industries Limited and the possibility of withholding those subsidies pending legal clarification of the government's position. Now that he has received clarification of the legal question, would the minister be good enough to inform the House whether there is a holdback involving ship-building subsidies to Marine Industries Limited and what the amount is?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have not yet received an opinion from the law officers of the Crown; it is a complicated matter. But on a contingency basis we are withholding our payment until we have received that opinion.



TRANSPORT


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Dealing with the same matter at least two weeks ago, the Minister of Transport undertook to tell the House whether any departmental employee had been suspended as a result of the dredging contract irregularities pending the outcome of the criminal trials.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, following the question I was asked by the hon. member recently, I have made an investigation and I can say a consultant has been dismissed, not a civil servant- [English]
Pardon me, there was a consultant appointed in the case of the Irving Whale which sank in the St. Lawrence. In this particular case La Compagnie de Richelieu de dragage was involved; it was not accused at all or suspected, but the consultant was, and he was dismissed. That is the only case of which I know.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did try to catch Your Honour's eye, although I appreciate there were many members trying to catch it. I wanted to wait until the end of the question period so I could legiti-

mately come in under a supplementary. I asked an important question of the Prime Minister concerning his prior knowledge as to wrongdoings, irregularities or misconduct regarding contracts with Marine Industries Limited, a subject that has been rather topical and most relevant in the question period. I thought the Prime Minister was referring to Hansard to see exactly what was said yesterday, so that he could give an answer and not leave this rather important question unanswered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As the hon. member knows, the right hon. Prime Minister or any other minister to whom a question is put has the option to answer or not to answer, as he chooses. It was evident, at least to me, that the right hon. Prime Minister chose not to answer this question, and accordingly I recognized other questioners.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that is not a point of order. He is talking about the disposition of a question that is now behind us. There is no way he can ask the House to revert to the question period at this time. In addition, the hon. member raised the matter of a non-reply by way of a point of order, and a few minutes after that put a question which also did not provoke any answer or discussion. Under the circumstances, that seems to me to close the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, coming from Atlantic Canada, I suppose I might be accused of being parochial if I were to try to present some of the problems that exist in that area of Canada, yet I think it is absolutely necessary that for a few moments we do discuss this particular matter. When one looks at Atlantic Canada from the point of view of energy supply, one cannot help but be reminded of Bill C-8 and the total neglect and utter lack of planning on the part of the federal government of this country ever since oil became an integral part of our energy structure.
One cannot help but remember that when efforts were being made to construct oil refineries in eastern Canada, roadblocks were established, for real and artificial reasons, without any real substantiation by the Government of Canada, the result being that these refineries never were built on the sea coasts of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia to the extent they should have been.

Therefore, we in Atlantic Canada find ourselves in the position of being at the mercy of foreign oil suppliers, as well as at the mercy and whim of government if it does not see fit to pay attention to requests made of it by Atlantic Canada. It would have meant a very important industry in the area of Saint John had the government, through its Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, chosen to cut the red tape and allow construction by a very reputable company of a large refinery there. There would have followed a number of vital side industries and it would have guaranteed oil supply to the eastern half of Canada. But this was not to be the fact.
This, of course, is the point from which we start. We hear of discussions concerning a pipeline to be built from Sarnia to Montreal, but we hear nothing of discussions regarding energy supply and security of supply for Atlantic Canada. I think this indicates that the present government does not have the concern of the whole nation at heart as it plans its oil policy.
As one considers Bill C-8 it is rather interesting to examine some of the information published in Canada in the last three to five years regarding expansion of gas sales for all purposes. This information would indicate that while we had a limited supply of gas, we could never, under any circumstance, relax our efforts to search for and develop additional gas supplies in view of the limited period of time that we could supply gas for existing use. Today, no real effort is being made to take cognizance of the statistics that have been presented year after year.
In view of the limitations of supply which are statistical knowledge to the man on the street, during the past five years we have had a chaotic government creating an economic atmosphere in which the oil industry has been unable to see the end of the trail. The industry did not choose to continue on the same vigorous note that had been characteristic of the oil industry since the find at Leduc.
What we find after reading one publication after another is that there is a decline in the amount of expenditure on search for and development of this most vital ingredient of our society. For instance, one graph which was recently published showed that from 1973 until 1975 oil rig activity in this country declined by just about one-half. That, Mr. Speaker, is over a two-year period. With regard to offshore drilling, we find there has not been the same impetus as there was before chaotic government created a chaotic financial situation in which the oil companies, be they native or foreign, refused to risk the investment of their money.
Another publication reveals that the number of wells being drilled in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and the Arctic has been on the decline. Again we have only to go back three years in order to establish this very significant trend.
The financial pages, the budget, speeches that have been made by cabinet ministers, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in particular, disclose the economic reason for the absence of this activity. On the other hand, if we examine such activity abroad we find a complete contrast in those countries which have recognized that they must have oil; they have taken competitive economic steps to attract money.
Petro-Canada
Canada was considered one of the most stable economic opportunities in the world. It no longer has that reputation, nor will it ever regain it if we do not come up with plans which point in a specific direction indicating that Canada does, in fact, want to develop.
We do not have to look very far in various publications to find that in the last five years, let us say, the graph which indicates the consumption of oil in Canada has been rapidly gaining on the graph which indicates oil production in this country, and that we will no longer be self-sufficient as at the end of 1975. These were predictable and projectable items of fact which should have influenced the policy of the Government of Canada to secure our supply and to permit development and research.
We do not have to look far to see what the side effects of this situation will be. Prior to the time that Canada approached self-sufficiency of supply we found ourselves in economic imbalance as a result of trade deficits, which had a very considerable impact upon our economy. Yet while the handwriting was on the wall indicating that the same economic imbalance would be created by any decline in the production of oil or by any expansion of the importation of oil, no action was taken by the government which would have encouraged further search for and development of new sources of oil and other forms of energy. We have, instead, quibbled with our neighbour to the south as to how we would get the energy assets out of the Arctic. We have, instead, dilly-dallied, fiddle-faddled in every way possible to delay those operations which very well might have put us in a different position.
The government should have followed a few of the charts which were put out by the dailies, the weeklies, the Financial Post and by practically every source of news dissemination that exists in this country. It could, for instance, have looked at the chart which indicated to Canadians that as royalties went up, companies both national and international lost interest in the development and search for new sources of oil. The government could, for instance, have taken a different tax approach, but it did not. It could, for instance, have told the Canadian public that the royalties which are paid in this country today exceed $1,498 million, while the royalties paid five years ago were only $235.2 million.
One could go on and read a great many figures and bore hon. members and anybody else who might wish to look at this report and the statistics, but let us not do that. Let us simply say that every indicator of consumption, of anticipated demand, of movement of exploration, seismic and drilling equipment, operations both offshore and onshore, in the past three years should have shown the government that if we were not to find ourselves in two positions of almost equal catastrophe-one being energy shortage and the other the imbalance of international payments-it should have done something to make us self-sufficient long ago, or promised self-sufficiency in the not too distant future. That did not happen.
While all these things were going on, the Government of Canada sought out scapegoats: it sought out the international consortium, it sought out anybody who made a profit, it sought out the consumer, and it sought out the

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
distributor. It attacked everybody from the little guy who puts gas in your tank to the big guy who takes it out of the ground. Everybody except the government was wrong; everybody else was to blame.
I submit that this has been rape by the government, by design and by the change of philosophy of the Government of Canada under the Liberal Party. It has been application of the philosophy that no one but the government is capable of doing the things Canadians need. I do not believe the voting public of Canada recognized this very slow and subtle philosophical change in the Liberal Party. It has had a reputation in the past of being reasonably alert to the needs of the Canadian people, but at this moment in time it is serving the political philosophies of those in cabinet and ignoring the actual needs of Canadians.
I do not buy all the objections that have been raised by various parties in this House in respect of the big corporations, because the Government of Canada has been able to control the ways and means of making sure it knows where every cent of profit in every company in this country has gone. The government has the ways and means to inflict government regulation or taxation upon those companies if they do not conduct themselves in a fashion which could be termed in the best interests of Canada. So all the taxes imposed on the companies do not get you anywhere except out of oil production.
I am just wondering, as I look at Bill C-8, how this policy is going to be structured and how we are going to get the various people in place. How are we going to gather up the expertise? The companies which have developed over the years have tried and proven employees, people who have shown the capacity to recognize formations where these resources exist. They would not be in the employ of these companies if they did not have that capacity. Where are we going to get the people who are needed with the proper expertise?
We do not have to look very far to see the progress of various business operations as they have taken place to know that expertise is something that is developed over a period of years; it is not something you can legislate or create as a business operation. Surely existing Crown corporations have proven this. Surely the method of appointment to positions of responsibility within these Crown corporations has proven beyond question that there is little hope for the success of Petro-Can if it is to be staffed by the same method. Surely it has been proven that the Government of Canada has never had the capacity to select people of this kind to conduct business in the private sector.
What is even worse about this situation is that the Goliath of government may very well, by its presence in legislation, further inhibit and deter the wish of companies presently in business to take the required action to fill the gap that will necessarily be here until such time as Petro-Can becomes the company which the government foresees. I am as concerned about the socialistic nature of the bill as I am about the lag in time when there will be no motivation for anybody else to develop and no capacity for the government to develop in the next ten years. This is a very serious factor which must be taken into consideration.

Had the government chosen to outline to the people of Canada the fact that there are certain aspects of the industry that need help, if the Government of Canada had said in sincerity that it would like to see these aspects owned and developed by Canadians, and if the Government of Canada had followed such a statement by making funds available to presently owned Canadian companies to go forward with this development, even though there might be risk to the taxpayer, there might be some justification for the government's move. If this had been the ways and means adopted to combat these scapegoats on whom the government has been putting the blame for the last five years, then perhaps there would be that justification. The fact is that small though some of these Canadian companies are, they do have the expertise which the Canadian government cannot get overnight and which it needs if this bill is to do what it says it will do. This would have been a reasonable substitute for what we have now.
The government has used a very poor policy in respect of the ownership of our resources because after years of knowledge of the ownership no clear formula has been established by which any private entrepreneur, national or international, would be well advised to invest his capital because he would have no idea of precisely where he would stand. Even if it were on paper, in the present economic climate nobody would know what the government would do next year. There would be no way of knowing whether or not the government would decide to impose a further tax.
Certainly, when the government imposed an income tax on business structures in this country which reduced their profit to nil, or in some cases to less than nil, they were not putting forward policies which would encourage the development of our petroleum-based industries. They may wish to blame it on provinces, they may wish to blame it on luck or anything they like, but their own behaviour has been detrimental to the development of the supply of this vital product-and Bill C-8 will not correct this situation overnight.
As I said earlier, I am concerned about the method and the means of financing this organization. I recall very well the debates that took place in respect of the financing bill for Air Canada and CNR in the last parliament. There was no way in which the minister and the officials responsible were going to place before the committee of the House of Commons the necessary facts and figures to determine whether there was any business justification for some of the moves for which money was being borrowed. In spite of this, money was borrowed.
Will it be the same for Petro-Can? Will we find ourselves, as taxpayers, in an identical position? I wonder about this and I am concerned about it. Will the government, for instance, through its right to buy shares, be able to pour money through the back door of the company to the detriment of the private enterprise which might be left, and then put it in a competitive position in which it will be the sole operator? Is it the intention to nationalize the entire oil structure? I sometimes wonder if that is not precisely what it is, hidden though it may be. The sincerity of the government must be challenged, and it is high time they levelled with us. It is my feeling that there has

been blatant exploitation of the minds of millions of Canadians who have no way of knowing what is best for them except what they are told by their leaders.
I submit that the justification for the bill before us is a group of misleading statements intended to create a climate of political feeling which might make it possible for the government to pass Bill C-8 and thus socialize a large section of our economy. When we do that, we may very well find ourselves not only lacking money for the development of the company but lacking money to buy the oil we will need.
In the name of democracy, this is another step in the paralytic, socialistic program of the Trudeau administration. As usual, leadership, management and ingenuity, characteristic of our own development as a nation, are utterly lacking in the present government. I sincerely hope that some rules and regulations will be laid down and they will become a part of this act, so that we are not writing another blank cheque for a political party to appoint its defeated candidates to find oil for Canada for generations to come.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-8 to establish a national petroleum company. I find it very interesting that no Liberal speakers other than the minister have risen to defend this bill. I think they are rather embarrassed by it. Also, of course, the Conservatives are criticizing it most vociferously, as is indicated by their "head in the sand" approach to the whole energy crisis in this country!


An hon. Member:: It is not the head that is in the sand, but the oil.


Reginald Cyril Symes: If you dig a little deeper you might find oil, fellows, but I do not think so. The point is that this bill has some potential, but knowing the Liberal cabinet and traditional Liberal governments, I am afraid it appears to be mere tokenism in solving the vast energy problems of this country. I was rather intrigued by the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) when he opened the debate on this bill and I would like to read what he said as reported in Hansard:
This bill is a most important element in the government's long-term planning to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet our national needs. It is firmly rooted in the basic objectives of our energy and resource policies which are to ensure for Canadians adequate and reliable supplies at reasonable prices, as well as a direct share in the wealth which development of our resources generates.
Isn't that interesting? There, in a nutshell, is supposed to be the national energy policy; that is to say, adequate and reliable supplies, reasonable prices, and a direct share in the wealth of our resources. I would like to analyse that statement of the minister, look at the so-called aims of the government and see whether they have been fulfilled at all or whether it is possible, under this government, to fulfil those three objectives.
The first thing the minister wants in a national energy policy is adequate and reliable supplies of oil. The first question is, adequate and reliable supplies for whom? I ask this question because if we look at the development of the oil industry in this country we see that because it is over 90 per cent owned by multinational, foreign oil companies, someone must benefit other than Canadians. The
Petro-Canada
past history of the development of our resources of oil is that we have exported over half our supplies to the United States because the oil industry in this country is American-controlled. As a result, today we have a crisis in supply.
If the minister is serious about the importance of having adequate and reliable supplies, a long time ago this government would have told the National Energy Board to do some independent analyses to determine the extent of our oil reserves, instead of taking the figures of the oil companies verbatim; because if the oil companies wanted to export oil, being foreign-owned it was to their advantage to keep telling this government and the National Energy Board that our oil supplies would last for tens and tens of years into the future, to the end of the decade and beyond. But we have found out very recently, through a new National Energy Board report with respect to which some independent analysis work was done, that Canada is facing an energy shortage with regard to oil: within two years we will begin to see problems of indigenous supply and by 1982 we will become a net importer of oil.
If there had been any seriousness about having an adequate and reliable supply, it seems to me a government such as the previous Liberal government or its Conservative predecessor would have asked the National Energy Board to undertake an independent analysis. It was not done and as a result we are now paying for that lack of foresight.
The New Democratic Party, in the twenty-ninth parliament, argued vigorously for something to be done to control the exports to the United States, and because we were in a minority parliament and had some power in terms of votes we were able to convince the government, although it wanted to continue these exports, to impose some export controls. I would remind the House that in 1972 we were exporting 1.1 million barrels a day and by 1973 we had increased the figure to 1.3 million barrels a day. At that time we were exhausting our chief, known conventional oil reserves in Alberta at a rate which was detrimental to this country, and we were able to pressure the government into cutting back on oil exports. This is now a belated and accepted policy to serve Canadian interests.
Because we are now running short of oil, we have to look for oil in more expensive areas, that is, from the Athabasca oil sands, the High Arctic or bringing in expensive synthetic oil. When we consider the past development of our oil supply system, we see that it has been primarily of advantage to the multinationals and their markets in the United States because they have been able to tap our cheap, known oil reserves. Now that we are running short we have to pay higher prices for our own oil because we have to get it from more expensive sources.
The interesting thing is that when we look at the multinational oil companies and their plans for future development of sources of oil in this country, they are still using the argument that to make the development of the oil sands, or the Arctic oil, profitable not only must they have a higher price but they must have the right to export that oil. They argue that to bring it from the Arctic, large volumes are needed to obtain economies of scale; the

