1975-04-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The request I make is so reasonable it will require no debate and I hope the House will agree to it. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-T,he Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Postmaster General to arrange for renewed discussions between management and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for the purpose of making a serious effort to resolve the differences respecting casual workers, in the hope that by doing so a strike by the CUPW can be avoided.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO MAINTAIN PRICE OF HEATING OIL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a very urgent motion demanding the application of immediate steps.
Considering that the price of oil and oil products will probably increase during the next months and that some oil products are more important than others for all Canadian consumers such as fuel, since all Canadians must heat their house, according to the changes of temperature, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House consider the steps to be taken so that the prices of some essential oil products such as fuel will not be increased, in order to enable all Canadians to heat their home at a reasonable price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, therefore the motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the price of farming equipment is rising at an alarming rhythm, that spare parts are getting hard to obtain, and that prices are inflated because agents have to pay usurious interest rates to maintain required stocks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House consider the means to be taken to help spare parts agents maintain stocks at reasonable prices, so as to avoid constant rise in production costs, thereby helping combat inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who said on Friday that details of a consensus blueprint are now being evolved with that segment of the economy
4752

April 14, 1975
Oral Questions
whose consensus is necessary in respect of the business community for example. Could the minister clarify what segments of the business community must be part of the consensus understanding insofar as he is concerned or in his view. Would the approval, for example, of certain business associations be sufficient in order to constitute an agreement so far as he is concerned?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, obviously one wants to get as wide a range as possible. There are three task forces or technical committees now working, one with labour through the Canadian Labour Congress, another with business in three main areas, primarily responsible for resource, manufacturing and service industries, and a third now will be by way of liaison with provincial governments as a result of the conference of last week.


INFLATION-NECESSITY FOR UNANIMITY OF ALL SEGMENTS OF ECONOMY IN SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the position of the minister that he will have to have unanimity from those being consulted with regard to business, and unanimity also with regard to those being consulted on the part of labour before he has something on which he can move forward?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said to the hon. gentleman on a couple of occasions that in the arrangements being worked out mutually obviously one wants a general feeling that the targets specifically set are those which in general receive the approval of the various aspects of the economy. One could hardly hope of course for unanimity in a free parliamentary democracy but one would hope that the general view of the various areas of the economy would support what is announced by the government.


INFLATION-TERMS OF AGREEMENT WITH FARM SECTOR IN SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: have one final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the minister does not have unanimity then he will have some who do not go along with his proposal. Would the minister tell the House what terms of agreement the government is seeking from the farm sector, having indicated that prices in general terms would not go up unless costs go up. What terms of agreement would the government be seeking with regard to the farm community in pricing?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting the Minister of Agriculture and I and other ministers held with representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we were concerned primarily, as they were, in the stabilization of prices of major farm products. In that respect, that would be the objective we would be trying to achieve with regard to farmers. Obviously, there is no attempt to try to limit the price of farm produce at the farm gate because of the necessity in this country to

stabilize food prices by encouraging farm production, and also as a country contributing toward relief of hunger in the world.


INFLATION-PURPOSE OF PRIME MINISTER IN FORMING GROUP OF SEVEN ECONOMIC ADVISERS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (Yorh-Simcoe):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Would he indicate whether the formation of the group of seven economic advisers was partly to advise the Prime Minister in relation to the consensus talks that have been going on and, more generally, could the Prime Minister explain the purpose of assembling the group of seven advisory economists since the group only met three times in the two years of its existence?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and to the second part my answer is that I take advice when and where I can get it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INFLATION-REQUEST FOR VERIFICATION OF MR. BRETON'S STATEMENT GROUP OF SEVEN ECONOMIC ADVISERS DOOMED FROM START
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of Mr. Albert Breton's reported statement to the CBC, Mr. Albert Breton being the chairman of the group of seven, that the committee was doomed from the start because of opposition among senior civil servants in Ottawa and the Minister of Finance, would the Prime Minister indicate whether in fact Mr. Breton was right in his observation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot even confirm that he said what he is quoted as having said.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON DISBANDING OF GROUP OF SEVEN ECONOMIC ADVISERS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My supplementary question is again to the Prime Minister. In view of another committee member's statement to the CBC that the Prime Minister will be making a formal statement concerning the disbanding of the group of seven and that he hopes the Prime Minister would put the whole business on the record-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -would the Prime Minister indicate whether in fact he would be making a statement to the House concerning the function and disbanding of the group of seven?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be making a statement about the group of seven, except on certain occasions when I make reference to those great painters who honoured Canada with their great talent.
April 14, 1975


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT DEFICIT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. According to recently released figures which show that Canada has experienced a $1.3 billion deficit in its trade in automobile parts in 1974, the largest deficit in the history of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, what specific steps has the government taken to reverse this highly unacceptable situation?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the reason for the deficit, that is the fact that there is a strong Canadian market and a very, very soft U.S. market. As I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, there is not likely to be any short term solution, but surely the point is that the Canadian industry is doing comparatively better than the U.S. industry at present.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-INVESTMENT PLANS OF MANUFACTURERS FOR NEXT YEAR
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that one of the major reasons for the deficit is that during the last five years the United States has received proportionately much more of the new capital investment in the industry than has Canada, and considering that the major automotive companies now are restructuring their production for 1976 with a view to producing smaller and more energy-efficient vehicles, can the minister inform the House as to whether or not he has obtained specific commitments from the big three auto manufacturers concerning their investment plans for Canada for the next year?


Alastair William Gillespie: I expect the automobile manufacturers, in making new investment, to maintain the relativity of their participation in the North American market.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR PRICE PARITY WITH UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, noting that the minister has provided no assurances at all on the first two points. Considering that we also have a record deficit in automotive trade with countries other than the United States for 1974 reaching a level of $484 million, and considering that one of the major reasons for that deficit, particularly as it pertains to imports from Japan, is the excessively high price charged for North American cars produced in Canada, could the minister inform the House whether he has obtained assurances that we will get price parity in terms of the prices charged to Canadians for Canadian produced cars compared with the prices charged to Americans for the same vehicles.


Alastair William Gillespie: On an earlier occasion the hon. member made some statements about the price differential. He chose to make them on the basis of retail prices rather
Oral Questions
than on wholesale prices. I have invited him to provide information on wholesale prices which he said had shown a widening of the gap. Every piece of advice and information I have received indicated that the price differential between Canadian automobiles sold in Canada and Canadian automobiles sold in the United States is narrowing.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that that was his final supplementary. The hon. member for Rimouski.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO MAINTAIN PRICE OF HEATING OIL
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As the price of oil products will likely increase, has the minister taken or will he take steps to maintain the price of heating oil at its current level, since the whims of our climate and the well-being of Canadians is not a luxury? Does the minister intend to take what steps are necessary to keep the price of heating oil at its present level, since the cost of oil products will probably increase in the near future?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the hon. member that no decision has yet been taken with regard to the price of oil, oil products or crude oil in Canada.
Last week, during the first ministers' conference, we proposed setting up a formula to allow the discussion of those matters. The idea was at first rejected by the premiers. Now, there is talk of bilateral discussions on the possibility of fixing limits on the price of crude oil and natural gas.
At this point, no decision has yet been taken on oil prices; the question of the hon. member is therefore hypothetical.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary
question.
If prices were to increase, would the minister consider protecting Canadian consumers with regard to heating oil
prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, to my mind that question is even more hypothetical.
29557 - 2614

April 14, 1975
Oral Questions


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. I trust that he is in a genial mood following his turkey dinner this weekend.
Now that the contract negotiations between the letter carriers' union and the Post Office Department have arrived at a stage of negotiation based on the conciliation board report, can the minister assure us that these negotiations will be consummated without resort to the strike route?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could, but it would be very presumptuous on my part to say what role or what future action the union may want to take. They are certainly in a position to resort to strike if they wish to do so. On the positive side, and more important, the letter carriers' union and the negotiating team made up of representatives of the Post Office and the Treasury Board are scheduled to meet later today.


REASON POSTAL SORTERS NOT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK OVERTIME BEFORE CASUAL WORKERS EMPLOYED
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of continuing sensitivity in the negotiations with the post office workers, would the minister explain to the House why postal sorters and clerks were not given an opportunity to opt for overtime work to alleviate the backlog of mail in Montreal before casual workers were employed?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, might I take a few seconds longer and perhaps avoid other questions. On Saturday there was a blanket invitation to all regular postal workers to work overtime Saturday. Of the 2,000 regular workers, over 600 accepted the invitation and were at work. In addition to that there were 300 regular and part-time workers who normally work on Saturday. It was then, and only then, that casual workers numbering 150 were hired. There could have been up to 2,000 regular workers working overtime on Saturday if they wished to take advantage of the occasion to earn extra supplementary income at time and a half. There are over 10 million pieces of mail lying in post offices in Montreal belonging to the public of Canada, and I intend to see that the public gets that mail with or without the co-operation of a handful of people who are intent on contravening regulations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the Postmaster General's remarks, I take it he is intending to work toward a negotiated settlement of contract disputes with the postal union, rather than incite mail sorters and clerks to strike in anticipation of a legal walkout by the letter carriers? The president of

the union has charged that the minister is attempting to do the latter.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. gentleman for his question. Under the collective agreement there is no obligation on the part of the Postmaster General to consult with the unions in the event of need for casuals. I felt, however, that it would be appropriate and only logical to consult with the unions. For the last several weeks there has been a series of meetings and consultations with the unions about the problem of reducing the backlog of mail. At midnight on Thursday we informed the union, since we still had not arrived at a satisfactory solution to the problem, that we would be obliged to use casuals this particular Saturday, but that we intended to continue to consult in order to obtain a solution that was satisfactory to the union.
Despite this, the casual workers were evicted forcibly from the premises, and as a result of that the people who felt that this was the proper way of acting in a democracy were all suspended, including 11 who have been suspended indefinitely, which I hope is proper terminology for being fired.


REQUEST FOR RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSIONS ON PROBLEM OF CASUAL WORKERS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Postmaster General with regard to the difficulty in Montreal with the inside workers. In view of the fact that officials of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have declared that they want to continue to discuss and consult over the question of the casual workers, would the Postmaster General arrange for renewed discussions so that this issue can be resolved on that kind of a basis?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I did better than that. Consultations were resumed yesterday, the effect of which, however, was that I have had to suspend more people again today. I wonder just where is the good faith of the union.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of his reference to good faith, may I ask the Postmaster General whether he regards it as conducive to good labour relations for employees of the Post Office to have their doors knocked on at three o'clock in the morning and to be told of their dismissal.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker. I will look into that matter and will see that a proper apology goes out to those people who no longer work for the Post Office. I suppose I am guilty of believing that the role of the employer is to run the Post Office according to the collective agreement that was agreed to by the unions under proper negotiations two years ago.


POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE DELIVERY OF WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Postmaster General.
April 14, 1975

What steps does the minister intend to take to improve the quality of postal delivery and thereby protect the efforts of Canadian weekly newspapers to dispense news quickly and efficiently to readers across the country, and I might say not to the immediate area-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if the newspapers would reflect news with the same efficiency as postmen deliver mail, we would have better news services in this country.


Stan Darling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect for the Postmaster General's reply, I can agree with him so far as daily newspapers are concerned, but not in the case of weekly newspapers. Therefore, I wonder what he will do to help them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. What action is the minister taking to curtail the phase-out of the Corps of Commissionaires members who are performing security duties at national airports and who are to be replaced by members of the RCMP. Hopefully, the minister will find alternative jobs for these people.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this matter but will inquire and see if I can report to the hon. gentleman tomorrow.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Will the minister determine not only the capabilities of veterans, for the performance of such duties as I mentioned at national airports, but also make sure that veterans are given enough time to find alternative employment which may come within the scope of the endeavours of the Corps of Commissionaires and of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to work with my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and look into this question.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In
Oral Questions
light of the very serious action taken by the chairman of the National Harbours Board in denying an undertaking given by the board's vice-chairman to the mayor of Halifax, to the effect that no change in shed rental policy will take place without the concurrence of the Halifax port authority, and in light of the mayor of Halifax's position to the effect that the board should adhere to that undertaking, is the minister now prepared to give this House an undertaking honouring the commitment given by the vicechairman of that board.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to get in touch with the representative of the National Harbours Board, to know exactly what commitment was given to the mayor of Halifax.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for undertaking to advise himself of the situation. I wonder, because of the serious deterioration of relations involved in this matter whether, once he has advised himself, he will consider meeting with the port of Halifax people and other interested people, labour, and so on, with a view to resolving this serious impasse.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good suggestion.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr.' Speaker, my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs relates to the question on the order paper answered on April 7. Can the minister explain to the House why 7,987 pairs of jeans, worth approximately $40,000, which were seized by his department were recently buried instead of being donated to charitable institutions.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I think I gave the answer, Mr. Speaker. This has been suggested to the company. Unfortunately, it has not followed our suggestion.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House if the policy is to seize clothing that does not comply with labelling regulations there is no discretion as to what can be done with the objects which are seized, or is the minister telling the House that the policy of the department is to give these articles back to the owner? If the owner does not destroy them, what happens to them?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I gave in writing was rather complete and demonstrated that the company is keeping the option of doing what it wants with

April 14, 1975
Oral Questions
its clothes. On the first occasion, some of these clothes were indeed given to charitable organizations. In the other case, the company did not want to do that. I think this is unfortunate because these clothes could have been used for charitable purposes. Unfortunately, this has not been the case; they had to be destroyed.