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
market in western Canada is not large enough to absorb it, so the oil will have to be exported. Unless we reverse that kind of thinking we will be perpetuating the mistakes that we made back in the 1950s and 1960s by continuing to export a precious resource and not really thinking about the future needs of Canada. As long as the oil industry is 90 per cent foreign-controlled we will be up against this problem and we will not be able to ensure adequate and reliable supplies of oil.
On the first ground, the government has failed in its energy policy to ensure reliable supplies for Canada, and it will be touch and go in the years ahead to ensure an adequate supply. As I have maintained, if we do not regain some control over our oil industry we will still have to succumb to those arguments which put us into this predicament in the first place. The second part of the minister's national energy policy is said to give Canadians oil at reasonable prices. That is very interesting. Let me go back just briefly. In 1972, oil sold in this country at $2.80 a barrel. The price of oil imported into eastern Canada from Venezuela and the Middle East was about $2.50 a barrel. By 1973, as the world oil crisis began to develop, the companies in Canada were able to pressure the price of oil up from $2.80 to $3.80 a barrel. A year later, in 1974, it went up to $6.50 a barrel. In a month or so there will be another first ministers' energy conference and I predict that our oil, which is now priced at $6.50 a barrel, will soon be $8.50.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in many statements keep referring to moving the Canadian price up to the world price which now ranges anywhere between $11 and $13 a barrel. Indeed, the commitment to the Syncrude project in the Athabasca oil sands already guarantees the world price for oil coming from Alberta. Studies show that this price will continue to escalate from about $13 a barrel at the time the plant comes into operation at the end of this decade up to an incredible figure of $35 a barrel in the year 2003.
Will we have reasonable prices under the energy policy of this government? I say no, because the interesting thing about the pricing which I have described for conventional crude is that the cost of production has not increased; indeed, for the conventional crude supplies coming out of the ground now in Alberta, the cost of production in some cases has declined. Companies were quite content with $2.80 a barrel in 1972; today they are receiving $6.50 and because of that consumers have to pay more. Every time one fills a home heating oil tank or drives up to a gas pump, the difference can be seen.
We often think of energy just in terms of heating a home or running a car. We must also remember that when energy prices increase, so do prices in all other areas of our economy. Farmers, who are consumers of the largest amounts of fuel, have to pay more to operate their combines and tractors, which means that food prices increase. If a manufacturing plant has to pay more for its energy supply, that extra cost is reflected in the cost of the manufactured product.
A policy of reasonable prices, as a goal of this government in terms of energy, has failed. I refer again to the previous parliament, when in the winter months of 1973 we were able to maintain a voluntary freeze on the price

of oil products in this country. The government would have been quite willing to take it off that January, but we said we would defeat them on the issue and go to the people and they backed down. We also pressed for an export tax so that the windfall gains resulting from the lower Canadian price would not go automatically to the oil companies when our oil was exported to the United States and Americans bought it at the world price. In that sense we gained a bit of an advantage, but now in this majority situation the government has full sway and they are allowing prices to increase.
As long as we have the situation where one half of the country is dependent on western oil, and the area east of the Ottawa Valley is dependent on oil from Venezuela and the Middle East-because we have no all-Canadian pipeline-we will be in a dilemma as to how to achieve a Canadian price at a level lower than the world price, a level related to cost or a level which, by consensus between government and industry, is to the advantage of Canada.
If we could have a two-price system for oil, and if we could keep the price of our oil below the exaggerated and artificial world level, it would be of advantage to our manufacturing industry wherein jobs are created and it would give industry some stimulus and advantage in world trade. But we cannot do that unless as part of this government's energy policy we have a pipeline to eastern Canada in order to get western Canadian oil to the east or, vice versa, offshore oil to the west.
The Sarnia to Montreal pipeline proposal is really laughable. The pipeline is not big enough to carry the volume of oil that is needed in the east or, if it is reversible, in the west. Another point is interesting, too, and I shall come back to it later. The oil industry is asking the government to subsidize operating costs. We are now at the point, because of lack of foresight and lack of policy, of allowing the oil industry in this country to be foreign-owned, where we are faced with paying higher and higher prices for oil. I say the government has failed on that point and I do not see anything in this bill or in the intentions of the government to stop this artificial escalation in oil prices.
The third part of the minister's energy policy which intrigues me is his aim to have the people of Canada own a direct share in the wealth of our energy resources. I assume that would come about through our tax policies and a fair economic rent on the oil that is in the country, and therefore it should benefit Canadians. Looking at the past policies of the government, I do not see how anyone in his right mind could say that we have had a direct and fair share in our resources. In 1969, 79 per cent of the mining industry and the owners of the oil and gas wells in this country paid no federal income tax whatsoever. To take it from the general to the particular, in the period 1965 to 1971 Imperial Oil, the Canadian subsidiary of the multinational Exxon, paid income tax at the rate of 19 per cent on net earnings of over $1.5 billion.
The Minister of Finance likes to bring forth the fact that corporations are taxed at a rate of around 50 per cent, but look at Imperial's rate of 19 per cent for those years: that was the tax rate, in that period, for a married man with a

wife and two children who earned only $11,000 a year. This is the government's idea of a fair share of the wealth of the oil industry. Another example in the years 1964 to 1969 is Shell Oil Company, also a subsidiary of an American parent. It had net earnings of over $516 million, and did not pay one penny in federal income tax. Not one cent of economic gain through taxes came to this government.
I have given examples of the tax policy of the middle 1960s and early 1970s. Since oil prices have escalated so dramatically in this country, we have a situation where oil companies are receiving record profits. One should read the financial pages to see the figures for the past two years. In the third quarter of 1974 the profits earned by Western Oils increased 103 per cent over the same period of 1973. Gulf Oil had an after-tax profit for 1969 of $45.5 million. In 1973 their profit jumped to $101.7 million, and in 1974 it increased to $161 million, a 60 per cent increase in one year. Nor can Imperial Oil cry poverty. In 1969 its after-tax profits were $96 million; by 1973 they were $228 million and, while we do not have the complete figures for 1974, in the first nine months of that year their profits were $252 million.
What kind of share of those revenues is the government getting through its tax system? I say, very little, in light of the tax concessions given to those companies. Prior to the 1974 budget an automatic depreciation allowance was given to the oil companies. They could deduct one-third of their production profits according to a depletion formula. That has now been changed to an earned depletion with a maximum of 25 per cent-a minor improvement, and rather negligible when you look at today's profit figures. Not only did they have a depreciation allowance in the past, but there was also a 100 per cent write-off of exploration and development costs. This has now been reduced to 30 per cent. It always amuses me to see the advertisements on television in which the oil companies tell the Canadian public how expensive it is to find oil. They do not tell the other side of the story, that all that expense, up to the last budget, could be written off for tax purposes.
The share of the profits from the oil that belongs to the people of Canada has not been accruing to the people, through the tax policy of this government, nor is it likely to do so in the years ahead. Through concessions, Canada has given all kinds of capital to oil companies and in return we have been paying higher and higher prices for oil. The minister says we should be getting a share of the earnings of these multinationals-Gulf, Shell, Imperial, Texaco, etc.-but if he and the government had been serious we would have seen a change in the budget. The concessions in the budget are still there to a large degree.
The other point that we must always come back to is this: because over 90 per cent of the oil industry is foreign-owned, the money this government does not tax does not necessarily stay in the country to benefit Canadians. We find that the outflow of dividends from the subsidiaries in Canada to American multinational oil companies amounts to over 18 per cent. We are often told that the advantage of multinationals is that in return they can provide capital for Canadian subsidiaries to develop resources.
During the 1960s, the amount of capital inflow to the oil companies was only 17 per cent. They are sending out 18 per cent, or more than they are getting through capital
Petro-Canada
inflow. When you analyse the tax concessions in percentage terms for the past decade or so, you find we are paying out about 38 per cent of the capital of the oil companies. Not only do we give them money through tax concessions, but they come to the government for direct grants. Imperial Oil is in the process of building a fertilizer plant at Redwater, Alberta, which was designed by a California company. The plant is not being built by Canadians but by engineers from the California construction company. To boot, by building a fence down the middle of the site of the fertilizer plant, Imperial Oil was able to get two DREE grants from this government amounting to some $10 million. Not only do these poor oil companies which are making so little money get tax concessions, but they get direct government grants as well. However, the minister still says we are benefiting from the economic grant of our resources.
Syncrude is another example of the kind of bad deal this government has perpetrated. However, I have dealt with this matter in other speeches and I will let it go for now. If we really want a national oil company to fulfil the aims of the minister, namely, to have an adequate supply at a reasonable price for Canadians and a reasonable share of the wealth of our oil industry, then in light of past exploitation through allowing the industry to be in the hands of another country, and the present energy crisis in terms of supply and price, the logical step is to have public ownership and control of the oil industry in Canada.
If we follow the pattern of the fifties and the sixties, what arguments can my friends in the Conservative Party, or anyone else, put forward to say that that kind of mistake will not be repeated in years to come? The pattern is there. The crisis is here, now, because of that pattern. However, we still hear arguments that we must leave the industry entirely in the control of the multinational oil companies. If that is the problem, we must find a solution, and the solution is public ownership and control. We should look at oil as we look at electricity. The oil industry should be a public utility, run by the people of Canada through a publicly-owned corporation, for the benefit of Canadians.
I now come to the bill. The Liberal government has belatedly put before the House this bill to establish a national petroleum company. A crisis had to develop before they recognized the necessity of the Canadian people, through their government, having some control over the industry. When you look at the bill in print, you see it has sweeping terms of reference and wide powers. In my short experience in this House I have learned not to trust what is down in black and white but to examine the philosophy and intent of the government of the day. When I see the Minister of Finance listen to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and then start qualifying the degree of involvement that this national petroleum company will have in the whole oil industry, I conclude it will be totally inadequate: it will be mere tokenism as long as we have a Liberal government trying to administer it. In my opinion, this is an attempt belatedly to recognize the fact that we need some public control. However, there is fear on the part of the government to seize the bull by the
4208

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
horns and take direct and positive action; this is the problem.
What are the plans of the Liberal government for this national petroleum company? I do not want to sound as though I am predicting. I hope I am wrong when I say that the same thing will happen as has happened with the transportation industry in this country; this government will end up subsidizing the oil companies in unprofitable areas. Just as our existing Crown corporations run by Liberals tend to subsidize the private sector by taking over and operating the inefficient areas, the multinationals will require the national petroleum company to do the same. The national petroleum company will be given the task of exploring in less promising areas. It will only have minority involvement or control in some of the major energy developments in this country. I therefore conclude it will not fulfil its real purpose. It will be mere windowdressing by only being involved in some insignificant joint ventures, leaving the multinational oil companies firmly in control of policy related to supply and price.
A more positive step by this government would be to use the national petroleum company to take over the largest company in this country, Imperial Oil, and use that company as a pace-setter or model for the rest of the country. In other words, through Imperial Oil we would be able to set prices, exploration policy and energy development generally. With that kind of action the national petroleum company would really mean something. However, I very much doubt that the government will move in that direction. It would be a splendid opportunity for Canada and future Canadians to regain control of our resources; we would be able to set prices, control supplies and hire Canadians to develop those resources.
We have the ability in this country; we have modern support industries which could build the components for any energy development; we have engineers and technologists who have graduated from our universities, and we have the financing available. The only people left with any great inferiority complex are the members of the Liberal and Conservative parties who always say we cannot do this by ourselves, we need the multinationals to do it for us. Surely we can learn from our mistakes of the past, namely, allowing the multinationals to exploit our national resources.
I appeal to the silent Liberal backbenchers to stand up and argue before the minister and the House that we need a national petroleum company with some power and not mere tokenism. To fail to move in the direction of public ownership of our resource industries will perpetuate the sell-out of our national resources. To fail to act meaningfully, positively and vigorously by means of public ownership at this time will result in future generations cursing us for our short-sightedness. This is not the time for half-measures; it is the time for full public control and ownership of our energy resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words on this bill which establishes Petro-Canada. I have noted the rather grudging support of the NDP for a national
[Mr. Symes.l
petroleum corporation. I am somewhat disappointed at the calibre of the opposition offered by the Conservative Party with regard to Bill C-8 which proposes to establish a national petroleum corporation. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) submitted this bill for second reading last Tuesday and articulated the rationale for a national petroleum corporation, we honestly expected opposition to this matter to be based on substance or the approach of the bill, rather than the time-worn and outmoded argument that private enterprise is being undermined. This is what the PCs seem to be promoting. I think the stage has been reached at which members of the Conservative Party should accept the fact that private enterprise, for all its dynamism and strategic role in Canada's economy, cannot meet all the demands imposed on it.
Bill C-8 represents a bold and constructive effort by this government to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet our long-term national needs. As spelled out by the minister last week, the basic objectives of our energy and resource policies are designed to ensure adequate and reliable supplies at reasonable prices and to acquire a direct share in the wealth which development of our resources generates. We cannot allow ourselves to become embedded in an ideological quagmire that will ultimately sink us into economic disaster. Instead, we must recognize that the role of government is going to increase steadily in areas where the private sector is unable to satisfactorily meet all requirements.
The government has always recognized the vital role of private enterprise in the growth and development of this country and it has no intention of curtailing its continued participation in Canada's future. But the complexities of international trade and the gigantic appetite for energy generated by sophisticated industrial societies dictate greater supervision and control of our economies than can be achieved by a laissez-faire approach.
The decision to propose legislation to establish a national petroleum company was taken only after an extensive and thorough examination of Canada's long-term energy needs. There is no point in trying to devise instant remedies for problems after they arise if we can avoid such pitfalls by taking sound and far sighted initiative which will ensure a steady supply of energy on a long-term basis. To be confident of adequate supplies we need to know as much as possible about the extent and mix of energy resources available in Canada. We have reason to believe that Canada is generously endowed with several energy products-oil, natural gas, uranium and coal. However, our present knowledge as to the extent of Canadian resources of these commodities is limited. In addition, the costs associated with finding and producing these resources cannot be known until they have been located. Some will be in the remote locations of the Canadian north or in underwater locations; others, such as the oil sands of Alberta or the heavy oils of Saskatchewan and Alberta, require the development of new technology to permit extraction of the larger potentials of these resources.
Success in finding large amounts of oil, gas and uranium will permit Canadians to have confidence in the security
March 18, 1975

of their energy supplies and permit the holding of a level of resources adequate to ensure long-term Canadian needs. The government has taken numerous steps over the years to encourage exploration for these reasons. The investment climate in the industry was supported by our national oil policy ensuring the opportunity to sell Canadian output in Canadian markets. Tax or royalty policies have been framed with the objective of balancing investment incentives and a sharing of the profits of the sale of these resources.
The government has, in recent years, prohibited increased export commitments in natural gas and has limited the export of oil and petroleum products to ensure adequate supplies for Canadian needs. The government has recently indicated its intention to see to the building of a pipeline to Montreal to carry Canadian crude oil to this market which currently depends virtually entirely on imported petroleum.
The federal government has also made numerous investments in energy industries. Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. has explored for uranium; Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has developed a successful technology for nuclear electricity generation; Panarctic Oils Ltd. has explored for oil and gas in the Arctic Islands in a joint venture between the Government of Canada and several private firms. These, along with the recently announced Syncrude project, are the most prominent examples of federal investments to develop energy capacity for Canadians.
A large amount of money is needed to carry out further exploration. This work must be done over the coming few tears to locate additional reserves to be made available to the market as the presently known reserves begin to fall short of Canadian needs. The territory which is regarded as promising is vast. The task is a large one. Canadian petroleum resources are known to include a vast potential in the oil sands and heavy oils. There remain, however, significant technological advances to be achieved if the largest portion of these resources is to be extracted.
The government is anxious to ensure that exploration and research activities are undertaken in the expectation that they will yield quantities of oil and gas which are comfortably sufficient for projected Canadian needs over the short and long term. If the resource base proves to be large, it would be our aim to develop as much of these assets as is compatible with our goals for industrial development, employment and high income levels as well as those of security of supply, regional development and environmental protection.
The present prospects for substantial reserves being found are high. The results of drillings to date in the north and of other geological and geophysical work are promising, particularly with respect to natural gas. Similarly, eastern offshore exploratory work has located some gas but not yet in commercially viable quantities. The exploratory work is dependent on the investment decisions of private firms in the industry. These firms quite properly look to the immediate production of resources they discover in order to realize returns on their investment. The holding of significant reserves which would provide a longer period of protection for projected Canadian needs is more properly a public responsibility.
Petro-Canada
The national petroleum company will be empowered to undertake some exploration in Canadian frontier regions and to participate in the funding of research into oil sands and heavy oil production. This company will also be available to stimulate further exploration in the frontier regions. The large job of satisfactorily exploring these areas can be accelerated by the participation of this agency of government. The fuller information on Canadian energy resources and their costs which this should provide will make easier the task of formulating public policy in energy. With this information we will be able to decide more confidently on the acceptable rate of production. The government will be able to avoid an unreasonable increase in prices dictated by a few producing countries prepared to make political use of their oil production. In addition, to its own activities and success, this company will receive for the Canadian public a share of the wealth created by these resources.
In its exploration activities, the corporation will seek to stimulate activity by entering into joint ventures with private firms or by entering into other relationships appropriate to this industry. In this way, smaller Canadian ventures which currently find it difficult to sustain the costly and lengthy exploration effort will be able to participate with others and with a national petroleum company in this work.
In view of the significance which new technological developments in oil sands and heavy oils would have for petroleum supply in Canada, the government is prepared to share the financial burden of this research and development. With respect to the oil sands, this research and development will be undertaken co-operatively with the province of Alberta and those companies in the private sector which have an interest in such work. Federal participation will be accomplished through the national petroleum company so that it can participate in the making of new technology available with benefits for Canadians.
Research is also called for in the development of a capability to extract heavy oils from the deposits in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In addition, the government would want to encourage other promising research into fuels technology. The national petroleum company could stimulate, support and participate in such research.
The government looks to this corporation to help contribute to an increased Canadian presence in the petroleum exploration business. Foreign investment in this effort has not been and will not be refused where it is compatible with Canadian interests. Nevertheless, Canada has the financial and other resources to play a more significant role in the exploration for and development of its petroleum resources. This corporation could add to the Canadian presence by its operations and could seek to operate jointly with Canadian and foreign firms undertaking exploratory activity in Canada.
The exploration and research roles of the national petroleum company would, therefore, have several objectives; first, to advance the definition of the Canadian energy resource base; second, to hold reserves adequate to ensure Canadian security of supply; third, to stimulate the
28996-61%