REASON JEANS WERE INCORRECTLY LABELLED AND BY WHOM
John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise whether his department or the government is taking any steps to investigate the reason why these jeans were incorrectly labelled and whether they were incorrectly labelled by foreign manufacturers outside Canada?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I can check this and I shall report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


STATISTICS CANADA
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Given the extensive operations of Statistics Canada in the field of survey research, will the minister tell the House when Treasury Board approved a $50,000 contract to the Toronto public relations firm of Heal, Shaw and V/alden to survey attitudes of the general public toward Statistics Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not cognizant of a question as precise as this one. I shall inquire and report to the hon. member.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise whether the contract was tendered and why it was considered necessary to award this survey to an outside firm, given the extensive resources that Statistics Canada has to handle such a study.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide details on the contract, but I have been given the reason that Statistics Canada entered into this agreement. It was that this particular firm has expertise in sampling public attitudes which Statistics Canada does not have.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister or any member of his cabinet been in touch with the Americans or the British to ascertain their views on the topics to be discussed at a NATO summit meeting in Brussels on May 29 and 30? Since NATO is a cultural, military and economic alliance, has Canada prepared a position which it will take at the summit meeting which will not only strengthen the NATO military alliance, but also hopefully strengthen our economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer given by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day to the effect that the summit is still being discussed is the proper answer at this time.


Mr. Baldwin:: Maybe it will find your link there.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hear people in the galleries laughing. They are laughing at their own show. There is no need for that. They laughed enough Saturday night.


An hon. Member:: You stage-managed it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I gave the substance of the subject. I know that the meeting has not been set in a firm way. As to the topics to be discussed, I will check whether the minister has had any conversations with the Americans. Certainly, it is a subject that I discussed with the United Kingdom government last month when I was in London. We talked about possible dates and possible subjects. At this stage, I think it is too early to answer in any firm way about the date or the agenda.


REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF LEGALITY OF OPERATIONS OF FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL MINES IN NAMIBIA
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the recent annual meeting of the shareholders of Falconbridge Nickel Mines, the president made it clear that that company proposed, through a subsidiary, to continue to operate in Namibia without the consent of the council for Namibia which was given full authority over that territory by the United Nations Security Council, and that Falconbridge was going to continue to seek to make profits out of the illegal maintenance of the apartheid system in that country. Will the minister seek legal advice as to whether these operations are illegal and whether action can be taken to restrain the continued defiance by the company of the United Nations and its resolutions?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given my office notice of this question. I immediately conveyed it to the department which is now making inquiries as to the factual situation. After that has been done, I hope to be able to answer the question.

April 14, 1975


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister advise the House whether he has received a letter signed by a number of residents from Fort George, Quebec, to the effect that Nordair Airlines have decided to discontinue their services to Fort George? Can the minister also advise the House whether he has contacted Nordair Airlines, and whether he can assure Fort George residents that general services, including the delivery of mail, as well as medical, and fresh food supply, will not be cancelled to this northern community?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will verify whether I have received this letter, for I do not remember receiving it. However, I suggest that such an application for cancellation of service would not have been sent to the Minister of Transport, but to the Canadian Transport Commission, of which Mr. Benson is the president.
This is the body which is responsible for this decision. It is the CTC which decides whether to maintain the service or not. However, I am going to find out whether I have received the letter referred to by the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. .Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding the Greenpeace incident. In view of statements made by officials high in the French government and denials by two ministers of the Crown, has this government asked the government of France to refute statements made by members of their armed forces regarding collusion between the French government and the government of Canada before the boarding of the Greenpeace in order to clear the air on this matter for the Canadian public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it should be cleared by the fact that we deny having made those statements.


BOARDING OF &quot;GREENPEACE III&quot; BY FRENCH AUTHORITIES- SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT PROVIDE COUNSEL FOR MR. McTAGGART AT TRIAL
John Douglas Reynolds: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Canadian government will have counsel at Mr. McTaggart's side when his case comes to trial on May 12?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the government will not have counsel at Mr. Oral Questions
McTaggart's side. If you have a supplementary, I will answer it.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the board or boards the minister has proposed to set up to monitor the mystical consensus program. Will this board or boards be the authority which the government intends to use in the event the consensus process reveals the necessity for the implementation of a contingency plan, under which controls on further increases in prices and incomes will be legislated?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oberle: What will be the functions of these boards? Will they just be another review board that will convey tidings of bad news, of the smell of rotten eggs, or will they have any authority?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I
explained to the hon. gentleman's leader on Friday that the need for the existence of the boards and the terms of reference of those boards were part of the consensus process. We are currently talking about that with representatives of business, labour and other segments of the economy.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware of the confusion of answers being given by staff in the Income Tax Department across the country concerning regulations relating to taxable income received from sick benefit funds?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: No.
Mr. Speaker, but I will inquire into it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.

April 14, 1975
Oral Questions
Can he give us indications on the results of the investigation undertaken on shipwrecks and losses of life in the fishing industries that recently took place on the Pacific coast?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I expect to receive the report tomorrow. If so, I will very soon be in a position to answer the hon. member.


REASON FOR ALLEGED INQUIRY BY PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has he, or anyone acting on his behalf, instructed a person or persons in his office or in the Privy Council office to make investigations or inquiries concerning any members of the staff of the office of the member for Leeds and, if so, why?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did ask
someone on my staff to make sure that the hon. member for Leeds could outswim a shark.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: What are the reasons for someone announcing himself as J. G. Richard of the Privy Council Office making such inquiries as recently as last Thursday, including a strange telephone call to the National Parole Board?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Does this represent a new government policy in dealing with the right of democratic dissent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I never could take a question by the hon. member for Leeds seriously and I do not take this one seriously.


FINANCE
Mr. Peter Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the price of oil is a vital ingredient in the preparation of a budget, will the minister say whether his proposed May budget will be based on an increase in the price of crude oil, and if so what price is to be used?


John Napier Turner: If, before a budget is brought down, there is no agreement or action with regard to setting the price of oil or the related price of gas, either the budget would have to be delayed or I would have to make some assumptions.


Peter Colwell Bawden: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Since the government is pressing on with Bill C-32, under the terms of which a price can be imposed upon the provinces, will the right hon. gentleman tell us why it was necessary to go to the trouble and expense of calling a further meeting of first ministers if he and his ministers have already reached a decision on the price of crude oil and used that price in the budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member may have noticed that we did not press on with this bill in the House until we realized it was impossible for the ten provincial premiers to agree amongst themselves. It was only in the face of the failure of negotiations the other day to reach an agreement that we are now availing ourselves of the legislative powers which the constitution entitles us to have in the area of interprovincial and international trade so that we can exercise those powers should further efforts to reach a consensus be unsuccessful.


Peter Colwell Bawden: My final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Was the Minister of Finance saying, in response to my question, that the government might wait until after the first ministers have agreed upon a price for crude oil before bringing down a budget?


John Napier Turner: I was saying that as time elapses I shall have to make a judgment as to the best way to proceed.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN EMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE EXEMPTION
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and arises from the hon. gentleman's announcement that he intends to bring down a budget soon. Has he considered raising the employment in agriculture exemption from $250 or 25 days to $1,000 or 60 days?


John Napier Turner: I will consider the hon. member's question as a representation, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the growing tension in the Middle East and the presence of Canadian peacekeeping forces in the area, could the right hon. gentleman explain to the House why the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not include Egypt or Egypt and Israel in his current tour?
Riyht Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): The current tour was organized with a different purpose in mind than trying to reconcile Egypt and Israel.
April 14, 1975


Allan Bruce McKinnon: My supplementary is for the Minister of Finance who will be touring the Middle East in the near future, looking into the oil situation. As confrontation between Israel and Egypt was the main stimulus to the Arab oil embargo, is the minister planning to visit Egypt and Israel on his tour, and if not why not?


John Napier Turner: The
answer is, no. The purpose of the trip is to visit members of the OPEC countries in order to ascertain their intentions as we move toward a maturing monetary system and attempt to digest the problem of world surpluses and deficits arising from oil transactions.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister intend to take any action, such as appointing a mediator, so that negotiations may resume between the Algoma Central Railway and the United Transportation Union?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I shall be pleased to take that suggestion under consideration.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask him whether the appointment of Mr. Justice Dube to join Mr. Justice Mahoney indicates a firm intention on the part of the Government of Canada to turn the Federal Court of Canada into a sort of second Senate and resting place for relics of the treasury benches?


An hon. Member:: Cheap!


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: A question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister report on the negotiations which are going on at the present time between Air Canada and British Airways with regard to an exchange of flights between Western Canada and Europe? When will these flights start?


Jean Marchand: There are about 50 negotiations going on at the present time between Air Canada and different airlines and countries
Oral Questions
in the world. I shall inquire into this one, but I am not in a position to give an answer this afternoon.


REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM MANITOBA HYDRO
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he tell the House whether the withdrawal of financial assistance from Manitoba Hydro was wholly consequent upon the choice made by that utility to purchase Swiss equipment rather than equipment manufactured by Canadian firms, or whether other considerations were involved?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One of the prime conditions which was set out as governing the availability of financing from the federal government had to do with the degree of Canadian content such as the Canadian government itself would have followed in such circumstances. The proposal which the Manitoba government accepted would involve only 30 per cent of Canadian employment as opposed to approximately 80 per cent which would have been involved in the other bid. At the same time, the other bid would have meant the development here of the technology related to long distance high voltage transmission while the Swiss bid only involved the financing of development in the hands of other countries. For these reasons we felt we should not use funds of the Canadian government to finance what amounts to a benefit to offshore suppliers.


William Gordon Ritchie: Did the original agreement allow for the opting out of the federal government in certain circumstances?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We set out the conditions in advance and they were well known to Manitoba.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from astronomical losses experienced by Canadian cattlemen in the last 18 months. In view of the fact that a large percentage of these losses can be attributed to confrontation with our United States counterparts, will the minister inform the House whether discussions are still taking place with Secretary Butz to ensure the movement of our surplus beef into the United States?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, while not agreeing at all with the preamble to the hon. member's question, if we had not taken any action we would have had thousands of cattle from the United States

April 14, 1975
Oral Questions
dumped on our market depressing our prices to that of theirs. Canadian cattlemen are better off by $100 million by our action. Discussions are taking place with our U.S. counterparts.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in the last 18 months we have had tariffs on and tariffs off, surcharges on and surcharges off, subsidy programs and the diethystilbestrol issue, I should like to ask the minister if he feels this will be a deciding factor as far as Washington is concerned?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has mentioned many of the programs we have initiated to help the cattle producers, and I may say that this was at the insistence of the cattle producers of Canada practically at all times. These things have been discussed with the United States, and these are some of the laws of our land that we have to abide by.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister which relates to a body of dead water approximately eight miles in length moving down the Red River which could result in a fish kill of magnitudinous proportion. Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House what steps the government is taking to diminish the effect of this slug of dead water?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question as I do not have any detailed answer. I do know the subject is being studied by the IJC. I will check for a report and can perhaps then provide a responsible answer.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the government has agreed to accept some of the proposals made by the special commission on textile products and since information from that industry leads me to believe that the number of its employees will decline by 50 per cent within the next six months, considering the clearly inadequate decisions taken by the government, could the minister say whether he intends to take new measures, which would be much more drastic than those it has taken, to save the textile industry in Canada, rather than letting it go in jeopardy, as it now is?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the figure of 50 per cent reduction in the employment levels of that industry. I think that is a gross exaggeration, and, worse than that, I think it is an alarmist suggestion. The information I have received from the industry and from the clothing and textile board indicates that while we may have difficulties as a result of a slowdown in Canada and as a result of some imports into Canada, the long term future of this industry is good. Indeed, the government accepted all of the recommendations of the clothing and textile board in respect of its substantial report with one exception, which had to do with polyester yarn. We put that on the import control list and we have it under a very close monitoring process at the present time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question which will bring at the same time supporting evidence to my previous question, since in my region two textile companies informed me last weekend, one, that it may have to close down within three months, and the other, that it will reduce its personnel by 50 per cent. And to this information it was added-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member must ask his question.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the consensus program, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what kind of agreement he is seeking from the fishing industry? Does he expect the industry to hold its prices, or what proposal is he making?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at the moment we are exploring with the agricultural and fishing industries how best they can fit into this program of monitoring of our economy, but roughly the same answer would apply to the fishing industry that I gave earlier in respect of agriculture. One wants to encourage the production of the fishing industry.


INFLATION-SEEKING OF CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT FROM MINING COMPANIES-POSSIBILITY OF TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR MINERALS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oral Questions
supplied to Canada? If this is so, is there to be a two-price [English]
system in respect of these kinds of industries?	THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if, as and when the program performs successfully the mineral industry will hopefully be a part of it. The hon. gentleman has put his finger on one of the difficulties involving the export price of primary products, particularly mineral resources. I would be rather reluctant to contemplate a two-price system for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that this might be open to retaliation from some of our trading partners. That is one of the difficult questions that has occurred in these discussions.


ADVERTISING IN &quot;LE JOUR&quot;-POSSIBLE CHANGE IN POLICY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Since the petroleum situation is now of the greatest interest, and since protests are rising from every part of the country against the minister's decision not to use the newspaper Le Jour to inform the readers of his department's policy, may I ask him whether he intends to review his policy on the matter with a view to doing justice to this paper's readers, particularly on the petroleum matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The decision has not changed, Mr. Speaker.


STUDY CONCERNING ARSENIC POISONING IN YELLOWKNIFE-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to indicate whether the health study conducted in Yellowknife concerning arsenic pollution has now been completed, and does he have a report to present to parliament in that regard?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker, and if this study is ready, I will be pleased to publish it or provide the hon. member with a copy.


POWERS OF BOARDS PROPOSED FOR MONITORING CONSENSUS PROGRAM TO ENFORCE GUIDELINES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, with your patience I should like to direct two questions, the first to the Minister of Finance and the second to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having regard to the terms of reference of the board or boards which will be set up under the consensus talks, will the Minister of Finance advise whether the government is now going beyond the areas of monitoring and interpretation of the principles raised in his statement and is now prepared to consider terms of reference that might include the authority to enforce key aspects of whatever guidelines are established?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir.