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
private sector to further exploration and research work by means of joint ventures; fourth, to permit energy policies to be formulated with fuller knowledge of the volume and cost of Canadian energy resources; fifth, to achieve a greater Canadian presence and acquire a share of the wealth accruing to investors in the petroleum industry; and sixth, to help stimulate improved technology in the production and use of energy from whatever sources are most appropriate.
I should make clear that commitments of this sort are not free from risk. We do, however, have confidence in the Canadian resource potential, and Petro-Canada will be an important instrument in its development. I should also point out that results cannot be expected overnight. This marks the beginning of what will inevitably be a long road marked by successes and disappointments, but contributing in the end to both Canadian income and security of supply.
In this general task of exploration and research for the identification of Canadian energy reserves there is considerable opportunity for all those interested to play a part. The area is vast, the demand for petroleum is large and increasing, and Canadian policy supports balanced development under appropriate safeguards of Canadian interests. The national petroleum company will contribute, along with the present and future investors, to these developments.
Turning now from the development of Canadian resources, an important role may develop for the national petroleum company in the importing of foreign petroleum. While steps are being taken to move Canadian crude to Montreal to supply some of this market, we will continue to look to foreign production to fill a portion of our national petroleum needs. It is, therefore, of considerable importance that all possible steps be taken to achieve the greatest possible security of those imported supplies.
The government may be able to play an important role in purchasing petroleum and petroleum products from foreign markets. The international petroleum markets have been changing and foreign supplies are increasingly in the hands of the governments of producing countries. It is the government's intention to equip itself to deal with these and other suppliers where they are able to provide secure supplies for Canadian needs. The national petroleum company will, if the need arises, operate in international markets as a purchaser of petroleum.
The federal government has long been active in energy industries. The government currently owns an uranium exploration company, Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., an uranium holding company, Uranium Canada Ltd., a 45 per cent interest in a company engaged in exploration in the Arctic Islands, Panarctic Oils Ltd., and a coal deposit in British Columbia, namely, Dominion Coal block which accounts for something like 10 per cent of Canada's entire reserves of coal. These ventures all involve raw materials which are used to produce energy.
Energy sources are interchangeable in many uses. Homes can be heated, for example, by energy in the form of electricity, oil, gas or coal. Electricity can be generated from water power or from oil, gas or coal-fueled turbines. Nuclear reactors using uranium in the Canadian developed CANDU process have proven highly successful in the

generation of electricity. This interchangeability will be effected over time by new technological developments and by the costs involved in using one or other of these energy sources in different applications.
Whether under public or private direction, a significant part of Canadian economic activity is located in energy-producing activities. The largest part of this production is vital to other Canadian industrial activities and to the support of the Canadian lifestyle. With its rigorous climate, vast geography and traditionally high living standards, Canada takes a special economic interest in its energy sector. The government has always recognized the special status of this industry. The creation of the national petroleum company will add to the instruments available to the Government of Canada to advance Canadian interests in secure and adequate energy supplies and in the sharing of the wealth which Canadian resource endowments make possible.
I am certainly pleased that this bill has been endorsed by some members of the opposition. I think it is reasonable to expect that the rest of the opposition will recognize the need for this kind of legislation so that the government can better promote long-term energy supplies for the benefit of all Canadians.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the primary objective of Bill C-8 is to establish a Crown-owned petroleum company within the petroleum industry. In this bill, Petro-Canada is given the authority to explore, develop and exploit hydrocarbon deposits within and without Canada; to carry out research and development projects related to hydrocarbons in other fields; to engage in exploration, production, distribution, refining and marketing of fuel; and, finally, to negotiate for and acquire petroleum products from abroad.
In other words, this bill will give this Crown corporation authority to do everything and anything related to the petroleum industry, from filling gas tanks, changing tires, to running seismic surveys in the South China Sea. No government agency should be given this kind of authority to waste the taxpayers' money; we would be shirking our responsibility if we permitted them to do so. We in this party are opposed to this concept. We are opposed to the establishment of Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation with authority granted to it by this bill. We are opposed for a great number of reasons, but five of the major ones are: first, and probably most important, it simply is not needed; second it is going to be very costly to the taxpayers of Canada, and Lord knows, when filling out income tax returns at this time of year all taxpayers become aware that they are already overtaxed. We need less calls upon our money, not more, and this particular call will be virtually a money sump in terms of expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.
The third reason is that it could, and likely will, be harmful to the existing industry, and rather than aiding our supply situation will in fact exacerbate it, resulting in diminished security of supply for Canadians instead of enhanced security of supply. The fourth reason is that it will deflect public and official attention away from what is the major and significant problem in energy supply in this country, namely, the total lack of a national energy policy. The government's remedy of creating a Crown
March 18, 1975

corporation so that it will not have to bother addressing itself to this problem or to finding solutions is totally unsatisfactory.
The fifth reason is simply that there are better ways of accomplishing all of the intended goals of Petro-Canada, and indeed of lot of other goals that are not set out as intended goals for Petro-Canada but which should be the intended goals of a rational, national energy policy.
As to the question of whether a national petroleum company is needed, one really need look no further than the government's own document to which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) referred last Wednesday when speaking on second reading of this bill. He claimed it was published by himself, and I suppose it was, in July, 1973. It contains an extensive discussion of the pros and cons of a national petroleum company in pages 186 to 191 inclusive.
In his comments on this document last Wednesday during the discussion on a national petroleum company, the minister indicated that the arguments pro and con roughly balanced out. That is hogwash. They balance out numerically only in that there are ten reasons for, and nine against. If one looks at the document, examines it and reads the arguments with the least bit of objectivity, he cannot help but reach the conclusion that a national petroleum company is not needed nor is it desirable.
The minister indicated in his remarks that although this report did not in fact come out in favour of a national petroleum company, events subsequent to its publication have caused him to change his mind. I would ask, how much subsequent to that does he mean? In a speech on October 25, 1973, about four months after this document was published, the minister more or less indicated to the House that he had decided in favour of a national petroleum company. One cannot help but reach the conclusion that the minister decided for his own reasons, philosophical or whatever, that a national petroleum company was to be created. He decided he was going to build this empire as one of his accomplishments, perhaps with which to launch his leadership bid upon the retirement of the present leader of the Liberal Party. Who knows why he wanted to create this empire? The fact is that his own document, which I commend to him for reading, states that there is no reason for a national petroleum company because it is not needed.


An hon. Member:: He wants to be another Pickersgill.


Harvie Andre: I did commend officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources when they initially published this document. On many occasions since I have commended this document to members opposite and I would suggest that they and the minister should read it. A lot of time and money has gone into its preparation and it contains a lot of good advice. It has come out under the minister's signature, so will hon. members please read the darn thing and follow its advice, instead of floundering around wasting the taxpayers' money and putting our future security in jeopardy?
What are the reasons or arguments pro and con given in this document? As I said, they come out roughly equal
Petro-Canada
numerically, but anyone who looks at them objectively will find that the reasons pro are very thin indeed. For example, it states as argument number one that probably the greatest advantage of a national petroleum company is the social benefit to Canadians in pride, satisfaction and confidence in owning part of the petroleum industry operating in Canada. I suggest we can have that same sense of pride in Petro-Can that we now all have in the Post Office and those other great examples of efficient and smooth-operating government operations. What a lot of poppycock! Ask any Canadian which railway company fills him with pride, the CNR or the CPR.


An hon. Member:: The CNR.


Harvie Andre: You had better read Pierre Berton's book. Does Air Canada fill us full of pride? Every experienced traveller that I know of tries to fly CP. Let us consider that successful Crown corporation, Polymer. The most successful part of its operations are international, with headquarters in Belgium. This Crown corporation has its international headquarters in Belgium because it finds the tax and fiscal regime in Canada oppressive. Compare Polymer with CIL an other Canadian company of roughly the same size in terms of capitalization, to see which one out-performs the other.
The Canada Development Corporation is another great Crown corporation that will fill us all full of pride. It recently moved its headquarters to The Netherlands because it could not operate under Canada's tax and fiscal regime. This would be almost laughable if it were not so sad and did not cost Canadian taxpayers so much in terms of money and pride. Anybody who looks at it must feel a little sick to realize that a Crown corporation like the Canada Development Corporation must move to The Netherlands to find a tax regime which will allow it to operate at a profit. This is incredible.
The second reason given in this document for establishing a national petroleum company is that there is a need to increase the level of knowledge of all phases of the operation of the petroleum industry. Whose level of knowledge does that speak of? Clearly, it is the government's. I cannot argue with the suggestion that the government's level of knowledge is insufficient, because that has been amply demonstrated to us. What this amounts to is an admission of incompetence.
With the many hundreds, even thousands of advisers in this huge pyramid behind the minister, they come out with the admission that they really do not have any knowledge of the oil industry. Is this the only way they can gain knowledge, by going into the oil business? As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said at one time in the House, and I paraphrase him, he had never laid an egg but he did not have to be a hen to know how to make an omelette. He said that in reply to the challenge that he had no knowledge about a subject, and his reply is precisely applicable in this situation.
If the government lacks knowledge, then, for goodness sake, it should fire the individuals who are currently responsible for gathering that knowledge, because there is no reason for them to lack knowledge about any aspect of the oil industry. It is one of the most regulated industries

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
in the world. Companies cannot get permits without applications to the National Energy Board. That board is constantly holding hearings on one subject or another. The industry is regulated in terms of exports. It is not allowed to drill without provincial permits. There is virtually no aspect of the industry that companies are allowed to engage in without getting a permit of one kind or another. Surely this provides the government with all the knowledge it needs.
If there is any truth in the suggestion that the government can get the necessary knowledge by going into the oil industry, then I would point out that the government has been running the Post Office for a good many years so why in the heck does it not have the knowledge to run it properly? Senator Manning, in a speech in Calgary last Wednesday, stated that any group of oil men in Calgary forgot more between supper and breakfast about the industry than any equivalent number of bureaucrats here in Ottawa would ever learn.
The third reason given in this document is that a national petroleum company could play a role in determining the criteria on which the government might base its policy regarding economic rent collection. Here, again, we have an admission of incompetence. This is an admission that in fact the finance department, in coming up with its scheme for taxation of the resource industry, did not know what it was doing: that is what this document says. They do not know how to collect an economic rent; that is patently obvious. We do not need this statement to know that; we need only look at what has happened to the oil and gas industry, the decrease in the amount of exploration and development that has taken place, and the decreasing supplies in proven, recoverable reserves to realize what serious damage has occurred as a result of the government's tax policies.
However, another aspect which worries me more than ignorance on the part of the government is that this is tantamount to stating that the government has adopted what amounts to a socialist philosophy. I hesitate to use that phrase because it sounds so noisy, so extreme. However, I have always been taught in school, and I still believe it, that the role of government is to fulfil certain expectations and certain obligations through its regulatory functions, its function of redistribution of income, and through a variety of activities which it is called upon to perform. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) called this civilization; I say it is the role of government.
The purpose of taxation is to provide funds to enable the government to fulfil these functions. That is why I and other Canadians pay taxes. We are contributing our bit to maintaining the government in the fulfilment of its roles and obligations. However, what this statement indicates is that in fact the government feels that the total income from the economy belongs to the central government, and that its role is simply to split up the income and then see how much will be left in the private sector. The government wishes to leave enough in the private sector and then find ways of spending what is left. This is a reversal of everything I have believed, have accepted, or have been taught.

I think we have reached a very sad state if in fact the philosophy of our government is that they own all the income and have first call on everything that an individual might earn or might gain as a result of his investment, and that we should be grateful for what is left in our hands. I cannot accept that philosophy.
The fourth argument is that a national petroleum company, if it controls sufficiently large volumes of petroleum reserves, will be able to exert an influence on the setting of crude oil and petroleum products' prices. That is a specious argument. The government has prices totally under control. What in the blazes is a national petroleum company going to do? Is it going to fight with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about what the level should be? How can this sort of argument be put forward at the same time as a measure such as Bill C-32 is brought forward?
The fifth argument in the list of arguments in favour of the establishment of a national petroleum company is that such a company would encourage the upgrading and sale of refined products rather than crude oil. We have recently been told by the National Energy Board that very soon Canada will not have oil to sell in any form, crude or refined; indeed, we may not have enough oil with which to heat our homes. So that certainly is an invalid argument.
The sixth argument is that the major integrated oil companies carry out the bulk of their research in the country of their parent corporation, and that a national petroleum company would carry out its research in Canada. That is the first argument that makes some sense. But I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not need reminding that we have the National Research Council, we have a research group in his department which used to be called the mines branch, we have a new energy institute funded by federal moneys in Alberta, we have the Alberta Research Council and the Saskatchewan Research Council, and we have the Petroleum Recovery Research Institute in Alberta. I have named just a few of the research institutes in Canada.
That there should be more money available for research in energy is self-evident, or should be to anybody who has paid attention to the recently published Science Council report. That cannot be argued. But that we need a national petroleum company to funnel the moneys into this research effort is an argument that does not stand up.
The seventh argument is that all aspects of the operations of a national petroleum company would be located in Canada and that we would derive certain benefits therefrom because other petroleum companies have branches of their operations in foreign companies. I do not know how the minister can ensure that the management of this company will have sufficient freedom to operate independently and still guarantee that they will stay in Canada. We have had the recent example, to which reference was made earlier, of another Crown corporation, the Canadian Development Corporation, which moved its headquarters to The Netherlands because it found that it was not profitable to operate in Canada. Is that not an indictment of this government's policies?
The eighth argument is that a national petroleum company would purchase more Canadian-produced goods than other petroleum companies. Again, if it is a commercial
March 18, 1975

enterprise it will purchase its supplies and goods on a normal commercial basis. If, in fact, the industrial situation, the tax situation and the fiscal situation in Canada are such that most companies go outside our borders to find their supplies, the solution lies in a change in the policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford), and possibly of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), to stimulate demand.
The ninth argument is a beauty. It is that a national petroleum company would act to stimulate regional development in specific areas of the country. Can you see it doing so? Will our national petroleum company drill for oil somewhere where we need economic activity, instead of where geologists and geophysicists tell us it is to be found? The definition of the drilling program will be to look for oil where there is a weak Liberal candidate running and to drill a well in his constituency. It is patently absurd to suggest that any oil company will establish a drilling program on the basis of regional development. However, this is not the first absurd notion we have had from this government.
The tenth argument is that a national petroleum company could play an active role in government relations with other state-owned oil companies from which we import oil. Granted, this could be a role played by the corporation, but we already have a whole spate of Crown corporations which could play that commercial role. Now that the Minister of Supply and Services has some experience in buying oil, perhaps we can go to him.
These are the ten arguments on why we should establish a national petroleum company. Two of them hold a little water, eight are patently absurd and two or three are downright laughable. On the other side, eight arguments are put forward on why the establishment of a national petroleum company at this time is not a good idea. What are the eight arguments? The first argument is that it will cost a lot of money. Darn right it will cost a lot of money! This document estimates that $3 billion to $6 billion will be needed to develop the corporation to a state where it is a significant unit within the oil industry. That is a very conservative estimate. A reasonable estimate of how much of the taxpayers' money will be used before this Crown corporation can reach the stage where it can become a significant factor in the oil industry would be closer to $50 billion.
It is downright irresponsible for any member of this House to give a government agency the authority to spend that amount of our money in an activity about which it knows very little, has demonstrated considerable incompetence, and in an activity for which it is not necessary to have government directly involved.
The second item in this document points out quite clearly that this would be a bad investment and that we will likely get little or nothing back on our money when it is spent. The third item admits that it will be very difficult for a Crown corporation to compete with the private companies. That is a fact. The Crown corporation, without special privileges which will cost us money, cannot com-
Petro-Canada
pete with the private sector in this high-risk industry. The fourth item acknowledges the point I raised earlier, that in fact a national petroleum company could be detrimental to the existing oil and gas industry, thereby jeopardizing Canada's security of supply and thereby putting our future and our children's future in danger.
The fifth item is an acknowledgement of what I have just repeated. There is no way a Crown corporation can be as efficient as existing companies. Why should a Crown corporation engage in an activity in which it will be less efficient than companies currently operating? The sixth item is again an acknowledgement that the private sector in Canada is doing a very good job. The minister admits that. If the private sector is doing a good job, why try to drive it out of business? If the private sector is doing a good job why come in with some government colossus which will make it more difficult for the private sector to operate, and which will take large amounts of our money? Unless the government is philosophically committed, as are my colleagues to the left, to the state running everything, why do it? There cannot be any reason.
If the government is philosophically committed to socialism, that is fine, but we are looking for rational reasons. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is philosophically committed to the state running resource industries, and any members on the benches behind the minister who are deluding themselves with the feeling that they are members of a party which has confidence in the people of Canada, and confidence in the private sector, are in for a fall. If they repeat that nonsense to their constituents, they are also deluding their constituents.
The seventh item points out that we already have a number of regulatory bodies in connection with the energy industries, and that there is bound to be a conflict of interest at some time between the National Energy Board and the national petroleum company. This clearly cannot be in the best interests of Canada.
The eighth item is an admission that this question of chauvinistic pride or xenophobia, which will make us get behind it and really drive this national petroleum company to the front, does not exist because Canadians are just not chauvinistic, they are just not xenophobic, and they will not respond to that kind of rallying cry.