ALLEGED CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR COMPULSORY INCOME AND PRICE CONTROLS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my second question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and is similar to one asked of the Prime Minister last Thursday regarding the continual updating of a contingency plan for compulsory income and price controls. That question was not answered by the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. It certainly has been reported that there is a plan in existence that is continually being updated. I refer to a contingency plan for compulsory income and price controls. Can the minister confirm that report?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I believe it already has been said that the government has studied these possibilities in order to consider them if necessary. The fact that we have studied the matter and checked the possibility of using this solution does not mean necessarily that we agree with this doctrine. However, it is clear that the government has studied what it would imply and neglected no details in developing a plan that could be used if necessary.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Notwithstanding that long preamble which gave me no information whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, will the minister answer the question I really want him to answer, and that is whether this plan in continually being updated?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government in seriously studying the changing situation in Canada, must become familiar with all new situations, and it is clear that the civil servants of my department check each day very seriously the change in the situation.

April 14, 1975
Oral Question Procedure



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On Monday last the House began an experiment with a change in procedure relating to the question period, Standing Order 43, supply and ministerial statements. I indicated earlier that I would make a statement today in respect of the changes. This statement concerns itself with the question period only and, as I indicated before the Easter break, ought to be taken as a reference point for discussion and consideration by members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, where I will be happy to appear if members wish. It is therefore not so much a decision as an explanation of my understanding of how our question period should operate.
The question period is a unique feature of the Canadian House of Commons where the ministry is required to be accountable to the House on a daily basis without advance notice. It is an excellent feature of our parliament, and while we have much to learn from other governmental systems, the question period is one area in which we are in the forefront of responsible government, and every effort must be made to preserve the excellence of this practice.
The opportunity of members to put questions has developed in a rather haphazard way, but is now enshrined in Standing Order 39 and if it ever was considered to be a privilege of members, it certain now enjoys the status of a right. Much has been said in the precedents about restrictions and disqualifications or interferences with the right of members to put questions. This is not the approach I prefer to take in attempting to establish a rational approach and understanding concerning how the question period should operate. I much prefer to take the positive approach of attempting to arrive at a statement of principle within which questions can be put, and to reduce to an absolute minimum the negative disqualifications that may limit or restrict a member's right so to do.
In so doing, I should say that there seems to be no question that the Speaker enjoys discretion in allowing a question and certainly in allowing a supplementary. I think it is also important to begin with the rather wide latitude of discretion that is given ministers to whom questions are put. The fact is that ministers are able to make an answer, of course. They may also defer a question for further consideration or take it as notice. Ministers are able to make an explanation if for some reason they are unable to make an answer at that moment; or, finally, they may say nothing.
It therefore seems to me that any basic principle governing the question period ought to be such that it will enable members to put questions with a minimum of interference. In examining the many precedents, I feel that the principle can best be stated as follows; a brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom

it is addressed is in order. This statement bears some explanation. First, it must be a question. That seems to be too self-evident to be worth consideration. However, the fact of the matter is that that statement is put right at the beginning because it opposes such things as expressions of opinion, representations, argumentation or debate.
Second, the question must be brief. There can be no doubt that the greatest enemy of the question period is the member who offends this most important principle. In putting the original question on any subject, a member may require an explanatory remark, but there is no reason for such a preamble to exceed one carefully drawn sentence. It is my proposal to ask all hon. members to pay close attention to this admonition and to bring them to order if they fail to do so. It bears repeating that the long preamble or long question takes an unfair share of the time, and invariably, in provoking the same kind of response, only compounds the difficulty.
Replies ought to be subject to precisely the same admonition. On the subject of supplementaries, I again suggest to hon. members the adoption of a practice which recently was suggested by one of our provincial colleagues which is, if and when supplementary questions are allowed, there ought to be no need whatsoever for any preamble. The supplementary question is a follow-up device flowing from the response, and ought to be a precise question put directly and immediately to the minister, without any further statement.
Third, the question ought to seek information, and therefore cannot be based upon a hypothesis, it cannot seek an opinion either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make a representation.
Fourth, it ought to be on an important matter which, again, is self-evident but it is stressed here in order to rule out frivolous questions.
Fifth, the matter ought to be of some urgency. This is not included to intend in any way to be similar to those questions of urgency which are included within the Standing Orders surrounding special debates. It is here only to stress the fact that there must be some present value in seeking the information during the question period, as opposed to seeking it through the order paper or through correspondence with the minister or the department.
The fact that questions on the order paper also have been changed in the experimental order to daily responses, I am sure, is to all hon. members an indication of the good will and good intentions of the government in making more prompt answers to the questions on the order paper. If the government will do so, undoubtedly this will have a beneficial effect on the conduct of the oral question period.
At the same time, it goes without saying that the vexatious or frivolous use of the right of putting questions on the order paper by way of putting questions which do not seek the kind of information which can be available within a reasonable time, reasonable effort and expense, seems to me to be only a waste of the time of the House and to invite the government to use the excuse that it would take too long or cost too much money to make replies. In other words, a serious and conscientious atti-
April 14, 1975

tude on both sides about the use of the order paper for information will certainly go a long way toward improving the oral question period.
Sixth, a question must be within the administrative responsibility of the government or the minister. Obviously, the government in general cannot be responsible for those areas which are beyond its own administrative responsibility. Furthermore, the minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his ministry; that is, his present ministry. He is responsible to the limits of that ministry, but not beyond that. In this regard I find no reason to change the earlier decision I made in respect of the capacities which ministers enjoyed in previously-held portfolios.
It seems to me that a question which conforms with this basic principle ought not to be interfered with without clear reason. One or two are well known. Obviously, the question must adhere to the proprieties of the House in respect of inference, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House, or out of it for that matter, but this is no more a rule of decorum in the question period than it is out of it. The same rules surround polite language and things of that nature.
There is a clear precedent that if a question has previously been answered, it ought not to be asked again. A question cannot deal with a matter that is before a court. Those are clear restrictions. There are three others which seems to me lend themselves to some confusion. I may be able to clarify them, but I am not sure. The first deals with statements made by ministers outside the House. This, it seems to me, is a matter of form rather than one of substance, for indeed if a question otherwise conforms with the principles I have set out, then it ought not to be disqualified simply because in its preamble some reference is made to a minister or a statement made by a minister somewhere other than here.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why in the case of a valid question a member would want to tie it to a statement made outside the House and therefore risk having it disqualified, when in fact the simple device is to put the question directly without any reference to the statement. Second is the question which seeks an opinion about government policy. The whole area of government policy seems to be one of general confusion.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: What I failed to say was, the whole area of questions about government policy. There have been restrictions related to questions about government policy. It seems to me that a question which seeks an opinion about government policy probably is out of order because it seeks an opinion rather than information. A question which seeks a general statement of government policy may be out of order because it requires the kind of long answer that ought to be given on statements during motions or in debate. But this is the kind of qualification which is referred to in the statement of principle. Otherwise, it seems to me that every question that is asked and answered and which has been held in order for as long as
Oral Question Procedure
the question period goes back, has in one way or another a connection with government policy.
The third area of confusion is in respect of anticipating orders of the day. It is a restriction that is not well understood. If I might express it in my own terms, it simply means that if the subject of debate for today concerns, for example, housing policy, then questions on housing policy ought not to be taken during the question period. That simply, it seems to me, has obvious reference to the currency or importance of the question being taken at that time rather than at some other time.
Similarly, if a special debate has been ordered for later in the day because obviously the topic is very important and very topical, the proper course would be for the Chair to defer questions until that debate is on, rather than to permit them during the question period.
Beyond that, I think a word should be said about points of order and questions of privilege. One of the most significant features of our experimental order is the suggestion to the Chair that points of order and questions of privilege be deferred until three o'clock. I say this is most significant because it is obvious by an expression of the consensus of hon. members that those who prolong their share of the question period by arguing points of order and questions of privilege are really doing nothing more than extending the time that has already been granted to them to put questions. There is no need for a full expose of questions of privilege and points of order.
Suffice it to say that for the purpose of the question period all hon. members know, and know well, that complaints about the failure of a minister to give an answer, about the quality of the answer that any minister has given, or about discrepancies in answers given by different ministers or by the same minister on different occasions may be valid comments for debate at the appropriate time, but do not by any stretch of the rules constitute a question of privilege or a point of order. Even in handling these matters when they are deferred until three o'clock, it seems to me to be in the best interests of the House, unless a member is able to establish at the beginning when addressing himself to these points that he has a point of order or question of privilege that has some basis in procedure other than a mere complaint of that sort, to discourage members from raising such complaints at the start.
Finally, I should like to add, in respect of hon. members' rights about questions which they feel have not been adequately dealt with during the question period, that there is provision for an adjournment debate. Consideration may be given by the committee to expanding that; certainly it has been recently considered. In any case, it is an excellent way for members who feel that the answer has been too brief or that they have not had the opportunity to fully develop a question, to seek to raise it again in the "late show."
After six sitting days under the experimental order, there can be no doubt that it has been successful, but in my view the success is attributable, as it always is, not so much to the rules themselves or to the power or discretion of the Chair but, rather, to the attitude of members of the

April 14, 1975
Tributes to Senator Crerar
House. It is not possible to say too much about the importance of this, because when members in their questions and ministers in their replies choose to abide by these principles that I have tried to set out here, the question period runs smoothly, with maximum participation. On the other hand, when members or ministers choose to disregard these principles, they can be called to order by the Chair but the question period cannot be saved from the damage that has been done to it.
In the first six days it has been obvious that members have looked upon this experiment with a positive and conscientious attitude which, if it continues, will assure that this very worth-while experiment will become a permanent Standing Order. My authority is simply an expression of the desire of members that the proceedings run well and have maximum value, but I am sure members understand very clearly that the less the Chair is called upon to interfere in the proceedings, the better.
With those remarks, I can only conclude that again this is a point of discussion and I would be more than pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and discuss these points with hon. members, who may be interested in doing so at the earliest opportunity.


THE LATE THOMAS ALEXANDER CRERAR
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, particularly after your statement on the rules I do not wish to abuse the time of the House or the rules themselves, but I would ask for the indulgence of the House to pay tribute to the senior member of Canada's Privy Council, namely, Thomas Alexander Crerar, who passed away on the weekend at the age of 98. He was a giant figure in the political development of Canada during the initial, turbulent decades of this century. In him, western Canada enjoyed one of its most dedicated spokesman and one who always used the language of unity rather than of divisiveness or alienation.

Senator Crerar was an essentially progressive spirit and our country owes much to the generosity with which he served the political scene in general and his government in particular. I am certain that all hon. members will join me in expressing our sincere condolences to his family.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself and the members of my party with the warm tribute that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has paid to the hon. Senator Crerar. He had a very long and distinguished career in the public life of this country. Clearly, he was a man with strong convictions, a man of high principle, a man who regarded his own principles and his duty to the country as going beyond party loyalties, a man who associated himself with a union government under a Conservative prime minister at the time of the First World War, a man who associated himself with the progressive movement in the 1920s and a man who later served with
distinction as a minister in the Liberal government under the Right Hon. Mackenzie King.
Obviously, he was a man with a great sense of public duty, a man who lived a long life and who maintained through that long life a very active interest in public questions, and strong views which he expressed with great force and conviction.
I should like to join the Prime Minister in extending our sympathy to the members of Senator Crerar's family.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to join the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in paying respect to the memory of the late Senator Thomas A. Crerar. As the Prime Minister has so well put it, he was one of those to whom we must refer as a giant in the political history of this country. There are three of us in this House-the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and I-who remember him in the House as a cabinet minister during the Second World War. We know from our history that he was also a cabinet minister in the House during the First World War, when none of the three of us was here.
To have a career that included entering parliament in 1917 at the age of 41, and to be in the Senate until 1966 at the age of 90-a total of 49 years, with only five of them spent out of parliament-is indeed a distinguished career.
There were times when some of us felt that the late Senator Crerar was not as progressive or as liberal as we wanted him to be, certainly in economic terms, but his adherence to the defence of civil liberties and his devotion to the principles in which he believed were very clear.
We join in paying respect to his memory and in expressing our sympathy to Mrs. Naylor, his daughter, and to all those who were close to him.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of my party, I join my colleagues to give homage to hon. Senator Crerar. I did not have the honour or the privilege to know personally this important Canadian, but I had the opportunity to follow his activities when he was a minister in the King cabinet.
I believe that Senator Crerar served his country according to the dictates of his conscience. On behalf of my party, I offer our most sincere condolences to his family.


AUDITOR GENERAL
John Napier Turner: I should like to lay on the table a copy of the report in both official languages, of the Independent Review committee on the office of the Auditor General of Canada, dated March, 1975.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following

April 14, 1975

questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,243, 1,272, 1,352, 1,857, 1,862, 1,932, 1,946, 1,951, 1,964, 1,966, 1,972, 1,990, 1,997, 2,002 and 2,172.
If questions Nos. 883, 1,199 and 2,018 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask that question No. 722 be made an order for return and also seek the consent of the House to table immediately the information which has already been submitted. The balance of the information will follow as soon as it is submitted to me.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: Of those registering for unemployment insurance benefits (a) what percentage have been fired from their employment for cause (b) what is the average period that such persons draw benefits?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) For the year 1974, the percentage of those who were disqualified for being discharged for misconduct (i.e. fired from their job) of all claims established in that time period was 1.6 per cent, (b) Information not available.


Mr. Herbert: From the most recent statistics, what percentage of those drawing unemployment insurance benefits voluntarily left their employment and, of this group (a) what is the average period during which payments are made (b) what percentage have their payments terminated, for any reason, before the expiration of the maximum term during which they would have been eligible for benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: For the year 1974 those who received a disqualification for voluntarily leaving their employment was approximately 13 per cent of all those establishing a claim in that year, (a) Information not available, (b) Information not available.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the date of the answer to Question No. 2,599 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament setting forth items of furniture, fittings, fixtures or contents of any kind whatsoever purchased for the Prime Minister's official residence in Ottawa, what is the itemized list of all additional items purchased and the cost thereof?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Since the date of the answer to question No. 2,599, which listed items purchased up to July 31, 1973, included herewith is a list of items purchased from August 1, 1973 to December 31,1974.
Order Paper Questions
August. 1, 1973 March 31, 1971	
4 Venetian blinds (Coquille)	$ 237.30
8 Soup bowls	38.08
8 Dessert bowls	25.28
2 Cups	8.9f>
24 Facette glasses	150.00
3 Candlesticks and candles	43.90
1 Bowl	15.95
1 Flame cream and sugar	19.50
1 Vase	13.95
1 Grill pan	15.95
1 Pancake pan	9.95
3G Tea Towels	71.28
17 Face cloths	29.84
8 Cups	35.84
2 Saucers	16.50
G Bread and butter plates	10.50
6 Salad plates	34.40
5 Dinner plates	44.40
1 Beverage server	21.50
Various dishes	44.48
1 P.G. grille 18" x 5"	30.50
1 Bronze lamp	117.60
2 Sheets 108" x 115"	69.50
Pair 18th Century American Brass	
Andirons	450.00
Carpets	1,159.77
1 Beogram 3000 turntable	319.00
1 Zenith 20" colour TV	650.00
1 Vase	10.50
1 Nutone food centre	205.85
1 Antique French Bergcre circa 1820	950.00
2 Antique French armchairs circa 1830	1,251.00
1 Antique French directoral bergcre	1,100.00
1 Antique Regency chair	331.00
1 Bronze cocktail table	196.47
1 Clear cocktail table	219.11
2 Late 18th Century English elbow chairs	595.00
1 Sofa	740.00
2 Loveseats	1,240.00
2 Chairs	644.00
1 Sesann 3 seat sofa	1,055.00
2 Sesann arm chairs	1,210.00
Chinaware	485.25
134 Yards of Oyster Silk fabric	1,965.17
10 Yards of embroidery	446.50
19 Yards of herringbone velvet	798.00
4 Yards linen chenille	148.00
32 Yards linen corduroy velvet	957.60
3 Vinyl link mats	435.61
1 Antique Georgian chandelier circa 1790	3,000.00
2 Elda chairs	2,052.00
12 Pairs of candles	13.30
Linen	133.75
Drapes	344.95
2 Outdoor chaises lounge	252.57
4 Pails	25.92
Jars	7.84
Linen	180.90
30 Yards Velours Ariana	720.00
3.3 Yards Mirepoix creme	65.00
Linen	374.20
Linen	129.90
Kitchen utensils	19.45
12 Dozen candles	90.00
2 Carpets	210.00

April 14, 1975
Order Paper Questions
August 1, 1973 -March 31, 1974
12 Coasters	84.00
4 Dishes	20.00
Carpets	4,450.07
1 Laundramat	337.50
1 Dryer	237.50
1 Pair of French iron fire dogs	274.05
1 Acrylic plexiglass shelf	207.20
Chinavvare	271.51
2 End Tables	904.00
12 Dozen classic candles	115.20
1 Oak Chair	142.27
1 Pelee desk	1,618.00
Expenditures to March 31, 1974	$34,924.07
1974-1975	
4 Humidairc	469.00
Linen	163.27
1 Kettle	10.95
1 Salad dryer	12.95
1 Teapot	4.50
1 Icebucket	11.50
1 Instant brewer	12.95
Super Venus Mappa	54.52
1 Cooey Chrome stool	33.40
1 Humidaire	91.85
1 Braun TG 1000/4 black Stereo	812.00
2 Braun L810 Speakers	560.00
1 20" Electrohome colour TV	579.95
12 Dozen classic candles	100.80
1 Avlenti marble coffee table	628.00
Expenditures to December 31, 1974	$ 3,545.04


Mr. Herbert: Does the Department of Agriculture keep records of the exotic breeds of cattle exported by (a) individuals (b) partnerships (c) cooperatives or corporations and, if so, what are (i) the names and addresses of the individuals, partnerships, cooperatives or corporations who received permits in 1974 (ii) the number of permits in each instance (iii) how many permits did each receive in the previous years 1970-73 inclusive?


Eugene Whelan: The Department of Agriculture does not maintain lists of the cattle of the exotic breeds which have been exported. Purebred cattle that have been imported into Canada through a Canadian or Canadian controlled quarantine station are under export control. Excepted from this control are cattle of the following breeds: Ayrshire, Aberdeen Angus, Gallway, Guernsey, Hereford, Highland, Holstein-Friesian, Jersey, Lincoln Red, Shorthorn, South Devon, Red Poll, Welsh Blacks. These controls are affected under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act which is administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Those classes of animals subject to these controls must be accompanied by an export permit issued by that department. While the applications for these permits are referred to the Department of Agriculture for advice as to the eligibility of the animals listed, the exports permits are issued by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the records of such permits are maintained by them. Any records of the export of the "exotic" breeds which are not subject to control are maintained by the breed association concerned.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Silvestro Carollo enter Canada on or about February 14, 1970 and, if not, on what date did he enter Canada?
2.	Has the RCMP ever conducted an investigation in regard to this person and, if so (a) on what dates (b) for what reasons (c) what were the details of the investigation?
3.	What are the names of all persons who at any time made representations to the government on behalf of this person for purposes of his admission to Canada or for any other purpose and, in each case, what are the details of such representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. Silvestro Carollo, also known as Sylvestro Carollo, arrived in Canada on February 14, 1970.
2.	An investigation was conducted on one Sylvestro Carollo (born June 17, 1896). (a) 1970. (b) News reports indicated he had illegally entered the United States through Canada, (c) A person by the same name arrived in Montreal on February 14, 1970. On February 15, 1970, he flew from Montreal to Windsor, Ontario. When or how he entered the United States has not been determined.
3.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no record of any representations made to the government on behalf of Silvestro Carollo.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Is there a shortage of veterinary doctors in the Health of Animals Branch of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What is the length of the course leading to the degree of D.V.M.?
3.	What is the starting salary for a veterinarian employed by the Health of Animals Branch?
4.	What is the maximum salary a veterinarian could aspire to in the Department, excluding the positions of Veterinary Director General, Director of the Meat Inspection Division and Director of the Infectious and Contagious Disease Division?
5.	How many years of service would it take a veterinarian in the Health of Animals Branch to reach this salary, providing his work has been satisfactory?
6.	What are the requirements, academic or otherwise, for a person to be employed as a primary products inspector in the Department?
7.	What is the (a) starting salary (b) maximum salary for a primary products inspector as of April 1, 1975?
8.	How many years of service would it take a primary products inspector to reach his maximum, providing his work has been satisfactory?
9.	(a) What are the requirements of the Capital Assistance Programme for students taking veterinary science (b) is this Programme to be expanded?
10.	Are there plans for the establishment of a new veterinary college in Canada and, if so, in what location?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes.
2.	Six years, after senior matriculation or the equivalent.
3.	$14,251.
4.	$30,041.
5.	Variable, depending upon opportunities, mobility and performance.
6.	Grade 12 (Ontario) completion or its equivalent.

7.	(a) $10,041. (b) $19,113.
8.	Variable, depending upon opportunities, mobility and performance.
9.	(a) There is no capital assistance programme for students per se. There has been a capital assistance to the three veterinary schools which has allowed the enrollment to be increased from 45 to 90 students at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine from 60 to 120 students at the Ontario Veterinary College, and from 35 to 70 students at St-Hyacinthe. This measure has provided more opportunities for students to take veterinary science, (b) There is no student assistance program for expansion.
10.	There are no definite plans for th establishment of a new veterinary college in Canada. The matter is under review and it is possible that a forth veterinary college could be established, possibly in the Maritimes.


Mr. Reynolds: Did the Minister of Supply and Services issue a press release dated December 1973, in which it was stated the "high security" of the present system for tenders under $10,000 will be maintained and, if so (a) what are the terms of reference inferred in the remark (b) what is the "high security"?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The following excerpt is from a statement made by the Minister of Supply and Services in the House of Commons on December 19, 1973: "In any event, for tenders whose anticipated value is likely to be under $10,000, the present highly secure system which has stood the test of time for upwards of 30 years will continue with as many improvements as we can make to it." The statement in the House of Commons was summarized in a press release dated the same day. That release read as follows: "For tenders under $10,000," said Mr. Goyer, "the high security of the present system had stood the test of some 30 years and, with some improvements, will continue." The "highly secure system" referred to in these statements sets out precise procedures to be followed to ensure that the confidential nature of individual suppliers' tenders is preserved and that all suppliers are treated fairly, regardless of the type or value of the particular requirement.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence signed a contract with Air Canada for passenger reservation services on the Air Canada computer at a cost of $1,866,662 and, if so, how many passengers travelled on Armed Services aircraft in 1974?
2.	What percentage of the capacity of the aircraft seats available is this amount?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. The number of passengers who travelled on Armed Services aircraft in 1974 was 260,000.
Order Paper Questions
2.	77 per cent.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Fairview Industrial Engineering, Arm-dale, Nova Scotia for $160,315 on November 29,1974?
2.	What was the purpose of the contract?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: 1. Yes, however the contract was issued October 17, 1974. The news release of award of contract was dated November 29, 1974.
2.	To furnish all plant labour, materials and equipment required to supply and install a casting platform, and to perform all work connected with the removal of machine shop equipments from existing locations and for its installation in a centralized location in building D108, HMC Dockyard, CFB Halifax, Nova Scotia, in strict accordance with DND specifications and drawings.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the government purchase top quality air mattresses at a price of $44.20 and, if so (a) are such mattresses available at lower prices (b) what benefit makes such expenditure justifiable?
2.	Does the Department of Supply and Services rely on a single supplier or do they request tenders for the item?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: 1. The price for the most recent purchase was $48.66 efich, f.o.b. manufacturer's plant, (a) No. (b) This is a highly specialized, lightweight air mattress carried in arctic kits. The mattress has special features such as special valves, vulcanized joints, and an integral inflating device that excludes moisture. Failure of the mattress to operate effectively could result in the user freezing to death.
2.	A great deal of effort was made to interest potential suppliers to manufacture this special mattress but without success. Only one response was received to a number of invitations to tender. Tenders will be requested for subsequent purchases and attempts will continue to interest other qualified manufacturers to bid.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded by the Department of Supply and Services on June 18, 1974 to Laurentian Concentrates Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario for 118,570 gallons of liquid concentrate fire extinguishing foam at a cost of $513,498?
2.	Was the contract put to tender?
3.	What were the names of other companies tendering and what were the bids received?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: 1. Yes, except the date of contract was June 3, 1974; the news release was dated June 18, 1974.

April 14, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	No. The foam is a "qualified product" and manufactured in accordance with Canadian Government Specification Board Specification 28-GP-28. Laurentian Concentrates Limited is the only Canadian manufacturer for this particular type of foam and holds qualification approval to the governing specification. The contract was negotiated following a cost analysis by DSS of the company's pricing structure.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded by the Department of Supply and Services in September 1973 to Lynn Reid, Alberta for a quantity of hay?
2.	For what department was this purchase made and for what reason?
3.	What was the cost?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Feed for horses, deer and buffalo in the Banff National Park.
3.	$10,900.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many dollars were spent by the Department of Supply and Services in the last fiscal year for employees responsible for materials handling?,
2.	What is the approximate number of persons working in this area?
3.	What is the dollar value of inventory items in the Department's warehouses?
4.	How many dollars in stock were issued in the last fiscal year?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: 1. $2,316,000 in fiscal year 1973-74. This covers the whole range of material handling functions within the stocked item supply activity.
2.	270 man-years was expended in support of the stocked item supply activity in fiscal year 1973-74.
3.	$7,521,000 as of March 31, 1974.
4.	$29 million for fiscal year 1973-74.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to Imperial Oil, Ottawa, Ontario for the supply of approximately 17,500,000 gallons of turbine fuel at a cost of $5,584,032 during the third week of May 1974?
2.	For that same week was a contract awarded to British Petroleum Montreal for the supply of approximately 13,000,000 gallons of turbine fuel valued at $5,559,100?
3.	Was the fuel (a) under Part 1 to be delivered to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (b) under Part 2 to be shipped solely to CFB Bagotville?
4.	For what reason was Imperial Oil not contracted at the same per gallon price for fuels to be shipped to CFB Bagotville?

5.	In co-ordinating the purchase effort, can the Minister of Supply and Services explain his policy vis-a-vis the attainment of aviation fuel?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as DSS is concerned: 1. A contract in the amount of $5,584,832 was issued to Imperial Oil Limited on May 3, 1974 for the supply of an estimated 15,663,375 gallons of turbine fuel, and 1,700,000 gallons of grade 115/145 aviation gasoline. The news release covering the award of this contract was dated May 16, 1974.
2.	The contract to British Petroleum Canada for 13 million gallons of aviation turbine fuel was issued May 3, 1974 in the amount of $5,599,100. The value of the contract as shown in the English language version of the news release is in error. The correct figure appears in the French language version.
3.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
4.	Imperial Oil Limited was invited to tender for the supply of aviation turbine fuel for CFB Bagotville but declined because they were not in a position to quote on this requirement. The price per gallon of fuel varies with the destination and depends on such factors as transportation costs and method of delivery.
5.	Competitive tenders are invited by geographical areas from all firms considered to be in a position to supply. On any annual requirements in excess of 500,000 gallons bids are invited on an f.o.b. refinery and f.o.b. destination basis in order that the transportation cost may be assessed. National Defence requirements usually require delivery of fuel to on-base bulk storage facilities on a call-up basis. Ministry of Transport requirements are for delivery on an into-plane basis. Tenders are invited and competitive bids obtained. Air crews present a company credit card to obtain delivery of fuel at the contracted price. A similar arrangement applies for RCMP and National Research Council aircraft.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government have plans to proceed with further mechanization of lock facilities on the Rideau Canal and, if so, what are such plans including (a) estimated costs involved (b) locations where work will be done (c) dates on which such work will commence?
2.	Will the government take steps to see that the historic nature of the Rideau Canal is not destroyed in any way and, if so, what are all such steps?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No.
2. Yes, by preservation and restoration of existing structures.
April 14, 1975

Oil and Petroleum



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Which departments have been, or are being, re-organized in administrative structure to place greater responsibility into the district offices?
2.	In each department so decentralized or re-organized, what is the present number of staff in total who are in the salary brackets (a) over $35,000 per year (b) between $25,000 and $35,000 per year (c) between $20,000 and $25,000 per year?
3.	In each department so decentralized or re-organized, what was the number of staff in total before the re-organizing or decentralization who were in the salary brackets (a) over $35,000 per year (b) between $25,000 and $35,000 per year (c) between $20,000 and $25,000 per year?
4.	In departments presently in the process of decentralization or re-organization, what was the number of staff in total on January 1, 1974 in the salary brackets (a) over $35,000 per year (b) between $25,000 and $35,000 per year (c) between $20,000 and $25,000 per year?
5.	What is estimated to be the number of each category on January 1, 1976?
Return tabled.