An hon. Member:: You want to bet?


Harvie Andre: They are nationalistic, and there is a difference. They are patriotic. They want to see Canadians and Canada developed to the full potential. That is the reason why I am here, but that does not mean I want to turn over all my freedoms, or the freedoms of my fellow Canadians, to some huge colossus operating here in Ottawa.
The government's own documents show very clearly that a national petroleum company is not needed and will be downright harmful. Any objective reading of this analysis cannot help but cause a person to reach that conclusion. For the seventh, eighth or tenth time I commend this document to hon. members of the party opposite. I wish, for goodness sake, that they would read it.


Mr. Paproski:: Is that "One Hundred Ways to
Conserve"?

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada


Harvie Andre: No, not this document. We are still waiting for that one.
It is going to be an extremely expensive venture costing the Canadian public, by the government's own estimate, $3 billion to $6 billion minimum. It will probably cost the Canadian public at least $50 billion, and in the process of spending that $50 billion we will have very little in the way of increased proven reserves for security of supply. We will have very little in the way of jobs and opportunity for Canadians. We will have very little significant benefit.
It does not require much imagination to come up with a list of about 293 better ways of spending $50 billion than wasting it in this great big money sump. It will be harmful to existing industry. To compete against existing industry this Crown corporation will have to be granted special privileges, special opportunities and special advantages over other companies.
There are limits to the acreage available in petrolific areas. If the Crown corporation will be drilling for oil anywhere with no concern about whether there might be oil underneath the ground, I suppose there are no limits, but if it is looking in petrolific areas, there are limits to that, and most of that land is now leased by existing companies, so the government will either have to buy those leases or break them.
There are limits to the amount of drilling equipment, seismic equipment and so on; the corporation will be competing with other industries, so whatever it uses will not be available to them. How is there any improvement in toto if the Crown corporation robs other sectors of the industry of their equipment?
There are personnel limitations. If the national petroleum company hires expert personnel currently working for the other companies, then those people are no longer available to those companies. In toto how is the country benefitting?
There are capital limitations. What percentage of our gross national product will be allocated to the search for oil and gas? Whatever is taken by the national petroleum company will not be available to the private sector. Things will not be improved one iota, unless the government takes the taxes which it might spend on things like old age pensions and invests them in the oil and gas industry. If the government feels it is more important to build this huge colossus than to try to help Canadians, there is not much we can do but try to convince it otherwise.
It is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that a national petroleum company is going to diminish the amount of oil and gas available for Canadians, is going to diminish our security of supply, is going to diminish our ability to export, is going to increase our dependency on the Middle East and Venezuela, is going to make us more susceptible to pressures from overseas and will damage the economy rather than help it.
The fourth point, Mr. Speaker, and the main reason why we in this party oppose this move, is that it is going to deflect government, public, and private attention away from the need for a national petroleum policy. Such a policy was promised at least five years ago but has never
[Mr. Paproski.l
been produced. There has been an excellent analysis of the situation which has the makings of a policy if the government would only produce it. Instead it is trying to deflect attention from the lack of policy by creating this agency.
We must have a policy in order to encourage exploration and development, a policy that will enable companies and investors to construct and operate more tar sands plants. We need a policy that will encourage the upgrading of hydrocarbons to higher grades of fuel, plastics and fertilizers so that we can export a high value product rather than a low value product.
We need a national energy policy that will encourage research and development to find alternate forms of energy. The recently published report of the Science Council of Canada covered that subject fairly well. Regardless of how successful we are in exploiting hydrocarbon reserves, however, the fact of the matter is that they are finite. Eventually we will run out of hydrocarbons, gas and oil, so we have to find alternate sources. The research must begin now and we need a policy to encourage it. It is not good enough to say that we are going to create a Crown corporation to look after the problem. We need a policy that will encourage Canadian ownership of this important industry-not state ownership but Canadian ownership.
The government has no confidence in the people of Canada and does not think that they have enough faith in the country to invest in it. It believes that the little discretionary income we have to invest we would spend frivolously, and therefore it is not going to leave us that discretionary income but will tax it away. That is typical of the government. Virtually every problem in public policy has exactly the same solution, a new agency, a new Crown corporation, a new board-the Food Prices Review Board, the Foreign Take-over Review Board, the national petroleum company-every problem has the same solution. A computer could be programmed to develop that sort of policy, hire a new bunch of people, whatever the problem, create a new agency, give them the problem and then not worry about it any more. The phone book is full of these agencies.
I recently read an article that said there are 60,000 agencies in Italy. One day a man approached one of them in the afternoon looking for somebody. There was only one person there so he asked, "Doesn't anybody work here?" The reply was "In the morning they don't work; in the afternoon they don't come." We are approaching that situation in Canada-no matter what the problem, the solution is to create another agency. Mr. Speaker, even the Liberal Party is going to run out of defeated candidates to staff these agencies.
There is a complete lack of faith in Canadians and their willingness to participate in the growth of this country, or to get together and use their resources to invest in the country and help it reach the levels of which it is capable.
The fifth point is that there is a better alternative. Consider the question of Canadian ownership. On several occasions I have talked about the principal business test in the Income Tax Act which, more than any other aspect of legislation in this country, is responsible for our industries being as foreign-controlled as they are. That one aspect of the Income Tax Act means that it is cheaper for a foreign-
March 18, 1975

er to drill a well in Canada than it is for a Canadian. That just boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand how we in Canada can tolerate a situation where a foreigner can invest in this country more cheaply than a Canadian can. Of course that is why the industry is foreign-owned.
It is easier to set up headquarters in the Netherlands and operate from there, but some of us want to stay in Canada and invest here in order that the country may grow. Mr. Speaker, we demand that the government give us this opportunity and stop creating these new agencies and Crown corporations that continually oppress us. Just give us the opportunity. On that happy note, Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I thank the hon. member for calling it five o'clock. I was just about to inform him that his time had expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) Health-Effect of poverty on children-Suggested consultation with provinces on adoption of food program; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Sports-Hockey-Suggestion amateur associations not sign children to contracts-government action; the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Refusal of corporation to supply transcript of program "Ten Lost Years".
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
By leave, shall Bill C-367 be allowed to stand and retain its precedence on the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East) moved: that Bill C-223 to amend the Criminal Code
Heritage Day
(domestic and foreign flags), as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


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



SOVEREIGNTY SYMBOL


Mr.   Sean@: that Bill C-373, to provide for the recognition of the beaver (castor canadensis) as a symbol of the sovereignty of the Dominion of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr.   O'Sullivan moved@: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House will now proceed to Bill C-203, to amend the Criminal Code (loan sharking).


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before that request is agreed to, and since the House seems to be in an agreeable mood, could there be agreement to move on to Bill C-208 in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) and send it to committee? I think there is general agreement since the bill has to do with Heritage Day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If someone is needed to move the motion, I shall move it on the hon. member's behalf.



HOLIDAYS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-208, respecting Heritage Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
4216

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The House has heard the request of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) that we call it six o'clock. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to give my support to this bill to establish a national petroleum company. The federal government is in a unique situation when compared with private concerns for setting up large scale operations of this nature. The time span between the period of initiation and the full-scale production stage can be appreciably reduced when a venture is backed by the resources of the government.
I very much wish to see the development in Canada of world-scale sized plants producing highly refined petroleum derivatives for international consumption. It is essential that these plants be owned or controlled by Canadians, and it is in this area that the federal government can and should become involved. I am not promoting public ownership of our major industries. I have always been a strong supporter of private enterprise, and I believe that this system makes for greater efficiency. We are presently, however, in a situation where venture capital is not easily obtainable for the purpose of setting up large scale undertakings in the field of energy resources. The development of potential sources of energy is of benefit to all Canadians, and the federal government is fully justified in becoming involved in this area.
I would like at some time in the future to see the gradual movement of Petro-Canada from the public to the private sector of our economy, perhaps through a vehicle

such as the Canada Development Corporation. However, until the company becomes firmly established it is necessary that it be operated as a Crown corporation.
This formula has worked successfully in the past. I would draw the attention of the House in particular to Polysar, a company established by the government in 1942 as Polymer Corporation Limited. What began as an emergency wartime operation has grown to become a major competitor in the international synthetic rubber market. Over the years Polysar has developed diversified interests throughout the world.
Since its take-over by the Canada Development Corporation in 1972. Polysar has continued to expand its range of activities, including the attainment of a 60 per cent interest in Petrosar, a world-scale petro-chemical plant currently being constructed near Sarnia, Ontario. This plant, which will produce one billion pounds of ethylene per year, as well as other related products, will be able to compete successfully with similar companies particularly in the United States, because of the economies of scale inherent in the operation. For the first time in Canada, ethylene will be available to us at a price as cheap as, or cheaper than, that available in the Gulf area of the United States. The success enjoyed by Polysar is an excellent indication of the possibilities which exist for similar success for Petro-Canada as a government-supported company.
An assured supply of energy is vital to Canada. There must exist an organization that is willing to gamble in order to make certain that our long and short term energy requirements are met. Petro-Canada will be in a position to take calculated risks with that end in mind. Participation in such projects as Syncrude and Panarctic Oils exemplifies this type of activity. The potential in these areas is enormous but the uncertainties involved make them unpopular areas of investment for private industry.
The terms of reference under which the company will operate are sufficiently broad to allow it to engage in operations involving all other forms of energy. Petro-Canada will therefore be able to act quickly to take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves.
As conventional fuel supplies are depleted, resource development will become increasingly more costly. A nationally owned petroleum company would be able to undertake research and development programs involving risks and expenditures which would be prohibitive for private industry. I feel this is one of the greatest advantages to be gained by the establishment of Petro-Canada. The refining and marketing of oil and natural gas supplies will be a secondary and less urgent aspect of the company's operations. Before nuclear fusion capability is developed-hopefully by the end of this century-our dwindling petroleum supplies will be called upon to provide the bulk of our short and medium term energy. No time must be wasted in finding and developing new reserves of conventional fuels.
Energy self-sufficiency is a goal toward which we must strive. We cannot rely on private industry, with over 90 per cent of that involved in energy development presently foreign-owned or controlled, to attach more than a secondary importance to this goal. International oil supplies are
March 18, 1975

subject to the whims of foreign governments which may not always have Canada's best interests in mind.
Even while economical and easily recoverable fuel supplies remain, it is essential that the technology be developed now to ensure a continuing supply of energy from Canadian sources. The funding available to Petro-Canada will allow extensive research programs to be carried on. The success of Petro-Canada as a profit making company should be of secondary importance to the object of guaranteeing a continuous supply of energy for Canadians.
One of the most serious implications for Canada of the operation of foreign controlled oil companies in this country is the resultant lack of Canadian control over research and development in this industry. Canada has proportionately little industrial research and development activity, and this is the result of the involvement of foreign companies in Canadian industry. While it is true that Imperial Oil Limited, Gulf Oil Canada Limited and Shell Canada Limited all maintain substantial research and development operations, this activity is directed largely from the head offices of the foreign parent companies. There is no reason for a company such as Imperial Oil, the third largest industrial firm in Canada, with annual sales of approximately $2.5 billion, to be unable to establish a completely independent research and development facility.
Petro-Canada will enable us to achieve this significant goal of establishing Canadian control over a major research and development establishment within the petroleum industry.
While there are presently several options in the energy field which merit consideration, such as geothermal, tidal, wind and solar power, it is necessary that there be a commercial organization capable of translating these possibilities into practice. This is another area of which industrial research and development is an essential component. Over the long term, research should be undertaken into alternate energy forms to enable us to consider using our petroleum supplies solely for the production of plastics. Should the day arrive when we completely run out of hydrocarbons, a company such as Petro-Canada would not become obsolete, as it could modify its operations to enable it to produce the building blocks necessary for the production of plastics. All that would be required would be changing from hydrocarbons for the raw materials used, to carbon dioxide, one of the products of the combustion of hydrocarbons, which can be converted back to organic chemicals through the methanol synthesis process, as has been successfully done in the past. The only problem is one of economics, not technology.
Some hon. members may not be aware of the importance of the plastics industry in this country. We currently consume a greater volume of plastic each year than we do steel, and this industry can only continue to grow in importance.
It is also possible that Petro-Canada, as an able competitor in the petroleum industry, will be a leader in developing an attitude of responsible corporate citizenship among the oil companies. Either by example or through the realities demanded by competitive business practices, Petro-
Petro-Canada
Canada may make the petroleum industry more responsive to the needs of the Canadian people.
That, essentially, is what Petro-Canada is all about- making the oil and natural gas industries responsible to the Canadian people. What is needed is the development of long term goals and priorities in order to guarantee the development of an energy industry within Canada which will be immune to the uncertainties of the world situation.
A central element of the problem of short-term supply with relation to oil is the fact that we will, for some years to come, remain dependent on foreign suppliers for a percentage of our crude oil. Therefore it is important that we maintain a favourable position for negotiating with, in particular, the OPEC countries. There has been a growing reluctance on the part of these nations to deal with large, multinational oil companies, and a preference for dealing with nationally owned companies from various countries. As one of Petro-Canada's primary functions will be to obtain supplies of crude oil, international negotiations will, of necessity, be carried on by the company.
I am certain that the act to establish Petro-Canada will long be regarded as a landmark piece of legislation, one of which all Canadians should be proud. Energy production is of an importance second only to food production in this country, and it is heartening that the present intolerable situation which involves the foreign ownership of such a large percentage of our energy resources is at long last being, in some measure, rectified.
The question of foreign ownership has long been of concern to me, and I welcome this action as a positive example of government involvement in Canadian industry. I sincerely hope that this will be only a beginning and provide an impetus to projects designed to establish world scale sized plants in Canada for the production of high technology content commodities from our vast natural resources. Through action of this nature the government can give Canadian industry the push it needs to break further away from its role as a supplier of raw materials towards a position of being a major exporter of manufactured products.
In reply to those who feel that a nationally owned oil company could not compete successfully with private industry, I would draw their attention to the fact that, besides the United States, Canada is the only industrialized nation that does not have a national petroleum company. As an example of a successful company of this type one may consider the British Petroleum Company. Approximately 68 per cent of this company is owned by the British government. It has long been a highly successful competitor on the international scene, with diversified interests in many areas related to its primary object of developing and marketing petroleum supplies. It is involved in producing many high technology petroleum products, including several families of plastics.
It is too easy to criticize this bill on the grounds that it involves risks being taken with public money. We cannot afford to let this type of short-sighted caution obscure the real nature of the situation in which we presently find ourselves. Few great advancements have ever been made which did not involve risks and the possibility of failure. In this case, however, the chance of being unsuccessful is remote, and the potential for great benefits of no doubt.
28996 -62!^

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Petro-Can and to register my objection to the bill, which I will oppose as vigorously as possible.
Not so long ago an English philosopher said that "it is the business of the future to be dangerous". Our dwindling oil and gas supplies, and the failure of governments to do much to remedy the situation, provide sufficient grounds to justify that statement. According to the National Energy Board, by 1985 Canada will be too short of domestic oil to meet our demands in the west, much less take care of Ottawa, Montreal and eastern markets. This estimate is based on projections of new finds and the development of 500,000 barrels a day from oil sands.
Recent events showed how little government has guided us around this maze of problems; measures seem to be more cosmetic than substantive. The national energy conservation program revolving around voluntary co-operation to reduce gasoline consumption by cutting speed will not be very effective. Voluntary guidelines for lowering indoor temperatures, or consideration of improvements in mass transit or building insulation are, at best, of minor significance. Just a year ago the Canadian government boasted that we have exported $200 million worth of oil. Yet in 1975 Canada will be a net importer of oil. Obviously, we must curtail our exports if we are going to be in any way self-sufficient in oil.
Just what is the point of having a national petroleum company? In this highly controlled industry of oil and gas, controlled rigidly at the provincial level which dictates where drilling shall occur, regulates how much of the natural products may be taken from the well, and what the price should be at the wellhead, regulated once again by the federal government once the product leaves the province of origin, with the ability to restrict and prohibit export sales, the addition of a Crown corporation to involve itself in exploration, drilling, refining and marketing seems to be a waste of time, unless the government intends to socialize for the sake of socializing, and to control for the sake of controlling as a philosophy.
The record of this government in dealing with the oil and gas industry must appear to the outside world as ludicrous. The action of the federal government has been to slow down and eliminate private drilling and production in this country, at a time when the National Energy Board has warned of growing dependence on imported oil, when it is questioning exports at its current hearings on natural gas supplies, and is sounding the knell of supply shortfalls for the latter part of this decade, which may already be too late to remedy.
Surely in our present situation in the world there are much more important things to be done than starting a Petro-Can government corporation that will take years to get under way, and its best use in the short run will be to provide a large number of jobs at the taxpayers' expense.
In the activity of drilling, for instance, which is certainly the beginning of the development of an oil and gas field, in 1974 activity in Canada was down a good deal. This year industry sources are looking for a 25 per cent drop in activity as exploration budgets are slashed. The exodus of

drilling rigs and the people who go with them surely is cause for some alarm, particularly so because many of these rigs that have gone are of so-called deep-hole capacity. The number of active drilling rigs in Canada has fallen to the lowest level since 1966, according to the best industrial estimates, and in every part of Canada drilling activity is down. Whether this bill is supposed to stop the flight of drilling rigs from western Canada and to provide additional employment is not at all clear.
The obvious problem facing the oil and gas industry in Canada, and the reason for its decline, is the confrontation between the federal and provincial governments. With the price of oil at the wellhead at $6.50 a barrel, 20 per cent of that goes to the federal government, 50 per cent goes to the provincial government, and 30 per cent goes to the industry. In other words, of the basic price of crude oil, approximately 20 cents per gallon, the provincial and federal governments get 14 cents. Furthermore, in the process of refining, manufacturing and distributing, the federal and provincial governments reap additional tax benefits-for instance, the federal excise tax plus corporation taxes, as well as various other local and provincial taxes. I give these figures because I wish to make some comparison with another form of energy, that is, electricity generated by hydro power.
We are assured by scientists and economists that the world is probably entering the end of the gas and oil era, and that likely in the future we will depend on electricity developed from some other form of energy. In my hometown of Dauphin, Manitoba Hydro offers quite a good rate for the heating of homes, something like 114 cents per kilowatt. Reportedly this is going to go up shortly, something like a 15 per cent to 25 per cent increase. The cost of heating a house with fuel oil at the present rate, and the cost of heating a house with electricity are approximately the same, with some variation depending on the efficiency of the heating unit employed.
Manitoba is blessed with a large amount of hydro electric power, with a substantial amount still to be developed. Does Manitoba Hydro pay any corporation tax? Of course it does not, and it could not afford to, Mr. Speaker. Does it pay any royalties to the province of Manitoba? Of course it does not, and it does not pay any dividends to shareholders. It does not help to contribute directly to the provincial tax coffers in any form. It does not pay a federal excise tax, and it is fortunate to generate enough capital to expand its operations in order to carry on the business of providing new sources of power.
Even the bonds it must float every year, and usually this is in New York, to develop its plants, are guaranteed by the province of Manitoba, and to this extent they are a charge on the tax base of the people of Manitoba. In addition the federal government has involved itself in providing assistance to develop lines to carry high voltage electricity, to the tune of about a couple of hundred million dollars.
I have no reason to believe that Manitoba Hydro is not a well run organization, but I do think this points up the fact that, in respect of the final cost to the consumer who uses gas and oil, by far the greatest cost is in the form of the tax levied by federal and provincial governments. Provincial hydro electric companies are not able to con-
March 18, 1975

tribute to the tax base and are even net drawers on the taxpayer's purse under certain circumstances. This also points up the fact that the basic cost of gas and oil is much lower than the cost of a unit of hydro electric power could ever hope to be. Furthermore, nuclear power, as far as I am aware, is an expensive source of electricity, much more expensive than hydro electric power is ever likely to be.
It seems obvious that private industry is much more likely and capable of generating the activity needed to provide this country with a sure supply of oil and gas if it is given half a chance. The main stumbling block is the high level of taxation imposed on the industry by the two levels of government. If investment returns were adequate would we find the present exodus of drilling rigs to the south? Of course our neighbours to the south are not that much better off than we, and they are no more adept at promoting a suitable supply. Both nations seem to be involved in attempting to curtail any increase in the price of the producers for old oil, but they are both willing to pay nations across the water almost any amount they ask for oil, and are seemingly happy to do so.
If the price of oil and gas were raised, the companies would be paying enormous income taxes. If the normal taxation structure allowed too much money to remain in the hands of the oil companies then an excess profits tax could be levied. With the excess revenue the government could well institute a much more effective conservation plan, with alleviation of human suffering, particularly in respect of home heating oil. Surely this would have given a better basis to long-term planning and development of the energy resources required in the future. It makes no sense to scrap deliberately a system that has functioned reasonably well and has provided Canadians with a modest lead time in respect of national interests.
The minister has stated:
This does not mean that the government finds that Canada has not been well served by private enterprise in the petroleum industry. Private companies, whether Canadian or foreign-owned, have generally worked vigorously to develop our oil and gas resources, to create transportation systems for them and to efficiently refine and distribute oil products. The privately-owned Canadian oil industry has a good record of technical and managerial innovation.
This, coming from the minister, would certainly seem to belie the necessity of establishing this government company at the present time.
The minister also states that the bill contains authority to explore for, develop, and exploit hydrocarbon deposits within and without Canada, to carry out research and development projects related to hydrocarbons and other fuel, to engage in exploration, production, distribution and marketing of fuels and, finally, to negotiate and acquire petroleum products abroad.
This idea that a national oil company will buy better than a private company will need some explanation. For instance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) went to Venezuela about a year ago. After he left, the Venezuelan government raised the price and reduced production. When he went to Venezuela a few weeks ago the Venezuelan government again raised the price and reduced production. If he makes many more trips like this Venezuela will be out of business. Perhaps
Petro-Canada
he will be able to trade the Orinoco tar sands for the Athabasca tar sands.
There is not much evidence that a government company in the long run will be in a position to negotiate much better than a private company. Provision is made for authorized capital but little detail is given. Many questions must be answered. Does the federal government intend to acquire and lease provincial lands and set up its own rules, regulations and so on? Is this a means by which the right of ownership of provinces will be negated? Is this the intention of the government? Certainly Petro-Can, leasing and drilling within the provinces, and backed by the federal government, will want to be top dog over any provincial authority. Will it even want to adhere to any provincial regulations particularly if ordered not to do so by its federal boss? All these questions must be answered.
Now I should like to speak for a few moments about the problem of our balance of payments and how this relates to the oil situation at this time. A year ago we had a balance of approximately $200 million in oil trade in our favour, and yet this year we are faced with a deficit of approximately $500 million or $700 million. This amount could even be greater, and it is apparent that this situation could continue.
Today in the House the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stated that we would have a balance of payments deficit of $4 billion to $5 billion. Surely this is an enormous sum. Are we to import money? He mentioned he hoped this would be solved by the balance of payments inflows, and presumably by investment money. Where will this money be obtained and where will it be invested? What about the government's plan to control foreign investment and the board which has been set up to phase out foreign investment which is not, so-called, for the good of Canada? Certainly this is a great problem.
The government has phased out all the oil drilling companies and the oil and gas wells it might have used to provide some much needed foreign exchange. Almost certainly we will be faced with the fact that we will have to develop Canadian trade dollars before many months or years have gone by. This balance of payments problem is a very large one which will affect all of us. It will reduce our level of activity. It will reduce the standard of living for our people, or at least prevent a rise in our standard of living.
By this bill the government has served notice that it has no confidence in private industry developing oil and gas reserves. By its taxation policies and by its failure to reach agreement with the producing provinces on taxation, it has shown little thought for the long-range viewpoint of the industry. I think Petro-Can can be considered as a forerunner for the complete takeover of the oil and gas industry by the government. It certainly will not in any way contribute to investment by private or mutual pension funds, the funds on which we rely for investment in this industry. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a good bill, and I hope it will be defeated.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) spoke on second reading of Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company. The

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
weak and misleading arguments he put forward in his speech on the bill indicate either a complete lack of understanding of how to achieve his stated energy objectives, or that the national petroleum company is part of a deliberate grand design to stifle and strangle a viable petroleum industry so that Petro-Can, with the Canadian taxpayers' dollars, can attempt a move into the void created when the private sector is forced to vacate.
The minister's opening words set the stage for his fallacious arguments. He stated that "the national interests now require a significant degree of federal public enterprise in the oil and natural gas area." He also said that the bill is a "most important element in the government's long term planning to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet our national needs ... at reasonable prices as well as a direct share in the wealth which development of our resources generates."
The minister has implied that the national oil company is the answer to adequate and reliable supplies of energy at reasonable prices for Canadians. On the basis of this phony argument, he and the government are deceiving the Canadian people in the hope that Canadians will buy this, and thus support the principle and the need for a national oil company. Most important, however, is the signal and warning throughout the minister's speech that fundamental changes in the free enterprise system are about to take place. The oil industry has in a few short years-and I hope the NDP member and the minister are listening- brought this country from a position of complete dependency on imported oil and gas to its place today where it is the only developed country in the world which can claim self-sufficiency in energy.


Mr. Benjamin:: How come we are not?


Peter Colwell Bawden: We are slipping away, and the British Columbia and Saskatchewan NDP governments are making a contribution to the pending shortfall.
Under a guise of nationalism and security of future energy supplies, this government is about to change, perhaps dramatically, a formula which succeeded at least until the government began to tamper with the marketplace and resource taxation policy. Of considerable concern, Mr. Speaker, is the effect that entry of a national oil company will have upon investment by the private sector.
There is real and legitimate concern by those in industry that, by reason of operating under different rules and special advantages relating to taxation, land acquisition and access to the collective confidential geological information of the whole industry, the Crown company will in a meaningful way further erode the ultimate achievement possible by private resource companies. This simply adds to the long list of uncertainties which face the oil and gas industry. There can be but one result-further uncertainty, further erosion of confidence and thus, further cutbacks in industry budgets. The greater the reduction in budgets by industry, the greater the apparent need for government investment of taxpayers' dollars.
These concerns are much greater as a result of the horrible track record of the government in the past two years. The simple fact is that the government is not trust-

ed. Since future energy reserves available to Canadians will be in direct proportion to the dollars invested, any cut back will reduce our reserves and thus our ability to produce in future years.
In summary then, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that the government spell out in full detail the answers to concerns expressed by the oil industry, for the crisis of future supply would be magnified many times if a further reduction took place in the activity of the private sector. What may have appeared to be a simple step taken by the government could seriously and adversely affect our already frightening energy prospects.
One of the realities of the 1970's is the increasing role that politics is playing in the energy policy-making of virtually every country in the world. In this unfortunate development, however, Canada is near the top of the list. The minister's remarks make it very clear that Petro-Canada will not be an oil company which will simply serve to search for reserves and increase Canadian presence. It is clearly going to be a tool of government which will be motivated by political expediency.
This is obvious from the minister's statement that the company's criterion may be modified in the terms of job opportunities or the development of particular parts of Canada, as he said. It is hard to believe that a national petroleum company would have any significant impact on increased employment benefits relative to existing oil companies unless the minister has in mind additional opportunities at large salaries for future defeated Liberal candidates.


An hon. Member:: That is what the Tories do.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Hon. members opposite may be very glad of these opportunities in the future if this bill should pass.
The suggestion that a national petroleum company could act to stimulate regional development in specific areas of the country opens the door for political abuse in the extreme, and suggests that many money disposal wells will be drilled. The white paper of June, 1973 stated "there are many areas in Canada with a petroleum potential which, for a variety of reasons, are not attractive to the private corporation". The cost of finding, developing and transporting oil to market from the most attractive areas of Canada is already exceedingly high. It appears that the government, for the sake of regional development or local politics, intends to look for oil and gas at any cost with public funds where chances of finding reserves may be remote.
It is a further programmed and planned folly by this government and this minister to direct the expenditure of funds of the national petroleum company in areas that are known to be less attractive areas for petroleum potential. A national oil company that is motivated by regional considerations would almost certainly be expending its dollars where the votes could be bought, and we all know in this House that this is not likely to be in western Canada.
The minister outlined in the House the factors which, in his words, "tipped the balance decisively in favour of federal entrepreneurship in the oil and energy industries". He pointed out that the government's energy white paper
March 18, 1975

produced in the spring of 1973 followed a long period of tranquillity and stability in domestic as well as international energy affairs. He went on to say that since that time changes have been radical. What the minister should have said, if he was speaking frankly, was that on the domestic scene in Canada it was during the long period of tranquility and stability that great accomplishments were realized by the oil and gas industries that brought our country to its enviable place of self-sufficiency. He should have said that during this period massive programs utilizing new technology, spending large sums of money and undertaken at great risk, were well under way in the Canadian Arctic and in off-shore areas of the east coast.
The minister's reference to "radical changes" which have taken place could only have been a reference to the actions of the federal government which, in turn, triggered so many protective reactions and moves by the provinces. It was these radical changes which were handed to the country by this Liberal government that have reduced the level of confidence in the oil and gas industries to its present very low level. The low level of confidence of energy investors today is the principal reason that our country's economic future is so seriously threatened.
As I have said in the House before, in a few short years Canada will be importing over 20 per cent of its oil needs, rising to over 50 per cent by 1985, unless drastic changes are made. I have pointed out to this House as well that the balance of payments problems in the years ahead are going to affect seriously the economic status of every Canadian.
The minister in his remarks on Bill C-8 had made a number of references to the concern of the government about the supply of oil and gas in the future. In fact, eight times in his short presentation he stressed the need for adequate supplies, secure supplies, expanding our supply potential, assuring long term future supply, assurance of supply continuity, and the pressing need for the development of resources. There is something very strange and sinister in the statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He has laid extreme emphasis on future energy supply, but his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), has all but killed a healthy industry with his tax measures.
Somebody is lying about the objectives of the government. On one hand we are being told that the government believes that the national interest now requires a significant degree of public enterprise to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet our national needs. On the other hand we were told on March 5, in the standing committee of the House, by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he sees in Canada at present a healthy and vigorous oil industry progressing toward higher and higher levels of activity. The fact is that the reduction in expenditure by the industry in this year alone, due to the policies or lack of policies of this government, will amount to more than the entire capital of Petro-Can, which I understand is to try to make its funds last for some years. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that just the reduction in exploration expenditures by the private sector this year will be greater than the total capital proposed for the national oil company.
Petro-Canada
The minister as usual made a number of additional wild political claims which indicate how out of touch he is with the realities of the business world. I might say that I have seen very few ministers of the present government who do not fall significantly into that same category.
The minister's comments regarding joint ventures with smaller Canadian controlled firms seem to suggest that the purpose of the joint venture thrust in the bill is to assist the smaller Canadian controlled firms in providing funds for exploration in the frontier areas. Surely the objective of financing exploration in frontier areas could be achieved in far more efficient ways than by forming a national oil company. If the federal government is really concerned about the ability of the small Canadian controlled companies that finance exploration programs, I would suggest that the government could achieve its objective of encouraging these small companies by providing adequate incentives for frontier area exploration. If these adequate incentives are provided, smaller Canadian controlled companies will be better able to raise the necessary funds and continue their programs.
On the subject of frontier exploration, the minister and his government have been promising for at least five years that regulations for the Northwest Territories and federal government lands off-shore would be clarified in the near future. The minister has told me that in the House on several occasions. The land order which dealt with a certain key portion of the rules under federal lands was revoked on April 15, 1970. Thus just one month from now it will be five years. During this time the industry has continued to spend thousands of millions of dollars without any knowledge as to how the corridor lands and frontiers will be treated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about Indonesia, and the British in the North Sea?