NEWFOUNDLAND BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Nowlan: 1.	As of July 6, 1968 (a) who were the shareholders of the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited (b) how was the share capital distributed (c) has there been any change in share ownership (d) what were the media holdings of the Company (e) where were the radio and television outlets located?
2.	By year, what changes have occurred in the holdings of Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited since July 6, 1968 and, in particular (a) what new licences have been granted (b) what licences have been cancelled (c) how many successful applications for a power increase to an existing licence were made, where were they granted and what was the nature of the increase?
3.	Since July 6, 1968, by year, amount and department, what contracts did and does Newfoundland Broadcasting Company Limited have with the government?
Return tabled.


INCOME TAX PAID TO GOVERNMENT BY CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In the past five years, by province, how much income tax was paid to the government (a) by corporations (b) by individuals?
2.	What was the population of each province as recorded in the last census?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES-CONTRACT FORMS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the Department of Supply and Services have a standard purchase contract?
2.	Does the purchasing contract use standard wording to place the onus for a possible patent infringement on the supplier and to absolve the government from any responsibility in this respect?
3.	Will the Minister provide a sample copy of blank contract forms?
Return tabled.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 9, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Laniel in the chair. [English]
On clause 2-Definitions.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Monday, December 9, clause 2 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 2 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, we have some slight reservations and there are a few remarks we want to make, but I wonder if the minister is prepared at this time to bring us up to date on what has happened with regard to the other issues dealt with in this bill.
Members of the committee will recall that as a result of an arrangement worked out, it was agreed that discussion on the bill would be postponed subject to certain arrangements which were then entered into with regard to the continued imposition of the export tax and the right of the government to make compensation in parts of the country to bring about general equalization. Since then we have had a federal-provincial conference and there have been some changes in the world; much oil and gas has flowed through the pipelines and some gas has been found elsewhere. I wonder if the minister would like to make a preliminary statement to bring us up to date, so far as he is able, on the conference, he views and what is likely to happen in the government's opinion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as the committee may recall, the purposes of the bill are really three fold. It is to provide a legislative base for the export charge which has been used for the purpose of funding the compensation program. The compensation program paid in a relatively small amount to users in British Columbia and a more substantial amount to users in Quebec and the east in order to keep the international price at about $5 below the world price and, in effect, to carry out the government's undertaking to establish a single national price, subject only to differences for transportation costs, at a figure substantially below the world price. The bill does that by providing for the export charge, if I may say so, not just in relation to the current period but also for the several forms that charge took from back into 1974 as the charge was increased with the increase in international oil prices.
The second aspect of the bill is to authorize the payment of compensation. Under that particular heading it sets up an administration whereby the government, and particularly the energy supplies allocation board, might engage in

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
monitoring the compensation system to make sure that indeed the claims being made by the importers are based on actual payments they have to make, and to make certain also that they in turn are honouring the lower price in wholesale transactions. Third, the bill is to provide a mechanism for setting the price in Canada initially for oil and subsequently for natural gas.
The bill, or the predecessor to the bill, was first introduced in the spring of 1974. It was reintroduced after the election campaign and after the gas arbitration hearings had been started in the province of Alberta, when it became clear that in order to establish an effective national price it was desirable to take jurisdiction over both natural gas and oil and therefore the subject matter was changed to include gas as well.
With regard to the meeting of first ministers which took place last week and to which the hon. gentleman made reference, as he knows, the government was unable to reach a consensus at the meeting of first ministers on the appropriate level for either the price of oil or the price of natural gas. Therefore, we will have to continue seeking a consensus on this question outside that meeting, of course, and more particularly by way of bilateral discussions with the producing provinces and with the consuming provinces which will, of course, be affected by this legislation.
In terms of timing, I could set out a relatively specific agenda, at least in terms of the order of priorities to be considered. The first of the questions to which we will be giving our attention is with respect to gas export prices. The House will recall that on the basis of a report given by the National Energy Board last year pursuant to regulation 11A of the National Energy Board regulations, the government established the export price of Canadian gas going from Canada into the United States at a $1 level across the board, that is, from the west to the easternmost point of export.
At the same time, it indicated that the board would have under scrutiny the next steps in this regard and that Canada's export customers could expect price increases in due course. The board has indeed scrutinized this question again and has delivered to myself the second report pursuant to regulation 11 A. That report will be going before my colleagues within the next several days for their consideration and action. I am anticipating that the government will be making a decision in that regard and that the probable effective day of the decision in that respect will be around August 1.
In the case of the province of Alberta, the decision on gas export prices imposes a certain complication. One of the objectives we will have, through the meetings of my officials within the next several days or a week with Alberta officials, will be to discuss some procedure whereby the proceeds from the increase in export gas prices may be passed back in the first place to the exporters themselves, back to the producing industry, and if possible to achieve an even balance throughout the producing industry so that there can be a cash flow registered to them so they may engage in further exploration and development. In other words, the purpose would be to try to flow the proceeds back to the producing industry on an even basis so that there could be a general incentive to the industry in Alberta. As I say, that is a matter which is of some

complexity and it will require fairly extensive technical discussion with the Alberta officials in particular.
On the second of the issues, in terms of discussions- that of dealing with domestic gas prices-this comes second in time because, as opposed to oil prices, there is now a time constraint with regard to natural gas pricing in Canada. Proceedings under the Alberta arbitration law are now under way that will lead to a possible increase in the price of natural gas to Canadian users on November 1, 1975.
As a result of the discussions at the meetings last week, and in particular as a result of the action of Premier Lougheed and his officials, action has been taken to delay these arbitration proceedings in Alberta so that the further discussions we have referred to between the producing and consuming provinces can take place, in the hope that some agreement might be obtained as to the level of natural gas pricing in Canada both for this year and for years to come. As I said, the premier intervened in that regard with respect to the arbitration proceedings, but, I put it on the record, specifically on the understanding that the November 1 date for a price change would not be altered, and that this will be recognized.
One of the difficult questions to be discussed with the province of Alberta in this regard is the problem of regulatory delay. Unless the purchasing companies, both Trans-Canada PipeLine and the companies purchasing from it such as Northern and Central Gas, Consumers' Gas and Union Gas, have a certain period of time in which they can be advised in advance of the price increase, then they in turn will have difficulty making application to the appropriate regulatory tribunal, the National Energy Board in the case of TransCanada PipeLines and the Ontario Energy Board in the case of the three distribution companies. So we could be in a situation where the companies are put in serious jeopardy by having a price increase going into effect on November 1 and not being able to recover this increase in the price of gas immediately the price increase is introduced.
While a certain amount of time has been agreed between the federal government and the provincial government, there are active time constraints in operation and it is important that we arrive, if possible, at an early agreement on the appropriate pricing of natural gas in Canada.
There are really two questions involved here in the domestic natural gas situation. The first is the level of natural gas pricing. Certainly for this year-that is, commencing November 1-and also, if possible, as was suggested at the conference, not only for this year but for subsequent years we are trying to determine a procedure to increase the price of natural gas in relation to the price of crude oil.
The second question that we have to deal with is with regard to freeing up additional supplies of gas. The Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board some two years ago issued to TransCanada PipeLines permits that would allow it to remove from the province of Alberta additional quantities of natural gas to supply the demands of its customers in the consuming provinces, namely, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The government of
April 14, 1975

Alberta, by a policy decision, has chosen not to issue the orders in council authorizing those additional supplies of natural gas until it is satisfied that Alberta gas generally is being sold at satisfactory prices.
Up to the present time, that has not been a major constraint on the gas companies or users in Canada, but there is some anticipation, particularly on the part of TransCanada, that unless further gas supplies are authorized in the relatively near future, there will indeed be a constraint on meeting further Canadian demand for gas during the coming winter. Therefore, we are faced with the risk of shortages this coming winter, not for any practical reasons in the reservoir but because of a political decision taken by the Alberta government.
The position of the government of Canada is that if we can agree on an appropriate level of domestic gas pricing in Canada, then we would be entitled to look to the government of Alberta at the same time to lift its embargo on gas for its traditional customers in the other parts of Canada. The discussions that are going to take place between federal representatives and the provinces will cover both the question of pricing formula and making additional supplies available.
The third of the major questions in regard to domestic oil pricing is one that has a national impact beyond the area in which Canadian oil is used in that it affects all ten provinces. Therefore, any discussions of this kind would not be confined, as the natural gas discussion would be, to the producing province and its four principal customers but would relate to all provinces. There is really no time constraint involved here. For example, there is no fixed date, unlike the November 1 date with respect to natural gas, by which or in advance of which a government decision has to be reached. Indeed, Premier Lougheed has indicated, and he repeated again in a television broadcast this past weekend, that he sees no need from his standpoint for any increase in the oil price while meaningful discussions are taking place in this regard.
Therefore, we will seek to undertake such discussions both with the producers and with the consumers to see whether we can arrive at some agreement that all will find acceptable within the current state of the economy. The Prime Minister has indicated that our effort would be toward continuing to get a consensus, as we attempted to do so at the meeting just past and as we achieved last year. This will be our first objective.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I noticed that Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan has indicated that he will be seeking a price increase per barrel of $2.50, although in the press report that I saw there was no indication as to the time constraint he was seeking. My hope is that he will withhold action of this kind until we can arrive at some agreement; but under the present state of the law, of course, if he chooses to increase the price there is no action that the federal government can take to prevent it from coming about.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point? Did the ministers agree at the conference last week that the agreement that was reached on May 27 last year regarding $6.50 per barrel would hold until the end of June? Do I take it
Oil and Petroleum
that no producing province is likely to alter the price prior to the termination date of the voluntary agreement entered into last year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I cannot be sure of that, Mr. Chairman. The question really was not narrowed down in this regard. I am not sure what the intention of Saskatchewan is, but I hope it will not be to take any action either prior to the determination of a national consensus or, conversely, until it is certain that no agreement can be arrived at between the consuming and the producing provinces.
The Prime Minister indicated to the premiers, and he repeated again for the public media, that while under this particular bill we are seeking authority from parliament for, in effect, setting a ceiling on prices, a ceiling, in my estimation, somewhat below the increase of $2.50 per barrel that Premier Blakeney referred to, we will not take that authority unless there is a breakdown in the kind of consensus we have arrived at. While we will be seeking the authority under this particular bill to have that right after proclamation, we will not be proclaiming the parts of the bill dealing with the setting of prices of oil and natural gas without agreement until there is failure to come to an agreement by the consensus procedure to which I have referred.
To sum up, in response to the request for the hon. member for Peace River, the discussion will proceed to deal with the export price of gas in regard to which there is perhaps less interprovincial or federal-provincial disagreement than a technical problem to be overcome in redistributing the proceeds. From there we will proceed to the question of natural gas pricing, in regard to which there is a rather sharp difference of opinion between the producing and consuming provinces. We will then move on to the question of oil pricing as the third matter in time, with regard to which there has been rather less insistence on a strict timetable than there has been with the other two questions.
The government, through my officials, through the National Energy Board and, in due course, with the participation of our provincial counterparts, will seek to achieve the kind of agreement to which the Prime Minister referred. If it cannot be achieved, if there is a breakdown in discussions and we find we cannot reach a general agreement which meets the general economic interest and the interest of the producing provinces, then the federal government, as Premier Davis indicated we should, will implement the authority provided by this bill and seek to determine a price for the Canadian market at levels which will be acceptable from the standpoint of the Canadian economy without being unduly unfair to the interests of producing provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without being unduly unfair?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition takes exception to my phrase. I ought to have said that we will take action which will not be unfair to the producing provinces. We hope that the agreement will not break down. If it does, then, as Premier Davis indicated,

Oil and Petroleum
the ultimate responsibility for action rests on the federal government. For that reason we seek passage of this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the minister's statement was informative and useful. I am sure that as debate proceeds we shall be given enough information to enable other people in the country who are deeply involved in this matter to be made fully aware of what is happening in this House. I am not one to write off federal-provincial conferences, but it might be better if some had never been held. However, the most recent conference will, I think, prove useful to the first ministers, the people of Canada and, I believe, to this House. Such conferences provide opportunities for heads of government who have just come through elections to be statesmanlike, and for others who may face the electorate in the near future to be political. This is to be expected, and I do not take exception to it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But what about those who have just been elected but are political?