Peter Colwell Bawden: The hon. member to my left speaks about Indonesia and the North Sea. If the government of this country were to adopt the practical attitude and the stable rules of the government of Indonesia-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I have had some personal experience in Indonesia, and there is hardly a company in the world which would not say that the rules and the government of Indonesia have proved to be far more stable than the government of Canada.
For the benefit of the hon. member to my left in the NDP let me say that the socialist government of Great Britain has taken a progressive and effective step to ensure that exploration and development of their reserves will continue. If this government were to go even half as far as the socialist government of Great Britain, many of our problems in this country would be eliminated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Pay attention, Don.


Peter Colwell Bawden: In Alberta, corridor lands in the past have been sold back to the oil and gas industry on a competitive basis. The federal government in 1970 declared a moratorium on the issuance of any new permits or leases on old

Petro-Canada
permits, and there has not been a federal land sale since 1969. This is just another example of the 180 degree effort this government is making in comparison with every other government in the world.
Surely the minister should provide immediately to the people of Canada an answer to this vital question of oil regulations. The absence of such regulations, however, is just a further reason why exploration activity is falling off. In case the minister does not know this, Panarctic has just sent to its shareholders material relating to budgets for 1976. These shareholders must by April 14, less than a month from now, respond regarding their willingness to be committed to the next round of financing. It is obvious that supplies to be utilized during the first half of next year must be ready almost immediately so that shipment can be made this summer because of the shipping conditions and ice conditions in the Canadian Arctic. Is that minister aware that absence of action by him could result in substantial cutbacks and setbacks in this company, an important exhibit in the government?
Undoubtedly the most farcical contradiction of all in the statements made by members of the government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is their unwillingness to recognize that since the oil industry began in Canada no meaningful incentives have been provided to Canadian citizens to invest in this important industry. Thus, in the absence of Canadian dollars, exploring companies, both foreign and Canadian, were forced to seek funds and partners in the United States and elsewhere. The high percentage of foreign ownership of our oil and gas industry is by design of the Liberal government. It has virtually assured the continuing foreign ownership which the government pretends to attack at every opportunity.
Considerable emphasis has been placed by the minister in his speech on the creation of a national oil company by the government for, in his words, it will bring to the petroleum sector the social benefits to Canadians of the pride, satisfaction and confidence of owning a portion of this important Canadian industry. I see the minister is leaving. He cannot bear hearing the truth. He cannot face up to this.
Again the minister conveniently overlooks the fact that 150 or more independent oil companies are operating in Canada. A large percentage of these are Canadian owned or controlled. I am sorry to say that many of these Canadian companies are forced to spend a percentage of their budgets outside Canada, and many are being forced to move away. Immediate steps must be taken by the government to encourage the corporate growth and strength of this group of companies in Canada for our own good.
The policies of the government, however, in the last two years have penalized our own Canadian oil companies which form a significant part of the industry. It should be borne in mind that these companies in recent years have done some 80 per cent of the exploratory drilling in the western provinces. But equally as important, they make up the Canadian segment of the industry which is such an important part of the policy which is claimed by the minister to be important to the government.
The best solution for all would be the emergence of independent and strong investor owned Canadian oil companies numbering as many as possible. It is necessary, [Mr. Bawden.l
however, to create favourable tax policies, otherwise this important sector in the industry will be the first to die and the first to disappear.
Our present Canadian owned and directed corporations are examples of just how little pride, satisfaction and confidence have been inspired in Canadians by their presence. Canadians now own, subject to outstanding loans of $4 billion, a railroad, the CNR; a postal service; an airline, Air Canada; the St. Lawrence Seaway; a heavy water plant at Glace Bay; a communications network in the CBC, and a Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is looking after our native people. Have any of these government undertakings generated pride, satisfaction and confidence in Canadians? How can one believe that government entry into the exceedingly complex petroleum industry will be any more successful or profitable than the government's history of action to date?
Social satisfaction will not provide the capital, technology and long term positive energy policy required to meet Canada's energy requirements. Who knows, the national oil company might be as successful as the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: Surely Canadians have had a bellyful as a result of the problems created by the government's inability to handle its own labour relations. Any significant move into areas proposed by the bill, such as pipelines or oil transportation, could leave the country with a problem far exceeding the current mess on the labour scene in Canada. Imagine the consequences of a small number of employees shutting down an important energy artery while bargaining with the bottomless pit of dollars available to the government, which the same employees know is clearly not available from a corporation with limited resources.
The minister gives as a further reason for a state owned oil company that most of the oil exporting countries have their own state oil companies. He goes on to say that the obvious interest to be served, the Canadian interest, is that of importing at lower cost than private companies are able to do.
I defy the minister to find a country in the world which will sell oil to this country at any bargain price, even if the minister's own sweet personality were present on the scene to assist in the bargaining. The minister also stated that such a company would offer greater assurance of supply continuity. Most of the state oil companies of exporting countries have stepped in by way of take-overs of existing reserves which are often projected to have a life of 25 years or 50 years or more. Thus further successful exploration is not particularly critical. Much the converse is true in Canada where the national petroleum company would be commencing operations with no oil and no people, just a government. In addition, Canada has approximately ten years of oil supply left from current fields.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where have you guys been in the last few years? Why have you not been drilling?


Peter Colwell Bawden: What about Saskatchewan? There are two rigs drilling in Saskatchewan. I am surprised that the hon. member from the NDP is not afraid to speak up on this.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not a bit!


Peter Colwell Bawden: Canada has approximately ten years of oil supply left from current fields, and due principally to political actions and interference by this government our country is now working on its very modest inventory against that date projected by the National Energy Board in the near future when Canadians will be forced to go short.
A state company, for the very reason that it is a state company, must bear the nation's nationality, its immigration policy, its trade policy, its defence commitments, and so on. For that reason it is exceedingly difficult for a national petroleum company to play an effective role with petroleum companies of other countries. The petroleum companies, as they are multi-national, are far more likely to be efficient, flexible and businesslike in finding, developing, moving and selling oil. In any event, other departments of government could perform this function, were it ever required. This, Mr. Speaker, was demonstrated during the Arab oil embargo last year. There were many countries, such as Holland, that would not have received their required supply or in many cases any supply of oil. It was only possible due to the flexibility of those large companies that were trading oil, in many cases on the high seas, where swaps and switches were made to keep the fires burning and the industries of the world moving.
How then, Mr. Speaker, should the government achieve its objective of collecting for Canadians their share of the wealth from the oil and gas industry? If a review is made of dollar receipts from oil production since 1947, considerable insight is provided into who got the wealth.
Between 1947 and the end of 1974 the Alberta government received by way of Crown sales, rentals and royalties just over $6 billion. To the end of 1973, approximately the same period of time, the petroleum industry spent approximately $21 billion and received back by way of income, before tax, $21.3 billion. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it has taken the industry as a group almost 30 years to recover its investment and show a slight favourable balance.
Of course there are successful companies and there are unsuccessful companies, and members of the NDP constantly point to those that have been successful. They have not had much to say about those that have not been successful, although perhaps their first candidate may be Saskoil and other associations sponsored by the Socialist government of Saskatchewan. The oil and gas industry is continuing to re-invest and it is likely that this net favourable return to industry will not climb in the near future to a significantly greater positive balance.
It seems very clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the way to succeed financially in the oil business is to lease out, farm out, and utilize every other measure at hand to entice others to spend money on your land, while at the same time collecting a reasonable level of royalty. Something over 25 per cent of the total funds realized by the province of Alberta were as a result of Crown sales of lands which
Petro-Canada
were returned to the government subsequent to discoveries. These lands were offered for sale by competitive bid to all comers. There was no risk to the province of Alberta. Its return of some $6 billion over this period, since 1947, compares to the one-third billion or one-half billion dollars to the oil and gas industry cumulatively. Even to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and hon. members opposite it should be clear how governments, or anybody who holds control of the ultimate land leases, should deal if they have any interest in participating in the wealth.
It is interesting to note that the United States government has taken in something in the order of $5 billion in land sales off Louisiana during the past three years. Some of these individual sales brought in cash bids totalling well over a billion dollars, some close to a billion and a half. In a recent one the total was $1,400 million. It seems to me that receiving this kind of cash on the front end prior to any determination of whether oil and gas reserves exist, while at the same time collecting a royalty and income tax on the ultimate profit, could hardly be bettered in finding a way for Canadians to participate in the wealth, and without risk of taxpayers' dollars.
I read recently about a purchase which was made by a group of large companies in the Gulf of Mexico off the state of Florida for over $300 million. I later learned that some four dry holes have been drilled on the structure underlying the lease, and in all probability after total expenditures of close to $400 million the exercise will be a complete write-off. That, Mr. Speaker, is the way that the federal government should be involving Canadians in the oil and gas industry, by collecting the bonus bid and farming out the leases, but not by taking the risk. This practice has been followed in Alberta, not only under a Conservative government but also for many years under a Social Credit government.
A last but important area that needs to be considered by this House and by the standing committee is the list of powers to be accorded to this national petroleum corporation. Since I have mentioned the costs of exploring in the Gulf of Mexico-and I might say that many areas of the world require substantial advance cash bonuses-I note with considerable interest that the national petroleum Canada company is to have powers to go abroad and operate outside Canada. I ask why? Could it be that the national petroleum company has also foreseen and is beginning to understand that the climate in this country is not attractive to investors with petroleum dollars? I hope that later in this debate the minister will tell us what percentage of the company's funds will be invested in foreign countries.
The national oil company may, according to the minister, participate in the transportation of petroleum products. The minister says transportation is a natural extension to the company's efforts "by assuring that the energy resources it helped to find and develop are brought to the Canadian consumer without undue delay and at least cost". Mr. Speaker, I doubt if anyone in Canada who examined this statement would accept it as either fact or truth. We have only to look today at the significant role the government is already playing in transportation, and to check the record for deliveries. Western farmers have

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
lost many millions of dollars due to the fall in the price of grain during the lengthy period of time when other excuses have been given for non-delivery. This has greatly harmed our international reputation. For the minister to say that the government might move oil or gas without delay and at the least cost is just another exaggeration being presented to the Canadian people.
I read recently a comparison which I thought interesting. In 1956 the oil industry moved by pipeline a 300 pound barrel of oil from Edmonton to Sarnia for 64 cents. By 1973 this transportation cost had been reduced by 25 per cent, to 48 cents per barrel. During this same period the federal postal service cost to transport a post card increased 100 per cent from four cents to eight cents, and the delivery period, as everyone knows, for the Post Office is completely uncertain. Surely this track record suggests that any transportation task anywhere should be kept as far away from this government, or in fact any government, as possible.
The minister was reported last year in the press to have stated that the new corporation may nationalize existing oil companies. This must be clarified in detail, with explanations as to what basis the national petroleum company would be permitted, if it wished, to acquire other firms. How would the price be set, and would an unwilling seller be committed into a forced sale?
If, in fact, it is the basic purpose of the government to increase exploration and development, how can this be accomplished by the national oil company if its funds are utilized for acquisitions rather than for new exploration activity?
A great deal of emphasis is placed in the bill on the powers which the company will have to lend money to persons dealing with a corporation, and to those proposing to do business with the corporation. In addition it will be permitted to endorse promissory notes, to guarantee loans for others, and will have many other such powers. This is even extended to guarantee money for charitable or benevolent objects. This certainly needs explanation for, by some stretch of the imagination, these terms of reference could include the Liberal party campaign funds.
The company will also be permitted to carry on any business capable of "benefitting the corporation or that the national petroleum company can conveniently carry on." This suggests that such a company might in fact go into the cattle business.
I am reminded of the story of the man from Calgary who visited his friend in the cattle business. The friend had a very high priced bull and the city visitor had gone out to see it. When he arrived at his friend's ranch he noticed that the bull was hitched up to and pulling a plough. He was very surprised. He asked his rancher friend why this very high priced prize bull was hitched up to a plough. The rancher replied, "I just want him to learn that the cattle business ain't all romance." I say to the minister that the government of this country will learn in a very short time that the oil business "ain't all romance".
The company will also be empowered to invest in ventures related to exploration, which I presume could mean seismograph contracting, drilling contracting, or presum-
[Mr. Bawden.l
ably the banking business, as the powers mentioned do not seem to preclude the making of production loans to companies which might consider doing business with the national petroleum company. Those who vote for this bill are giving the minister and the government a blank cheque, a cheque which will be drawn on the account of the taxpayers of Canada.
The extremely broad powers of the corporation provide no limits as to where an over-zealous minister or government could lead the country by way of this unbelievably constituted entity.
It is time for the minister to stand up and prove the need for the government to perpetrate this bill, this corporation, and these activities on the people of Canada. This country has been well served by the oil and gas industry. I suggest there is no place for the government of Canada to invest taxpayer's money in this high risk industry when appropriate and more favourable alternate ways to achieve fully our objectives are open to us.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in a debate on a different subject from last evening. However, it is similar in at least one respect. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). We are now being asked to write another blank cheque for those who sit on the treasury benches. I am no more disposed to signing my name now than I was last night.
This is a rather unusual situation. As has been pointed out, we have had extensive labour problems over the past year. We still suffer from double digit inflation, and we are witnessing an ever-increasing rate of unemployment. What does the government have to propose to solve these problems? Nothing that bears materially on them. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) admits that the forecasts on which he based his November budget were all wrong. However, he does not propose any changes in government policy.
We are faced with a series of pieces of legislation that may have some effect on the economy of this country in the distant future, but nothing to meet the requirements of today. The bill before us is a gross example of that. The minister admitted it will take 15 or 20 years for this child of his to reach maturity. I do not know if it will ever get there. In fact I hope it is stillborn. It will do absolutely no good for this country. It can only do harm.
As the hon. member for Calgary South and others have pointed out, among the nations of the world we have been very fortunate in being self-sufficient in petroleum products. That self-sufficiency did not come over night. For the first 70 or 80 years of our national existence we were dependent on others for our supply of petroleum products. Fortunately, governments in the late forties, the fifties and most of the sixties had policies which gave some incentive to the private sector to develop the resources we have been blessed with, and we became self-sufficient.
What is the situation now? The Trudeau government is forcing us into self-imposed shortages. For no good reason we will be short in petroleum products before the end of this decade. The federal government is solely to blame for this. This bill is but another step along that road.
March 18, 1975

In introducing this bill the minister said this is one of the most important methods by which the government is going to ensure an adequate supply of petroleum products in this country. I scoured the rest of his remarks to find out how this will be achieved. I am certainly not satisfied with the minister's bald statement that this bill will put oil in the ground. If it did, I am not satisfied that members opposite would have the wit to get it out even if they put it there themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Something else concerns me. I would like a commitment from the minister at a fairly early stage in this legislative process. Who is going to run this great and glorious organization that is being set up? The bill seems to indicate that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) will be the great Czar over this organization. I suppose for the time being it will be him. We have had other examples where ministers have piloted legislation through this House so they could later get a job at public expense. One need only recall the case of John Whitney Pickersgill who created the Canadian Transport Commission solely for his own self-aggrandizement and the benefit of his bank account.
I was interested to note last fall, when this abomination was first introduced, an article by Richard Gwynn. Mr. Gwynn is generally well-informed about what is going on over there, having served the government in an executive position at one stage in his career. He suggested that perhaps the minister himself would like to be the chairman of this organization. I would welcome some assurance from the hon. gentleman now that he would never accept an appointment as chairman or president of this organization.


An hon. Member:: Are you kidding?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I suppose it is too much to expect that such an assurance will ever be forthcoming. But if it is not we are left with the thought that possibly the minister might not be unwilling to see himself as chairman or president of this corporation at some future date. If it is not the hon. gentleman, then it will probably be that great mining promoter from British Columbia who is now labouring in the Privy Council Office, or is it the Office of the Prime Minister, the man who has a great record in mining in this country, Jack Austin. Well, I would not have any more confidence in him than I would in the minister. I should like to have some assurance that there will be competent people running this corporation if it is ever established.
The minister said in his opening remarks that an attempt would be made through this legislation to increase the supply of petroleum. Again, how will this be done? The minister also said nothing would be done about prices. He did not tell us how he intended to deal with inflation and the growing expense of finding this offshore and frontier oil. He seems to be looking for the most expensive oil to be found, yet at the same time he is promising Canadians the lowest prices. All in all, this second reading speech of the minister's is really beyond belief. He goes on to say that the-
Petro-Canada
-economic, technical and environmental problems of developing energy resources in our geographical and technical frontiers have, if anything, been magnified by the passage of time.
That is an interesting statement. I suppose what he is really saying is that the costs of coping with these circumstances have been subject to inflation, like everything else. But he implies that somehow Petro-Canada will overcome the effects of inflation. Again, I ask how Petro-Canada will do so. Further on in his speech the minister says:
The government does not feel assured that the private sector can be relied upon to mobilize the enormous amounts of capital which will be required to secure energy development consonant with Canadian needs over the longer term.
It is obvious that as long as the type of government we have in this country remains in office-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Good government.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: What is so good about it? If it is so good, why have we gone from a period of surplus to a period of shortage?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Because of free enterprise.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I am glad the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford) is satisfied with this government. At any rate the minister of energy is not satisfied, that the private sector can be relied upon to provide the capital needed. I wonder why he is not satisfied. I wonder whether it could have anything to do with the fact that his government is presently taking over half of the proceeds of the sale of the oil now being produced, leaving 48 per cent to the others and at the same time, I believe, encouraging the provincial governments to step beyond their bounds? I am referring to royalties higher than are justified within provincial jurisdiction. Anyone can see that the companies have not brought this situation upon themselves; they have been forced into it by the action of the federal governments, in concert with provincial governments, making it impossible for them to set aside adequate pools of capital.
The attitude taken by the government is a ridiculous one. It says the companies cannot provide sufficient capital yet it ignores the fact that it is the governments concerned which have created the problem. The problem having been created, we are asked to approve the setting up of yet another bureaucracy in an attempt to solve it. No doubt this will be of great benefit to the taxpayers of the country-I say that ironically because I cannot imagine any situation more likely to cause shortages or oblige them to pay higher prices for petroleum. That is the role upon which the government has embarked.
Later in his speech the minister tells us that another reason this capital might not be available is that the companies are faced with "attractive investment opportunities and geological possibilities abroad." But why should they be offered more attractive investment possibilities abroad? What is wrong with the investment possibilities in this country? Why doesn't the government create a climate which can compete with the climate anywhere else?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada


Steve Eugene Paproski: There is no incentive at all to be successful in Canada any more.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The climate here is a good one.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The Minister of National Revenue is really an amazing person. He shows abysmal ignorance of the whole subject. He talks as though the hon. member for Calgary South has any control over his own rigs in that respect. My hon. friend does not drill on his own property. He responds to requests from customers, and if they do not want to drill in Canada I suppose the hon. gentleman would like him to leave his iron to rust here, go out of business, throw people out of work, and pay no more taxes to the federal government. He hasn't taken anything away on his own account. He may have responded to the exigencies of the business community, but I will allow my hon. friend to clarify that point himself if he wishes.


Peter Colwell Bawden: If I may, I would just like to clarify the situation for the benefit of many members opposite who have taken various opportunities to make uninformed remarks. The company in which I was involved, and in which I still have an interest, is one of the few drilling contracting firms in Canada which has not moved a rig out of this country in the last two years since the government messed things up.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I thank my hon. friend for clarifying the situation. I wonder how long it can last though, because the level of drilling has now fallen to the level of 1966, nine years ago. In the last year or year and a half there has been a phenomenal drop in activity, and it is probably going to get worse.
I was talking about the investment climate, Madam Speaker. Canada has not been made the best place in which to invest, and this reminds me of another problem created by the activities of the government and its predecessors. I refer to the situation where the government said it needed a Foreign Investment Review Board because so much Canadian industry was owned by foreigners and we had to bring a halt to this.
The petroleum industry is held up as an example. The government says that because it is 90 per cent foreign controlled, this is bad. If it is bad, why did it allow the situation to develop? The government has had a tax regime in this country that has made it impossible for Canadians to own or develop their own resources. Then when development does take place by so-called foreigners, the government sets up a Foreign Investment Review Board to control it. This is another example of creating a problem and then setting up some silly, one might say stupid, government body to solve the problem.
The minister also uses the excuse that there are uncertainties about the importation of oil and that it will be necessary for the government to deal with foreign owned oil companies in order to acquire sufficient supplies for Canadians. It does not display much confidence in the activities of Petro-Can when the minister says in one breath that it will solve our supply and price problem, and in the next breath says it is needed because we must deal with foreign owned oil companies in order to assure

supply. I wish the minister would get on track and tell us exactly what he is going to do with this bill.
Why do we need a new organization to import oil? We already have the Canada Commercial Corporation which is 100 per cent state owned. I might say its record is not too good so far as its attempts to solve our supply problem last year is concerned. Hon. members will recall that it bought some Roumanian, Hungarian or Bulgarian oil, or oil from one of the Balkan states, which is so full of sulphur that it cannot be used, and we ended up losing $14 million to $15 million on the deal. Is this the kind of government action that is going to assure our supplies of oil at the lowest possible price? First of all you cannot use it; secondly, it cost two or three times the price of oil that could be obtained somewhere else.
The government has shown no capacity to supply energy at a proper price to Canadians. At the same time companies have supplied surplus oil-oil which was coming out of their ears-and natural gas which they did not know what to do with at the lowest possible price. If I were to criticize those companies in any way I would say that they kept prices too low for too long. This has not been good for the conservation of a depleting resource but the record of the industry on the whole has been too good.
Then the minister goes on to say that it would give Canadians a great deal of pride to have Petro-Can. The hon. member for Calgary South also referred to other Crown corporations. If the government were sponsoring a corporation the shares of which are available to Canadians, and Canadians had a good prospect of receiving a dividend, then they might have some sort of pride in the organization. But that is not what is being proposed in this mess that is before us. This corporation will issue 100 shares which will be owned exclusively by the government and which are non-transferrable. So how can anyone have any sort of connection with an abortion like that?
I can cite Air Canada as an example. How many people are proud of that organization? Certainly I do not talk to many who are. That is a corporation that pays no taxes yet runs up deficits. At the same time other organizations operating in the same field pay taxes, their shareholders pay tax on the corporations' dividends, and they provide better service to boot.
The minister says that he will have an honest company which will be subject to the disciplines of the profit and loss statement. The most charitable word I can think of to describe that is baloney. I do not care how thin you slice it, it is still baloney.


Mr. Alexander:: Garbage is a better word.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I can think of better words too, but I will be getting into unparliamentary language. This bill is not worth a pinch of the proverbial. On top of saying that we will have all these wonderful low prices and assured supplies, the minister is going to use this corporation as a vehicle for regional development. I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this mean that Petro-Can is going to drill oil wells where there is no oil just to make work and build up the economy in an area? You drill oil wells where you expect to find oil, not where you are trying to build up the local economy. If this company is being formed for the purpose of artificially stimulating the local economies of
March 18, 1975

various regions in this country, then it may as well be called-


Mr. McKinnon:: An OFY grant.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: -a super duper OFY grant, as suggested by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). Or else it is going to be the ultimate in pork barrelling. I can imagine during the next election campaign Liberal candidates saying, "If you elect me I will make sure that Petro-Can drills an oil well in this constituency". The whole thing is just beyond belief.
Then the minister goes on to say that this corporation is going to have a great social conscience and is going to train the native people of this country.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps it is going into the dredging business.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I do not know whether we are dealing here with a vocational school or an oil company. Either you have an efficiently run oil company that is designed to get oil out of the ground at the cheapest possible price in as large a quantity as possible, or you have a vocational school. I do not think an oil company should be used as a vehicle for training the labour force. Certainly we should have training and retraining programs for our native people, and for all others in this country who require them. But let us not do this through the use of a Crown corporation that is supposed to provide oil and gas in abundant supplies at low prices.
Then the minister makes a comment about being subject to the disciplines of an operational statement and the balance sheet. As my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) characterizes that, it is just garbage.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right on.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Are you going to speak too?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will if you want me to.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Toward the end of his remarks he says that there may be areas of exploration not undertaken by private sectors because commercial returns are not easily defined by the corporations involved or because they are deemed to be too far distant. We have had a situation for the last four or five years during which there have been absolutely no ground rules on which the number of companies operating in the Arctic could rely.


Mr. McKinley:: They change them every second day.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: They did not change them because they did not have any. They abolished the land use regulations that were established in 1961, and have not replaced them with anything, so in actual fact the hundreds of millions of dollars spent there by the private sector in the past four or five years have been spent totally on speculation because companies do not know to what rules they will be subject. I do not think there is any evidence that the private sector in this country is anything but cautious about how it spends its exploration money. I think these
Petro-Canada
companies are to be commended for spending the money they have in spite of the lack of any ground rules set down by the government. In any event the minister does not think they will continue, and I suppose this is a normal thought. I am sure he would not operate on the basis of the faith displayed by this government over the past number of years.
The minister also said there might also be areas of exploration which are not being pursued by the private sector because of the financial burdens involved, and these are cases where the national company would carry out exploration activities on its own. I do not think the private companies have shown any evidence of behaving in that way. I suggest that it is not a function of this proposed company to explore in the most costly and least likely areas to produce oil and natural gas, but that seems to be the implication of what the minister is saying he wants it to do. Again I say I cannot go for that type of policy. The minister has shown no practical sense at all in the drafting of this bill, or in his ideas put forward in respect of this proposed company and what it is supposed to do.
The minister has also suggested that it is bad that the petroleum industry is 90 per cent foreign owned. I suggest it is better to have an industry that is 90 per cent foreign owned than to have no industry at all, and that would have been the case if they had not come into Canada. There certainly never were any policies of this government or its predecessor to give Canadians any break at all in respect of the development of their own resources. There is still no indication that the government wants to give any incentive to Canadians to develop their own resources, except through the direct route of socialism.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The only way Canadians can rightfully develop their own resources is through direct ownership and development by the federal government.


An hon. Member:: That's a pretty good idea.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I hear the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggesting that this would be a good idea on the part of the federal government. If it is such a good idea for the federal government I wonder why that philosophy has not succeeded in the form of greater development of oil and natural gas in his own province.


An hon. Member:: It is.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: It is, is it? I find it rather strange that this creature called Sask Oil, which has now established rather elaborate offices in the city of Calgary, is so active in Alberta buying gas from that province at the price Alberta wants to charge, when it will not make the same arrangements with producers of natural gas in the province of Saskatchewan. I find it a rather strange and unusual attitude that the people of Saskatchewan will go to Alberta and pay what the market there demands, but will not give the same deal to the producers who are finding and producing in the province of Saskatchewan. That does not seem to make sense.

March 18, 1975
Petro-Canada
The final solution of the government appears to be nationalization of the industry for the benefit of Canadians, even though we have numerous examples that nationalization does not work.
One of the most objectionable parts of the minister's statement is his reference to how the Canadian oil companies, which he says are largely foreign owned, treat their employees. He states, and I quote:
People are a company's most important resource and the Canadian petroleum industry has developed over the years a highly competent group of professionals who have become experts in all phases of industry operations including its management. The majority of these are employed by foreign-owned companies. The corporation will offer opportunities which are commensurate in challenge and scope, and as its role may ultimately be just as diverse as those of some large international companies, it will provide a good training ground for Canadians wishing to link their careers with the oil industry in the service of Canada.
I should think that all employees of existing oil companies are quite proud of the job they have done in serving Canada, making this a surplus area with low cost fuel. I resent greatly the implication that these existing companies are in fact grinding the faces of the poor in their relations with their employees, and that it now is a fortunate thing the government of Canada has come along with a vehicle to save them from the clutches of foreign owned corporations. That is unworthy of the minister, and it is at total variance with the facts. It has been my personal experience that these so-called foreign controlled oil companies have had exceptionally good personnel policies and relations.
So we are left with a proposal that is contradictory in its terms, and with no evidence that this will solve our problems. It is part of government policy to ensure future energy requirements. It is interesting to note that this is probably the only country in the world that is still subsidizing the use of gasoline by its citizens. That is a rather peculiar way to approach a situation in which we can see a shortfall in this depleting resource in the future. Nevertheless the government's policy is completely contradictory, with nothing going in one direction. I think it is a shame that this is the only industrialized area in the world not experiencing an upturn in exploration activity for oil and natural gas at the present time. In fact the converse is true. Our exploration activity has fallen to the 1966 level. The government should be doing something to create the proper atmosphere so that we can return to the conditions that created our former favourable position.
We have seen an admission of defeat by the government in the recent announcement that it will have to cut off oil exports very shortly. This will create problems in respect of balance of payments, and other difficulty in respect of our economy. I see nothing in the statement of the minister to show that the government has any idea about how to get back on the right track. This idea certainly is not the answer.
Many people have said that how much good or damage this proposed vehicle could cause will depend on how it is used. I suggest there is no guarantee concerning how it will be used. I would hate to see this vehicle established because then it would be available for my New Democratic

friends, and their type of inspiration, if they ever got hold of the levers of government. I can well imagine what they would do if this type of organization were in existence. So in conclusion I say, as I said at the beginning, that I hope this little baby of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be stillborn.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak this evening, and probably also tomorrow afternoon, on this bill because I believe it is one of the more important bills to come before this parliament. I realize that the flunkies on the other side of this House who blindly support the government are impatient to get home tonight, but I suggest that their impatience with the taxpayers' money of this country will be their undoing. This is the sixtieth Crown corporation to be created, if it is created.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I hope the record clearly shows that the applause came from the Liberal government benches, because I think it is time the people of Canada understood that the official opposition is the only party in the House which is standing up to oppose more public intervention in the private sector.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in introducing this bill said one thing with which I agree. Let me repeat it. This appears at page 4036 of Hansard. At that time the minister stated:
We harbour no illusions that establishment of a national petroleum company is likely to lead to early and spectacular results in terms of massive energy- development or financial success. I want the House to know that we are going into this venture in full realization of the fact that the hazards of exploration risk, technical and commercial uncertainty await this venture.
I say it is important not only that the House be told what the minister has stated but that the people of Canada be told what he has stated.
I referred to this as being the sixtieth Crown corporation to be inflicted on this nation. Let us take a look at the record of some of these Crown corporations that the government members have applauded so wholeheartedly. Let us start alphabetically with Air Canada. I would recommend that members on the government side pick up the new issue of "The National Finances" for 1974-75, which is published by the Canadian Tax Foundation. They should read it because it has a complete record concerning the Crown corporations about which they are overjoyed. I shall begin with Air Canada. The net profit of Air Canada for 1973 amounted to $6.1 million, down from the 1972 profit of $8.6 million. Federal loans to Air Canada totalled $253.8 million at March 31, 1974.
Next we have Canadian Arsenals Limited, a real beauty. It is shown here that financial statements for the corporation's year ending March 31, 1974, reflect a loss of $1.8 million on sales of $4.6 million. At March 31, 1974, loans to and investments in Canadian Arsenals Limited stood at $3.5 million.
Here is another real beauty, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Prior to 1953 the CBC deprived part of its revenue from a radio receiving fee. The report goes on to describe how that fee was abolished and substituted by
March 18, 1975