Gerald William Baldwin: I come now to the gist of our complaints about this bill. We made it plain when this bill was debated last October and November that we agreed with certain parts of it. The settlement, so to speak, which allowed this bill to be put aside temporarily was made in circumstances which indicated my party's approval of certain aspects of the measure. The present bill, like so many others, contains parts which give rise to concern. We shall indicate our concern and suggest amendments we may feel constrained to move in order to give effect to our objections.
When the bill was debated previously, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain put on record several suggested amendments which we may move in the present debate. Because of what the minister just said we may alter some of our amendments, delete some and perhaps add some fresh ones. We will try to make this a better and more effective bill, on behalf of the people of Canada. Governments propose legislation from mixed motives. They keep one eye on politics, another on the economy and sometimes overlook the legality of legislation. I do not say this disparagingly. Legislating, after all, is the responsibility of this House, of this parliament; it is not the responsibility of the government.
In general, the federal government should be the custodian of the aspirations of people of all parts of Canada. To some extent it has retreated from that attitude and tended to ignore minority rights except when the minority is large enough to wield considerable political power. The government has abandoned itself to the pursuit of power, as this bill shows. Here it seeks to gather into the hands of the monolithic Ottawa bureaucracy a massive concentration of authority.
To attain its ends the government sometimes uses methods of excessive secrecy, of delegated authority, or methods which ignore the constitution. I do not think the constitution is deliberately flouted, although I think that the present measure, in part at least, ignores the constitution of this country. People who should know better accept this situation casually. They think it is all right for the government to pull off a little bit of the constitution here and chip a little bit away somewhere else. I suggest that

the present measure seeks to give the government more authority than those who drafted the constitution intended it should have. I suggest it is the kind of measure which the courts have said do not fall within the four corners of the competence of the Government of Canada to enact.
I can understand the wish of the government to deal with tough, difficult and contentious problems such as the one it faces. I can understand the minister's wish to take a short-cut, to short-circuit the constitution, as it were, for purposes of expediency. Certainly, the government is in a difficult position. I suggest to members of this committee that our duty is larger than that. This is not a court of law, although in many respects this House is the highest court in the country. This House does not decide alone on the basis of legal argument. We do not expect arguments regarding the constitutional validity of government measures to be decided as if they are being raised in a court of law. We know better. What are made in this House are political decisions. Although a government may realize that a proposal lies outside the constitution, it can force the proposal through the House by virtue of its majority and allow others to challenge its validity in the courts.
That may be the government's position, but it is not a position which I support. That position should not recommend itself to members of this House who, after all, are not only members of parliament but people who represent the rights, privileges and responsibilities of the regions and provinces from which they come. They have that responsibility to carry out in this House.
Under these circumstances it is not good enough for a government ruthlessly to bulldoze legislation through if it contains clauses which offend the constitution of this country. This is not just an academic issue. I strongly believe that federalism in this country has been brought to a higher degree of perfection than in most countries which have the federal system. This particular issue of energy, energy prices and supply and the discussions which have taken place is a good indication of that. There have been some effective and useful discussions which probably could not have taken place in any other federal system than the one we have in Canada.
I suggest that true federalism can only endure when the sovereignty of the several parts is maintained. It is clear from the debates on confederation that our parliament was designed with a view to giving the people of the provinces a realistic opportunity to give voice to their attitudes. The voice of the federal parliament must be that of the whole country, yet consistent with the opportunity to reflect and represent regional positions within the terms of the constitution. If we cannot do that, there is no true federalism.
What we have is a social contract, in the form of a constitution, between the people of the various provinces and the country as a whole, a contract which permits the provincial populations to emphasize their distinctiveness with regard to matters under their jurisdiction, their own peculiar requirements and their potential and need to proceed in the way which they think is most appropriate, socially and economically, while at the same time yielding
April 14, 1975

for the common good of the nation an adequate share of their resources, skills and commitments.
I think the capacity for diversity and uniqueness which we have had in this country and which has been reflected in the positions taken in this House and in provincial legislatures has made Canada a good place in which to live. I am not prepared to sit idly by while measures are proposed by the government which to some extent and purpose contain good proposals, yet contain other things which in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other people fall squarely outside the right of this parliament to enact. That is what I propose to deal with in particular at this time.
We take exception to certain clauses, and I do not intend to debate them seriatim at this time, which purport to give the federal government power to unilaterally establish maximum prices. For example, it states in clause 36:
-establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this part applies that are produced, extracted or recovered in that province-
Clause 51 gives a similar right with regard to natural gas. I would point out that you cannot read clause 36 without also reading clauses 40 to 43. I feel that I must make reference to those. Without that, it is difficult to lay before the committee the reason why we intend, at the appropriate place, to move an amendment and to explain at this time the reasoning behind that proposal. I realize the amendment cannot be moved until we get to the clause. However, I think it would be useful for the government to know our position now. I quote from the bill:
40.	No person shall engage in any transaction that involves
(a) the selling of any crude oil to a person for consumption elsewhere than in the exporting province,...
(d) the collecting, gathering, accumulation, mixing or blending of
any crude oil for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraphs (a) to
(c), or ...
41.	No person shall purchase any crude oil from any person in an exporting province who is not a licensee except when the crude oil is being purchased within that province for consumption therein.
42.	No person other than a licensee shall sell any crude oil in an exporting province except when the crude oil is being sold within that province for consumption therein.
That is squarely in conflict with the existing jurisprudence with regard to the rights of the federal parliament. When we were involved in this debate last December I had just received a copy of the decision by Mr. Justice Hughes on a case involving the province of Saskatchewan and an oil company. I had not then had time to peruse the full detail of the reasons for judgment, but I have since had that opportunity. I understand the case is now before the appeal court of that province.
No one can read that case without coming to the conclusion that the very valid and intelligent reasons given by Mr. Justice Hughes, with which I am in complete accord, are squarely in conflict with the powers the federal government is attempting to have this parliament give it by the clauses to which I have referred. Without going into the details of the Saskatchewan case at this time-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What is the citation, please?


Gerald William Baldwin: It is Canadian Industrial Gas and Oil Limited v. the Government of Saskatchewan and the Attorney
Oil and Petroleum
General for the province of Saskatchewan. I regret I am unable to give the full citation. I imagine the minister's officials have studied it with some care. It is a very lengthy judgment. The learned trial judge, in 161 pages, went into considerable detail. He dealt with all the existing constitutional authorities on this, I admit, very difficult and confusing problem of the rights of the federal government with regard to the regulation of trade and commerce.
The case was decided on a statement of facts which included a statement that of the oil recovered in the province of Saskatchewan, approximately 98 per cent was exported. In part the case dealt with the question of whether the royalties and taxes referred to in the regulations were direct or indirect taxes. We have no concern about that. A considerable amount of attention was paid to the fact that what the province proposed to do in fact constituted an imposition of a price mechanism and the fixing of prices of crude petroleum of which 98 per cent was being exported from the province. Mr. Justice Hughes referred to a number of judgments, one of which I shall give to my hon. friend: it was Carnation Company Limited v. the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board et al. I think it is to be found in RSC, chapter 238, 1968.
In the latter case, the province of Quebec had enacted legislation which permitted the establishment of boards to provide for the sale of milk to plants for processing. The facts in that case established that the board had set up a pricing mechanism; it fixed the price at which products were purchased. It was shown that the greatest amount of the milk sold and processed would be exported from the province.
Mr. Justice Hughes, in the Saskatchewan case, referred to that case as well as to others and said it might well happen that because a province enacted statutes affecting the price at which a commodity was sold in the province, interprovincial or international dealings in that commodity would be affected. Nevertheless, if there was no direct intent to exercise some sort of direct control over interprovincial or international trade, the provincial action was valid. It was on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carnation case and some other cases that the learned judge reached his decision. As has been pointed out, the decision has been appealed and it will probably go to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have allowed the hon. member to continue somewhat beyond his time because of the complexity of his argument. Perhaps he would now recognize that his time has expired or else seek the unanimous consent of the committee to continue. Is it agreed that the hon. member may continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to wind up these remarks within a reasonable length of time. I suggest that if the reasons for the judgment of Mr. Justice Hughes, based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Quebec case are valid, then the provinces have the right to fix prices in respect of commodities which they export even though the fixing of those prices

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
affects interprovincial and international trade. The fact that a province has established a price is bound to have an impact, one which will make itself felt when the product comes out at the other end of the pipeline.
Let us see what the situation might be in other important natural resources; for example, in the lumber industry. If the federal parliament has the right to enact legislation such as is proposed in the clauses of Bill C-32 which I have read, and others, what is to prevent the federal government from proposing to parliament that it be allowed to move into British Columbia and say, "We intend to establish a mechanism to set the price of lumber delivered to sawmills, pulpmills, or plywood plants"?
As hon. members are aware, a large proportion of the lumber produced in British Columbia is exported in one form or another. I do not know what the exact percentage is, but it may be as high as 80 per cent. Some of my hon. friends may be able to tell us the figure. But the federal government could say the matter fell squarely within its jurisdiction because it involved the regulation of trade and commerce.
The same attitude could be taken with respect to electrical energy. The government could go to the province of Quebec and say, "You are producing energy, and though you are using a certain amount within the limits of the province, it is your intention, we understand, to export a considerable quantity to the state of New York or elsewhere, and since we are dealing here with a commodity which enters into interprovincial and international trade, we are able to exercise our prerogative and fix the price at which it is delivered in the province."
The minister might, of course, invite me to consider what my own government did when in office-I see he is nodding his head-particularly in connection with the establishment of the National Energy Board. He will no doubt ask, "What about the Export and Import Permits Act, and so on?" Of course, Mr. Chairman, in the crazy-quilt of our constitutional practice these things are possible because of the supremacy of the federal government in the area of trade across interprovincial and, in particular, international boundaries. The jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board is another example.
There are many ways by which the federal government, attaching conditions to the transport or export of commodities interprovincially or internationally, may have a perfect legal right to do things which end up in the event as price fixing or price restraint when the commodity concerned reaches the other end of the pipeline. But what the government is attempting to do here is something entirely different. It is saying, "We can come right into a province and fix the price of a commodity such as crude oil at the source at whatever figure we think to be proper." It is for the people of the province concerned to accept that price, as it is for the people in the rest of Canada to accept it: that is the position the government is taking, as I see it, on the basis of the clauses I have read.
I do not know what is the precise amount of crude oil produced in Alberta which is refined in that province; it may be between 15 and 20 per cent. But certainly, if the federal government is given the unrestricted power referred to in clause 36 and in clauses 40 to 44, the central government will be entitled to move in and fix the price

despite the fact that a considerable percentage of the crude is not to be exported. There is no doubt that the right will be given automatically if this bill is passed in its present form. I will not continue with this point as we will have further opportunity for exchanges with the minister later and he will probably want to meet my arguments. I indicate to him that it is our intention to move amendments in this connection at the appropriate time.
As a precedent, I would refer the minister to section 11 of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act which indicates that this government recognized, in 1973, its limitations in respect of the question of petroleum supplies, because the government inserted in that act the provision that only when the governor in council was of the opinion that a national emergency existed by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum, or disturbances in the petroleum market that affected or would affect the economic stability of Canada, and that it was necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the governor in council could, by order, so declare, and then it went on to give the right to allocate supplies. That is a pretty good indication that the government is probably in some doubt as to whether it can go as far as some of these clauses in Bill C-32 would give it the right to go.
Let me conclude at this time on this note. I hope the Prime Minister will in fact be successful in his discussions with the provincial governments in working out this very difficult and controversial matter of arriving at a consensus on price. This happened about a year ago and it could happen again. Perhaps it will not take place right away because of some political factors involved at this time which make it difficult. I have confidence that the Prime Minister will make the attempt, and I hope he will be successful. If he is not, there is an interesting position to be adopted by the federal government, namely, bilateral discussions with the producing provinces through which the federal government will, hopefully, work out an agreement as to price. This will be the subject of an agreement and probably the subject of an order in council.
We have amendments to propose that will make it quite plain that the provincial government in question must in fact be a participant before such an arrangement becomes valid. If that cannot be done because of the difficulties of the problems, it does not fall within the right of parliament to give this authority to the federal government merely because it looks good or is the easy way. Parliament cannot give the Government of Canada a right which parliament does not have the right to give.
I know the minister, the Prime Minister and others have said they will try to work out an agreement, but if they cannot do so then obviously someone must intervene and take the authority to change or establish the price. But that alone is not a good enough authority. In spite of what problems there may be, merely because there is a disagreement which cannot be solved does not permit this government to overlook the positive terms of the constitution by saying that because there has been failure to reach an agreement, as the supreme government it will fix the price, but unless it can precede such an act by a declaration of the kind of emergency the government saw fit to
April 14, 1975