direct appropriation from the treasury. On March 31, 1974, the equity account stood at $1.8 million. Advances to the corporation for capital expenditures at the same date totalled $197.9 million, and working capital $9.6 million. In short we have a description of the almost unbelievable loss position the CBC has incurred over the years. I would recommend that these hon. members who so blindly support the government compare the record of the CBC with the record of any of the similar private, networks in the United States or Canada to see whether they should be proud of the financial results of the CBC.
Let me touch on the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Here we have a corporation which had gross expenditures of $7.7 million in 1973-74 and gross revenues of $2.1 million.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: May I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I chose tonight to follow up on my question of March 10 to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) because I am really bothered by the result of the study on "Poor Kids" by the National Council on Welfare. It is impossible for me to understand why 1.6 million Canadian children are living in poverty when we take into account the wealth of our nation and the percentages related in the report. For example the highest proportion was in my province of Newfoundland where over 45 per cent of our children are in families with incomes below the poverty line.
Similar figures relate to other provinces, such as 42 per cent in the Northwest Territories, 37.3 per cent in Prince Edward Island, 38.4 per cent in Saskatchewan, and so the list goes on. One finds it sickening to read about some of the actual cases and the conditions under which they exist. I can say only that I can support these facts from my personal experience.
But the question we have to resolve is how to correct this embarrassing situation. The minister had indicated, and rightly so, that from a constitutional point of view the responsibility lies with the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan. I realize, as he indicated in his answer, that social services are now under study. He also said
Adjournment Debate
recently that he hopes that we will see a guaranteed annual income by 1976.
We already have a pretty good family allowance program which nationally amounts to $22.08 per child per month, and two provinces go beyond that amount to $41.68 in Quebec and $33.60 in Alberta.
Social assistance payments have increased over the years, and evidently our social security benefits compare favourably with the rest of the world.
Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, in spite of all our generous programs something must be drastically wrong with the direction of effort of many provinces and of the federal government when we see these startling and sickening figures. We must stop brushing off the problem with the stock answer that it is the responsibility of the provinces, and we must take the lead in correcting this disease of poverty.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in a motion he introduced recently recommended that the report should be required reading for all members of parliament. I agree with him, but I think it might be worthwhile to list a few of the pertinent points contained in the report.
The report states that, first, poor children are more likely to miss school due to illness, to be victims of home accidents, and to exhibit hearing and speech impairment.
Second, disadvantaged children are more apt to contact rheumatic fever, hepatitis, meningitis or tuberculosis.
Third, undernourished children are retarded in their height and weight development, suffer from physical and mental retardation, and a greater percentage of them has a history of diabetes. This happens in spite of the vast medical insurance plans which have been in existence for years.
The study refers to the lack of medical research in the search for solutions to the effects of poverty among children. I do not have the time to list some of the more pertinent points which they make with regard to medical research.
All this is happening in our wealthy country at the same time as medical costs reach uncontrollable proportions. We now have another report, to go along with all the others such as the Senate poverty report, namely, the nutrition survey, to indicate the alarming situation which exists with regard to our youth.
I do not say that the answers are simple, but it is obvious that we are trying to correct the problems experienced by our youth after the fact rather than at the right time.
The report makes a very valid point concerning how the physical and mental development of the fetus can be affected by the inadequacy of the mother's diet during pregnancy because she is poor and cannot afford nutritious food, with the result that the child pays the price of that poverty in stunted health even before it is born.
I recommend to the minister, first, that this matter hold high priority in his further meetings with provincial ministers of health. Second, I recommend that our priorities change with regard to our physical fitness programs so that greater attention is paid to physical development
March 18, 1975

Adjournment Debate
rather than to the achievement of excellence in a few children's sports with restricted participation. I am a strong advocate of our physical fitness program, but we must change our priorities because it is the weaker person who needs most leadership, guidance and coaching so that he will grow up to be a more healthy citizen. If we can provide many programs such as the OFY, or student exchange programs, if we can ask our youth to participate with initiative in many other citizen oriented programs, why in the world can we not provide a program whereby organizations in conjunction with school boards can supply nutritious food supplements in schools?
I feel very embarrassed when I receive letters such as this one from a school board. It reads:
Thank you tor your efforts on our behalf. Believe me they are deeply appreciated even though the results of your efforts have come to nought. The supplementary diet program for the schools under our board in Corner Brook area is functioning on a restrictive basis with funds supplied by two local parishes, and two local organizations.
I might point out that it is very difficult to secure funds for any ongoing project because people think that government should furnish funds.
He goes on in his frustration and finishes by saying that maybe he should tell them that the hungry children are "doing dope":
... then we could get funds to help "solve the problem". Maybe we could get some of the surplus eggs and chickens for a lunch program but that would no doubt upset the market price or some damn fool thing.
This is the frustration school boards and teachers are facing.
Finally, Madam Speaker, if such a large percentage of our population is composed of children, as indicated in the report, when we face these alarming problems which should be in the mind of every member of parliament, I think it is time and it is vital that the government appoint a full time minister of youth so that we can direct the efforts required to develop the more important segment of our society-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer the hon. member to the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on March 10, 1975. The answer is as follows:
... this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction. All social services are now under study with the provinces within the context of the social welfare review.
I would also like to add some supplementary remarks to the answer given to the hon. member.
First, it should be understood that there is no lack of nutritious food in this country. Recently the department moved to strengthen an already strong situation by proposing that the restoration of certain nutrients to staple foods and substitutes for staple foods be made mandatory. I refer specifically to the addition of vitamin D to all milk, vitamin A to all skimmed and partly skimmed milk, vitamin C to fruit drinks, and B vitamins and iron to flour.

Second, the nutrition Canada survey, which examined more than 4,000 school age children in the provinces, found little or no evidence of nutrient deficiency, certainly none which would be expected to prevent participation in school activities.
There is great interest throughout the country in school lunch programs and the quality of food available in schools. While I am pleased to note this interest, I would stress that there is a need to evaluate both present and proposed programs. The health protection branch of the department is currently collaborating with the government of Alberta in just such an evaluation of a new school lunch program in northern Alberta. They have offered similar assistance to the evaluation of programs in Manitoba and British Columbia. Only by such evaluation can we be sure that dollars spent on school lunch programs are not misspent.
Finally, the federal-provincial nutrition committee has undertaken the preparation of guidelines for the development of school lunch programs which will be available to all school and health officials. I will send the hon. member a copy if he so wishes.


SPORTS-HOCKEY-SUGGESTION AMATEUR ASSOCIATIONS NOT SIGN CHILDREN TO CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, last Thursday I raised a question in this House, and it was directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I asked the following question:
In view of the fact that the minister was approached last year with respect to the case of 16 year old Michael Laffrade of Toronto who was prevented from playing hockey because he had signed a contract with an amateur team, and in view of the fact that the minister had expressed outrage and incredulity at the effects of that contract, and in view of the fact that the minister on the program "Ombudsman" had promised to speak to the CAHA about this situation, would he inform the House if he has contacted the CAHA and instructed it and its affiliated bodies to cease and desist from forcing children to sign contracts or forms which restrict their opportunities for playing hockey?
I further asked:
In view of the fact that many more cases similar to that of Michael Laffrade have surfaced this winter, will the minister inform the House as to what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that children do not become embroiled in legal disputes in the pursuit of voluntarily playing amateur sports in this country?
The minister preferred to duck the issue by repeating that he had contacted the CAHA, and he said nothing else.
The CAHA is the governing body for amateur hockey in this country. Participating players must sign CAHA registration forms to be able to play hockey in Canada. Because of its monopoly on amateur hockey, if you do not play for one of the CAHA teams you do not play hockey at all.
It is this registration card which has created a very inhuman and most undesirable form of slavery. In fine print above the signature of the child are the following words: "I hereby agree to abide by all the rules, regulations and decisions of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association."
What about the rules? One would think that these rules are pretty easy to come by. They are as scarce to obtain as gold these days. They are not easily available to the
March 18, 1975

players, and indeed most of the children do not know what they are signing, and neither do their parents.
For your information, Madam Speaker, there are 174 pages of rules, 36 pages for the CAHA, 100 pages for the OHA and 38 pages for the MTHL-the young Metro-Toronto Hockey League. Among other things one rule forbids any team from signing or even trying out a player who was with another club the previous season, as long as that club has a team in the player's age division. It runs a minimum of two years, the year he plays and the following year. Thus he is indentured to the team.
Another rule establishes boundaries for teams, and players who live within those boundaries must play for the team within that boundary or get a release. Another rule gives the league the authority to specify which team a child will play for outside his boundary. Some children and their parents have tried to defy this slave trade and have sought recourse through the courts. But here again the CAHA has a rule, rule 145, which states that anyone doing so is liable to an automatic indefinite suspension unless the court finds that the CAHA acted contrary to the rules of what the CAHA terms "natural justice".
The comments of Mr. Gordon Juckes, executive director of CAHA, are rather eye-opening. He says:
Where you have a voluntary organization whose members belong only because they want to, it seems only sensible that people abide by the decisions of their fellow members. You shouldn't take an internal fight to the courts. It would be the same if you were a member of a golf club. The sport should be allowed to settle its own problems.
It is fairly obvious then that the CAHA is an association of teams rather than players, and players are owned by teams, and the rules are those which the team management adopts. The CAHA is all heart, and Mr. Juckes is filled with understanding when he says:
In my 20 years with the CAHA, I've never seen the rule against people going to the courts used. Last year, one boy wanted a transfer from Ontario to British Columbia, which both the branch and the CAHA refused to give. He went to court and got an injunction. We didn't suspend him. He went and played in Victoria just as he wanted.
It is quite clear that amateur sport is highly organized and professionally administered with only one aim in mind-prepare players for the professional leagues. There is much talk of playing for enjoyment, physical exercise, and personal development. Indeed the federal government has recognized this in legislation entitled the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act.
Section 3 of this act states:
The objects of this act are to encourage, promote and develop fitness and amateur sport in Canada ...
This section also permits the minister in his pursuance of the objects of this act to "assist, co-operate with and enlist the aid of any group interested in furthering the objects of this act".
Several questions arise over this matter, Madam Speaker, which I find very difficult to understand, and I hope whoever answers can clarify them for me. First, when a child signs those registration cards, is that a legal binding document, especially in view of the fact that these players are minors? Second, if a minor's signature on a contract is worthless, why is the CAHA allowed to use it to cow
Adjournment Debate
children and their parents into submission? Third, why does the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for amateur sport in Canada, not intervene and instruct the CAHA to cease and desist? After all, the minister certainly did not hesitate to intervene in keeping out an American league football team from Toronto.
Why do children have to sign any contracts at all? If the philosophy is "participaction" at this level, and it should jolly well be, then that becomes the reason for the team to exist.
What percentage of the children who start at the squirt level of hockey in Canada are still playing hockey at the midget level? I suspect that the percentage is very low indeed.
Some provinces have undertaken studies into hockey and have come up with recommendations for the creation of provincial hockey councils, or ombudsmen, to oversee amateur hockey. Probably these are worth-while suggestions, but I think the most immediate step is to eliminate this particular practice of contract signing by minors. Perhaps it may just motivate us to make participation much more of an enjoyable experience for our children.


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


Coline M. Campbell: March 18, 1975
Adjournment Debate
member of the team. When this did not satisfy him, he evidently obtained legal assistance, but there was no pursuit of the matter through the normal hockey channels to final conclusion, nor did he resort to the method of going to the courts. Finally, the North York management went out of their way and put extra effort into assisting this player, not only in his "domestic problems", but also in resolving his hockey problem of transportation.
It is not the intention of the federal government to force a consequential change in the CAHA's team membership structure. This structure is intended to protect the teams, one from the other, and not to restrict the individual player's rights. In my opinion these rights are fully protected if the normal procedures are followed.
I wish to assure the hon. member that the minister has made many representations to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, and the government has exerted its influence in this regard while respecting the autonomy of this national sport governing body. As far as the federal government is concerned, the matter has been settled. Under the circumstances that I have outlined I can only suggest that if a person wishes to effect any changes, he or she should continue to work within the present system. The hon. member also referred to Bill C-2. I remind him that this bill is presently before a committee of this House. If the hon. member so wishes, he has ample opportunity to oppose any suggested amendments or to propose amendments of his own.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-REFUSAL OF CORPORATION TO SUPPLY TRANSCRIPT OF PROGRAM &quot;TEN LOST YEARS&quot;
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, I never thought I would have to rise in my place and demand that the government order the publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to stop broadcasting pornography and smut.
On February 3 I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), the minister responsible to the House for the CBC, if he would see that any future programs scheduled on CBC would be cancelled if they were no less insulting and of no higher quality than the show billed as "The Ten Lost Years".
The minister said simply that he would make my representation known to the corporation. The minister must have known that that would not answer my question, nor would it settle the issue that I raised. I did not ask the minister if he would make my representation known to the CBC. I could have done that myself. What I asked the minister to do was to take some action to ensure that CBC programming would be made more acceptable to the people whose tax money is used to run the corporation.
On February 13 the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) asked the Secretary of State similar questions concerning CBC programming, and the minister replied that it is the policy of the government not to instruct the corporation. I think that we all have a right to ask who does instruct the CBC in the name of the Canadian people if it is not their government.

I do not know of any government agency or Crown corporation which is not instructed and monitored by the government. I had always been under the impression, Madam Speaker, that this was one of the roles of ministers of the Crown. If there are any government corporations which are not monitored and instructed by the appropriate ministers, then it is time to find out which ones they are and to bring them under the control of parliament without further delay.
The Secretary of State, Madam Speaker, is well aware that it has never been accepted policy to turn a publicly-funded agency or corporation loose and allow it to function as it pleases. The mere fact that public money is involved not only makes such a policy unacceptable, it makes it illegal, and I should not have to make that point to the minister.
The point I am making now, and will continue to make until I get some action, is that no broadcasting facilities in Canada can be allowed to operate without some degree of continuing scrutiny and instruction by the appropriate government minister. The broadcasting medium in any country has a tremendous influence on public attitudes and views, and it has the power to mould public and private morality. This power must be used with restraint, and it must be used in the best interests of the majority of the people.
John Hirsh, the head of CBC television drama, told the Commons broadcasting committee this week that CBC has a responsibility to give the viewer "not only what they think they want, but what the artists know they will want once they try it and once they get to like it".
I have received hundreds of letters from viewers expressing disgust with the type of drama being presented in prime viewing time on CBC, and almost as many telephone calls. All but four of them support my position in this matter. Other members, perhaps all members of this House, have also received letters from constituents, and I believe the CBC has been deluged with complaints.
Some people have sent me copies of a form letter sent out by CBC and headed "Dear Viewer". This indicates to me that the corporation does not take these complaints seriously. Why should it, Madam Speaker, when its own minister states publicly that he does not intend to instruct the network? The form letter tells the recipient that the author of the book "Ten Lost Years" was satisfied with the television adaptation.
I have to agree with a letter I received from the president of a local Council of Women in which she asks the question: whose rights are we supposed to protect, those of the parents and the decent citizens, or those of the smut peddlers? I have received many letters from people who lived through the depression years and every one of them states that the program was not a true presentation of that era; they say that the filth and pornography portrayed in the program only degraded the people and undermined their fine efforts to get through a serious depression.
It has been suggested that anyone who does not want to hear vulgar language or see pornography on television can turn the dial or turn off the set. What an irresponsible thing to suggest. There are people in parts of this country

who only have access to two channels on television, and there are some places where there is only one channel. Why should people who pay to support the CBC be told that if they do not like to watch filth and garbage on their screens they can turn it off?
The CBC must be told immediately to clean up broadcasting in this country. This year the corporation is asking for $352 million in public money. That is a lot of money. It belongs to the Canadian people, and someone in the cabinet has to accept responsibility for the way in which it is spent. This is not a request. It is a basic necessity.

Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to
Secretary of State): Madam Speaker, further to what the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) has just told us, and more specifically to the question he put to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) on February 12 last, I wish to assure the House that when an hon. member asks the CBC for a tape recording of a program heard over the waves reserved for its broadcasts, usually the CBC accedes to his request. Almost invariably, the tapes requested deal with information, documentaries or current affairs programs; the CBC supplies this type of tapes every year to a great many hon. members.
Adjournment Debate
However, with regard to plays televised by the CBC, they fall into a somewhat different category. The CBC feels that they form a whole, where sound and image cannot be dissociated, if the whole is to keep its artistic value. Thus sound and picture must go together if a fair and honest assessment is to be made.
For the above reason, Madam Speaker, it has been the established practice of the corporation to organize for members a screening of a program which they would like to see again. Quite recently, for example, some members attended, at their request, a screening of the drama entitled "Heads, Guts and Sound Bone Dance" which was shown by the CBC last year.
The CBC has already let it known, Madam Speaker, that it is still prepared to show to the members concerned the telecast "Ten Lost Years" to which the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton referred in the House on February 12. You can be sure that as soon as the transcription is available, an official of the CBC will communicate with the members who have indicated that they would like to see that program again.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, March 19, 1975