cover in section 11 of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, it smacks of constitutional violation.
As long as we have a federal state or a system such as the one we have now, problems of this kind will arise and pose serious questions. It is not good enough, in my view, and I believe in the view of many members of this House, that for that reason alone the Government of Canada can be given the authority which this parliament has not the right to give it, and this is the precise situation we see and will be reflected in the amendments we will be bringing before the House in due course.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I will undertake to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to be very brief if I can put my reply on the constitutional question back to back with the hon. gentleman's argument.
The bill being put forward in this respect carries with it the judgment of the Department of Justice that it is, indeed, within the legislative power of the Parliament of Canada to pass this particular enactment. The hon. gentleman raised a question which I suppose is the critical one, and that is whether the Government of Canada can reach into a province and fix a particular price for petroleum. Our response is, as the hon. gentleman indicated, in this particular bill we are not seeking to do so in regard to the use within the province of Alberta, but when the commodity is, or is to be introduced into interprovincial trade, at that point the federal jurisdiction over interprovincial trade takes over and that jurisdiction applies.
Indeed, the hon. gentleman referred to the CIGOL case which is apparently now before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. It being sub judice, perhaps I should not comment on it. I really need not do so, in view of the fact the Supreme Court of Canada has decided, -in relation to the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board, that the Government of Canada does have jurisdiction to set the price of oil and oil products within a particular province.
In that case it was the national oil policy of the Government of Canada to keep up prices to the consumers of oil in Ontario west of the Ottawa Valley line to a higher level than would otherwise have been the case if competing products from the Montreal refining and marketing area were allowed to be sold west of the Ottawa Valley line. In the CalOil case the Supreme Court of Canada held that it was within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada to set the price, through the agency adopted there, of oil within the province. This is, of course, a matter of constitutional debate, but I suppose in every one of these cases the Department of Justice obviously feels that on the basis of the CalOil case there is authority to go ahead, as in this particular case.
I should also like to make one other point which I neglected to make earlier. As a result of an examination of the bill by interested governments and a number of interested citizens, amendments have been proposed to the federal government. Copies of these were distributed to members of the House last December. I have additional copies here, if anyone is interested. I have given copies to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and to
Oil and Petroleum
the hon. member for Abitibi. Copies are available, and I would be glad to pass them out.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the consideration of Bill C-32 regarding a petroleum administration act was set aside for the purpose of waiting until the first ministers' conference had taken place, in order that we might see what measure of agreement was reached by the heads of the various governments in Canada. It appears now that no consensus was reached. The Prime Minister is quoted as having said during his press conference following the first ministers' conference that it was the intention of the Government of Canada to proceed with the passage of this legislation so that under part II of the petroleum administration act the federal government could set the prices of crude oil and natural gas.
When this measure was before the House for second reading, my colleagues supported it because we felt then, as we do now, that if no agreement could be reached between the producing provinces and the Government of Canada, then the federal government must have the authority to set the price, as that is the only way we could have a two-price system in Canada. It is also the only way we can exert some restraint to prevent the prices of oil and gas escalating to unnecessarily high levels.
This does not mean that we necessarily support an increase in the price of crude oil or natural gas. Any decision by the government to raise these prices could well depend upon a number of factors, the major one being who would receive the benefit of such increases in price. But on the question of whether the government should have the legislative authority to exercise this power, which we feel constitutionally it is entitled to have on all commodities which enter into interprovincial or international trade, there can be no doubt.
On the matter of whether the government should raise the price, and if so, by how much, and who would receive the benefit of any increase, is something which we will of course discuss now and on future occasions when a decision is made. I should like to say to the government, however, that I am not sure bilateral discussions with the provinces, now that the first ministers' conference has failed to reach an agreement, can be very useful if the minister is able to lay a loaded gun on the bargaining table and say, in effect, that he has the power to set the price and now they had better agree to an increase in price. I am not sure that is the best way to carry on negotiations or that it will receive the best response from the producing provinces.
I am not pressing the matter, but I suggest to the minister that there might be some value in either holding this bill at third reading until he is convinced there is no possibility whatever of reaching a consensus with the producing provinces and the provinces generally or, as an alternative, that the legislation be passed, if the minister wants it passed quickly, without the mandatory clauses such as clauses 36 and 52 being included. Then he could bring in a separate bill that would amend this legislation later if he should find he is unable to reach a consensus.
4776

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
I do not know how quickly the minister wants the other powers under this legislation. I imagine he needs them, for instance, in respect of compensation payments. However, he might give some thought to either of the alternatives I have suggested. He could take out the mandatory provisions, pass this legislation quickly and then later introduce a bill some time early in June. If the minister should find he cannot obtain any consensus, this might be a more efficient way to expedite the matter than by putting this bill through in its present form.
If the government has decided to raise the price, then I think there are some points which ought to be clarified. I do not think they were clarified by the minister's opening statement. There is no doubt concerning the government's intentions. The Prime Minister's opening statement to the first ministers' conference contained this comment:
So my colleagues in the government and I have come reluctantly to believe that the price of oil in Canada must go up-up towards the world price. It need not go all the way up. We should watch what happens to the world price and decide from year to year what we should do. But the price for the year beginning in July will have to be higher than it is now. How much higher we should discuss.
So, the government has made it perfectly clear that it thinks the price should rise. I was a little confused by the statement attributed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, although the press report may not be accurate, in which he said that it might not be necessary for the federal government unilaterally to set a price if he were convinced that the provinces would not unilaterally set a price. I was not clear about that.
I take it that the government has now committed itself to raising the price of crude oil at the end of June. I take it for granted that between now and the end of June the producing provinces will keep the commitment they made to adhere to the price of $6.50 a barrel until June 30 this year, but we need to know now what will happen at the end of June in the event that the federal government and the producing provinces, or indeed all the provinces, are not able to reach a consensus. If the federal government is committed to raising the price, I think the federal government ought to give to the committee and to the Canadian people generally some idea of what increase it has in mind.
Much is made of Premier Blakeney having talked about an increase of $2.50 a barrel. The minister said he thought it should be something less than that, so I make a guess that the minister probably has in mind $2 a barrel. I think it would be helpful to the general discussion if we were dealing with something reasonably specific. The government does not make clear to the committee whether it endorses the suggestion of Saskatchewan in respect of $2.50 or intends to satisfy Ontario by suggesting $1.50. I realize there must be compromise, and I think the government should give us the target figure it has in mind.
However, from the point of view of this party, whatever the figure is, I hope there will be some explanation from the minister concerning the justification for reaching such a price at the end of June. Certainly, it cannot be on the basis of increased cost of operation. Certainly, it is not because the oil companies are hard up: the profits they have made during the last two years exceed the profits made by any other segment of our economy. In his television broadcast the other night, the minister stressed the

fact that there was a need for an increase in price because the oil industry needs more money for exploration.
I agree we would be justified in saying to the people of Canada that they will have to pay more for gasoline, for home heating fuel and for fuel to operate their farm machinery and fishing boats because the extra money they are being charged is to guarantee that they will have the wherewithal to heat their homes and run their cars, tractors and fishing boats ten years from now. However, I am not as optimistic as the minister when, according to press reports, he says he has received the assurance of the oil industry that any extra money it receives will be used for oil exploration. It certainly has not done so in the last few years. The price of oil has increased by about 120 per cent. Profits are at an all-time high, while exploration has gone down. In the last 12 months, 93 drilling rigs have left this country. What assurance do we have that any extra funds given to the oil industry will be used to find oil? It will go to finding oil, but will it go to finding oil in Canada? The multinational corporations will use their cash flow to look for oil in the North Sea, in the Middle East, in Brazil, in Venezuela or anywhere else where they have good opportunities.
If the Canadian people will pay $2 or $2.50 a barrel more than they are paying now-an increase which is totally unnecessary in order to meet operating costs-what assurance will they have that that money will be used in Canada to find oil supplies and additional gas reserves which will be used by the Canadian people? That is the question that the government must make clear to this committee and to the House. There can be no argument at all about any necessity for raising the price of crude oil in this country on any other basis than the fact that we need to find additional supplies for the years ahead.
The only way the Canadian people can be assured that the extra consumer price they pay will result in security of supply in the future is for the government and the producing provinces to control that extra amount of money and to see that it is used for exploration, rather than leaving it to the good intentions and tender mercies of the oil industry.
One of the ways in which the government could make it easier to work out some arrangement with the provinces to reach a consensus-which is what we are all hoping will happen-is for it to be prepared to review the measures with respect to resource taxation which it brought down in the last budget. It may be that the Minister of Finance, when he brings down his budget in the latter part of May, will be prepared to either drop the non-deductibility provision or at least to allow that 50 per cent of the royalties which an oil company or a resource company pays will be deductible for income tax purposes. Certainly, this is one of the areas which would help to bring about the consensus which is so badly needed.
I want to say a few words about the question of natural gas. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in his opening remarks to the first ministers' conference said the following:
The National Energy Board has recently completed its hearings and until we have its definitive view it is not possible to speak precisely.
April 14, 1975

However, there was ample evidence given the board that deliverability from conventional reserves is declining.
That is a matter for considerable concern, and I understand that in the discussions in the first ministers' conference the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources expressed his concern. I would ask the minister if some time in our discussions he can give us an assurance that this report on the availability of natural gas supplies will be made available to members of the House at an early date. The minister has already stated that the work of the board has been completed. How soon the board will be prepared to release the report, I do not know. I want to ask the minister if he can tell us how soon he expects it to be released, and if we will get copies at the earliest possible date, because I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile some of the estimates made by the National Energy Board with respect to marketable reserves of oil and gas.
For instance, in March of 1973 the joint venture of Dow Chemical and Dome Petroleum asked the National Energy Board for a permit to export some 500 billion cubic feet of ethane per day to the United States, and the board, in granting them permission for this export, pointed out that as of June 30, 1973, our marketable reserves had gone up by 13.8 per cent. In fact, they have gone up from 56.4 trillion cubic feet to 64.2 trillion cubic feet. There have been a number of finds since that time, particularly in northwestern and northeastern Alberta.
I always find it difficult to reconcile the fact that when the National Energy Board is looking at our marketable reserves where an application for a permit to export is concerned, they have a rosy picture of how much marketable reserves are available, but when it comes to making a general survey they seem to be much less optimistic. I for one do not want to see us stampeded, by any fictitious figures with respect to our gas reserves, into policies which in the long run could be harmful for this country.
The other thing I would like to ask the minister concerns prices for the export of natural gas. He pointed out the need for trying to work out a consensus between the producing and consuming provinces regarding the price of natural gas. I can appreciate that, but surely that does not apply to the export price, and it is no secret that we have been exporting natural gas to the United States at prices which are ridiculously low. In some instances we have been exporting natural gas to the United States at prices which are lower than the prices at which we are selling our gas to the consumers of the province of Ontario.
While I know the minister will point out that there are long-term contracts between the Canadian producers and the American gas distributing firms, the fact remains that under section 17 of the National Energy Board Act, that body has the power to amend, alter or rescind any of these export agreements. I have been disturbed for a long time at the tardiness with which the National Energy Board has applied itself to this problem. I do not think we need to wait for a consensus between the various provinces of Canada with respect to an export price, and I would ask the minister if he is urging the National Energy Board to review these export prices; and if they have reviewed them, what action do they intend to take, and how soon can we expect that action to bear fruit?
Oil and Petroleum


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has made a number of points to which I will be glad to respond. The first one concerns the reference that we have laid down a loaded pistol in this bill as a threat for the provinces in question. I suppose I could turn it around and point to statements made by Premier Blakeney such as when he says he is seeking a $2 or a $2.50 increase in price if his energy security fund is not accepted, a proposal which has been rejected by Premier Lougheed.
The power the province has at the moment to set the prices of natural gas and oil is really a loaded gun laid down for the consuming provinces and Canadians generally. I suppose it is really a matter of in whose hands that loaded gun ultimately should be, and I go back to the rather persuasive argument he made, that on the whole, while there should be every effort to balance the regional interests, ultimately it should be the federal government exercising responsibility and, for good or ill, being held responsible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Time for a disarmament conference.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was your colleague's metaphor, not mine, in the first place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do
not think, however, that the Saskatchewan premier has asked his legislature to give him this kind of power at this particular time. This is a very sensitive time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think he has to ask! I think he has it now. He put the assertion that I was necessarily committed to an increase between now and the end of June, and that certainly is not my position. Indeed, I think that in the negotiation of oil prices, in particular, it probably will take longer than that. One of the ultimate possibilities in arriving at prices is that we will not just be talking about a 12-month period. We might be talking about a longer period of time. In order to get the acceptance of the producing provinces, we may talk about price increases a year or two years from now, perhaps on some kind of schedule to deal with the concerns expressed at the conference by consuming provinces that we might not have any price agreement at all in 1975.
The point the Prime Minister made and that I sought to make in my remarks is that over a period of time a price increase is inevitable in this country, both from the standpoint of generating additional funds for exploration and, of course, even more so from the standpoint of equity for the producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan who say that it is not fair that their commodity should be price-controlled when all other commodities being offered for sale are being sold on a wider market. The federal government arrived at this conclusion really because of these arguments of regional equity which have so often been put in this House and outside, and for a non-renewable resource, as pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River, once it goes down the pipe you have no chance at a later date of recovering that price. In that sense and in terms of regional equity, some price increase is indicated.
29557-27'/2

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
I couple my response with the comment the hon. member made, that I should name a target figure. It seems to me that would be the quickest way to turn off finally any negotiations if I put a price up there which everyone can shoot at. It seems to me that a far better mode of operation in these negotiations is to talk to them about a variety of figures for this year and subsequent years and some kind of scale of price increases which would at one time meet the objectives of the producing provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta, and on the other hand taking account of the concerns of all the other provinces which are basically consumers whether from those two provinces or from foreign imports.
I am advised-and this is a matter upon which I would like to have further examination-that an assertion has been put forward in the conference as well as here that there has been a reduction in exploration. That is not correct. Tentative exploration figures for 1974 indicate it has gone up by some $90 million, and it is anticipated that in dollar terms it will go up again. I go on the assumption of the operation of the present tax laws and the impact on a particular corporation. If it moves out from under the tax shelter provided by the last budget, for example, and increases its dividend, this of course would be a disincentive; but as I said at the conference, if we find that there has been movement away from Canadian exploration in favour of exploration elsewhere or applying to other uses outside Canada, then we will indeed seek legislative means to deal with that.
With regard to the natural gas report, I indicated during the course of my remarks that the government had taken the initiative with the board under regulation 11A to seek a report in this regard. The report was made available last year with regard to the price increase, and then on the lion's share of gas for export we put the price up from-I am talking about the TransCanada contract-a border price of 38 cents per 1,000 cubic feet to $1 effective as of January 1 this year. We have a new regulation 11A report which we will also make public in due course-I am now putting it before cabinet-which, as I indicated, will see a further significant increase in price, so that in less than a year we will have seen a very substantial increase in price to our export customers.
The argument put forward by the hon. gentleman and sometimes by others is that with regard to our own countrymen we have to look to a certain phasing and we have an obligation to be reasonable, but with regard to export contracts we do not. Perhaps I am not being fair to the argument of the hon. gentleman, but let me say that this is the argument sometimes put forward, that we have to be careful what we do to our own countrymen but we can really "sock it" to the export consumer by any price increase we want. While we can reasonably expect to put prices up over a period of time, I would argue that it would not be wise to-


Reginald Cyril Symes: You are doing it with oil.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, we are doing it with
oil.	Those are commodities which were bought on a month to month basis and the customer has to take the market as he finds it from month to month, as opposed to the gas contracts which are long term and where it had been

accepted that there would be extensive regulatory hearings before any further price increase would take place. I am suggesting that it is politic, from the standpoint of the federal government and from the standpoint of the people of Canada, to get a fair return from our export customer but in a way which will not cause him excessive hardship. While in this particular situation we may have the advantage over our American customers, we should remain conscious at the same time that at some future time the situation may well be reversed and we may be seeking a similar type of accommodation from them, and an application of the golden rule in this case is perhaps not only sound ethics but also has pretty sound practical application.
With regard to the natural gas report as opposed to the 11A report, the report on supply availability, as the hon. member knows the hearings were only completed a few weeks ago; the board is in the process of writing that report and completing its tables. It will, of course, be translated and I will be making it public, as I made the oil availability report public, just as soon as it is in a form which can be tabled in the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
would like to ask the minister a question before he sits down. I want to be clear about his statement. I understood the minister to say that he is not committed to raising the price of crude oil at the end of June. Is the minister saying that if no agreement is reached between the provinces and the federal government, the federal government may not exercise its powers under clause 2 of the petroleum administration act to fix the price at that time and may leave the matter in abeyance? Are we simply to assume that the price of $6.50 would continue?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, we would assume it would continue. If the province of Alberta and the province of Saskatchewan are not taking action at that time to force the price up, then the Government of Canada certainly would not take action to do so, particularly not if the discussions are continuing at that time leading to the possibility of some phased introduction over a longer period of time. It would seem to me that I should seek to remove the notion that we are committed willy-nilly to increasing the price on July 1 if in fact discussions are going to a point where we might reach this kind of agreement. Obviously, it would be unwise, merely because of the passing of that date, to put the price up. I think one of the best options for trying to reach some agreement in this regard is perhaps talking about a price increase over a period of years and perhaps some extension through 1975 at the existing price level. What the price will be, and what the outcome of those discussions will be, I cannot at this point say.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Madam Chairman, may I ask the minister a question arising out of his earlier comments? He was saying that if the price of oil went up and the government found that the oil companies were not using a portion of the increase for purposes of exploration, the government would take the necessary legislative action to see that this was done. Is the minister now stating government policy, and will this be a condition placed on any price increase,
April 14, 1975

namely, that the oil companies will have to spend a certain percentage of such price increase on exploration and development? If so, what would the percentage be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I repeat what I said at the conference, that indeed that would be the objective. If the companies fail to do this, the government would seek measures, fiscal or otherwise, to make certain that the lion's share went back into exploration and development in Canada.


Mr. Balfour:: Madam Chairman, I have previously expressed reservations I have held regarding Bill C-32 and its predecessor, reservations that were in no way reduced by the minister's choice of language in his introductory remarks today. He said, if I may quote him as accurately as I can, that in his view it was desirable to take jurisdiction over natural gas as well as oil. The remark was made in the context of the unilateral pricing mechanism that it is intended to apply to natural gas.
I think that by his choice of words the minister has, either intentionally or possibly unintentionally, identified what is the fundamental question that is at issue, to my mind at any rate, in considering Bill C-32, and in particular in considering the unilateral price fixing mechanism contained in clause 36 and clause 52. This fundamental question is the jurisdictional conflict that arises over the ownership and control over oil and natural gas vis-a-vis the federal government and the governments of the producing provinces.
This question arises squarely and directly as a result of the sweeping powers which the minister intends to vest in the federal government under parts II and III of this bill. So far as I am concerned, to cast a vote in the House of Commons in favour of this bill in its present form would be tantamount to becoming an accessory to an attempted act of constitutional encroachment by the federal government over well established constitutional prerogatives of the provinces, an encroachment that is without parallel, I suggest, in the history of our country.
Surely our constitutional body of law makes clear that the ownership and control over natural resources situated within provincial boundaries is the exclusive prerogative of the provinces. Actually, until the so-called energy crisis of 1973 occurred, this jurisdiction was never seriously questioned so far as the ownership and control of oil and natural gas from western Canada was concerned. I suggest that the provincial jurisdiction to establish wellhead prices is included within the context of the statement I have just made, notwithstanding the CalOil case previously referred to by the minister. The CalOil case decided certain questions, but it decided questions with respect to pricing arrangements beyond provincial borders. Under the authority of the CalOil case, to indirectly fix wellhead prices in a province is, I suggest, to strain the authority of that particular jurisprudence far beyond reason.
I do not, by that statement, challenge the collateral jurisdiction of the federal National Energy Board or the federal government to control exports of oil and gas, to assert jurisdiction over oil and gas rights contained within federal lands, or the federal government's jurisdiction to regulate interprovincial trade and commerce and extraterritorial trade and commerce. I also wish to make clear that
Adjournment Motion
the issue is not whether the price of western crude oil or natural gas should rise, or the price fall or remain the same, or by what amount the price should alter. The issue is whether the Government of Canada should take unto itself the legislative power and authority unilaterally to impose on the producing provinces the price at which they are obliged to market their natural resources, in this case crude oil and natural gas.
There was concluded just last week a so-called first ministers' conference, the principal purpose of which was said to be to deal with this question of price. I should like to offer an observation or two with respect to that historical meeting; but since it is almost five o'clock, may I call it five o'clock?


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: So the House might proceed to the consideration of private members' business pursuant to section (3) of Standing Order 15, it is my duty to leave the chair.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-National Parks-Request for reconsideration of proposal to increase entrance fee to Prince Edward Island Park; the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta (Mr. Reynolds)-External Affairs-Alleged agreement Canada would not retaliate for boarding of Greenpeace III by French authorities; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Regional Economic Expansion-Reason for allocating funds for the further study of container facilities at Halifax.
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, notices of motions, public bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Would you call motion No. 32, Madam Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that motions Nos. 2, 15, 19, 20, 24, 28 and 29 be allowed to stand and retain their position on the order paper?


Mr. Herbert:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as I have said on a couple of previous occasions I object to the proceeding by which we pass over these items. There are

April 14, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
eight items before No. 32. I think we should have an explanation why we are passing them over. I understand why in a couple of cases, but with regard to item No. 29, for example, we should either debate it or take it off the order paper; I see no reason at all for leaving it there. If the hon. member is not prepared to proceed with the item, I suggest that it be dropped.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It looks as though an
agreement has been reached not to drop these items, but perhaps this rule could be looked at again, if there is agreement, the next time.


Harold Thomas Herbert: There is no unanimous agreement to leave item No. 29 on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I do not take umbrage at the suggestion being made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that these agreements be looked at. But I suggest as strongly as I can that it is unfair to pick out one of seven which are being passed over and say that it must be dropped, especially when its sponsor is not here. If we are to drop any ahead of No. 32, let us drop all seven. If we are to let some stand, let us let all seven stand. I suggest the hon. member for Vaudreuil has a good point. He should press it in the appropriate place, through the appropriate channels. But I make the point that if we let six out of seven notices of motion stand, we should do the same for all seven.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). [Translation]
But I would like to remind the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that Standing Order 19 is very clear on this, and I quote:
Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the Order Paper. They may, however, be renewed.

Is it agreed that they shall stand for the time being?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider revising the Unemployment Insurance Act to remove those provisions which discourage the incentive to work and, as well, those provisions which are based upon the principle of social welfare and not upon the principle of social insurance.

He said: Madam Speaker, I was advised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that motion No. 32 standing in my name would be called today. That is why I am ready to speak. I understand it was agreed that my motion would be called. The House is aware of my motion and I will not read it. I have discussed this matter in the House on previous occasions. My interventions have not resulted in changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act or to the regulations, and I am here again to argue my case for the removal of disincentives which apply to certain people who have dealings with the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the area I represent.
I will focus my remarks on what happens with regard to seasonal agricultural workers in my area particularly, although the same holds true for many other areas of the country. Seasonal agricultural workers are employed in harvesting the tobacco crop in my area, as well as in harvesting apples, small fruits and market garden crops. Such harvesting utilizes a great deal of intensive hand labour. Despite our best efforts at mechanization, we have not been able to supplant the human hand in harvesting. Consequently, there is a heavy demand for short-term workers.
There are several main sources from which we can obtain such short-term labour. First, of course, our Canadian workers make up the great bulk of these harvest workers. Usually they are local or neighbourhood people who at harvest time give up their household duties and work in the fields. Or they might be students at school; they leave the classroom or the home and help the local farmer harvest his crop. Students do not only come from nearby areas; they come from all across Canada: the Manpower people bring them in to help in this operation.
As well, we employ migrant workers, the least dependable of all. Usually they are people least able to find a job. They go to Manpower offices and try to find employment, but find it difficult to make a living for themselves and hold on to a job. Often they are drifters, given to drunkenness or to drug use and they create all sorts of problems. The third category is offshore labor. I am referring, of course, to the European university student exchange program and to foreign workers who come to this country to work. My remarks in the main do not concern them.
Specifically, I want to talk about the effect of the Unemployment Insurance Act on seasonal agricultural workers. I am not alone in my opinion. Others hold views similar to mine in connection with unemployment insurance problems. Allow me to refer to page 4857 of Hansard for June 18, 1973. The House on that day was debating the private member's motion standing in my name, dealing with the subject matter dealt with by the present motion. I had been talking about the defects of the unemployment insurance system and read into the record part of a brief prepared by members of the Norfolk county council. The brief dealt with unemployment insurance and with the difficulty of obtaining workers, and said in part:
-there are serious faults with the system. The first is the short qualifying period of eight weeks. In our interviews we found time after time that workers would only put in eight weeks of labour at any one place, to satisfy the qualification required by the Unemployment Insurance Act, after which they seem to have no difficulty in obtaining their unemployment insurance allotments.
April 14, 1975

Therefore we find it absolutely expedient to increase this qualification period to as much as 30 weeks. Labour in the agricultural community generally starts in mid-April and continues until the end of November. Any able bodied worker would have no problem in accumulating the required number of work weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance, to which we feel an agricultural worker has a right, just like any other worker, but it should only be a right, not a way of life.
The county council was dealing precisely with what I am complaining about this afternoon, and my experience bears out the truth of its contentions. Since the beginning of January of this year I have received more than 200 complaints from the sort of people I am speaking about. Some workers have found it very difficult to collect unemployment insurance benefits to which they became qualified after working for eight weeks, although many worked for much longer. These people become very frustrated when, after complying with the provisions of the act, they are unable to collect benefits. Their experience does not provide them with an incentive to return to work in the fields. They should receive benefits to which they are entitled. They complain of restrictions; we must not put roadblocks in the way of their getting legitimate benefits.
Let me be specific, Madam Speaker. First, let me deal with the eight-week minimum work period referred to in the brief prepared by members of the Norfolk county council. Farmers have complained about the short qualifying period. It seems that certain unreliable workers take advantage of this provision; they work for the minimum of eight weeks, then refuse to work. If a farmer were to complain to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the worker would not get his benefits. Nobody likes to complain, to be an informer or a stool-pigeon. Farmers think that the act should be designed so that it does not put them in the unenviable position. Of course, a few wrongdoers have been caught and the Unemployment Insurance Commission has taken drastic action to correct the situation. It has increased the number of benefit control officers, and some malingerers and cheaters have been found and disqualified. For people like that, I have no sympathy.
Let me give a concrete example of what I mean. Yesterday I talked with a farmer in my area who employed an immigrant family in preparing his tobacco crop for market. The family worked for eight weeks, just long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, and then quit. The farmer went to the neighbouring town of Tillsonburg and from time to time asked if any of the family had a job; there were plenty of employment opportunities at the tobacco auction exchange. He was told that these people were in no hurry because they were collecting unemployment insurance. Here a man was wanted for work, was available, but did not want to work and had not been cut off from unemployment insurance benefits. Situations like this frustrate farmers and rob other workers of the incentive to work. Why should they work if benefits can be obtained so easily?
I think that the Unemployment Insurance Act and regulations made thereunder ought to be improved. There should be a change in the level of benefits payable under the act. At present, there is not enough difference between what a man earns in his regular, daily work and what he can obtain by way of unemployment insurance benefits. No matter whether wages are high or low in different
Unemployment Insurance Act
areas, the differential remains the same. The benefits are a certain percentage of what the man earns. If he is willing to accept a lower standard of living and feels that it is not worth "X" number of dollars to drive his car to work, buy work clothes, and so on, he will go on unemployment insurance. Under these conditions the benefits are too generous; they take away the incentive to find a paying job.
I would like to draw attention to local workers who help out at harvest time. They live in the community where the agricultural harvesting is being carried out. They work more than eight weeks. In fact, they work until the crop is harvested. These people are tobacco workers; this is all they know. They are not permanent members of Canada's work force by any stretch of the imagination. However, because they work more than 25 days and earn more than $250, they are required to contribute to the unemployment insurance program. The philosophy of these people is that if they contribute, they will demand benefits when they are out of work. Apparently they are qualified and it is within their right to do that. Unemployment insurance was not designed with that end in view. It is not like an annuity or a pension where you pay in and get something back. It is an insurance program. Most people understand this, but a lot of people do not.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission has told some people in my area that because they work in tobacco they do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. However, that is not the way these people understand it. That is not the way the act is explained to the worker in the pamphlets sent out by the commission. When the next harvest season comes around, because unemployment insurance deductions were made from their pay, they will not do this kind of work. This seriously aggravates the labour situation and casts a bad reflection on the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the act.
Your Honour may think I am straying a little, but this is the way many claimants are being treated. It results in frustration and, therefore, in disincentive to work. To make my point regarding sick benefits I wish to read from a letter which I sent to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) who has responsibility for administering the Unemployment Insurance Act. This letter sets out my experience in four or five cases with regard to sick benefits. The letter is dated March 15, 1974.1 quote:
Dear Mr. Minister:
I refer to my letter of December 10, 1973, drawing attention to two claimants for sick benefits under the unemployment insurance program. In that letter I pointed out how unfair it was to these claimants to have the sick benefit continue to run even though they did not draw the same. Then when the second illness or accident occurred they were unable to secure the remainder of the sick benefit payments to which they would normally be entitled.
Mr. Cousineau, the chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, replied to that letter on your behalf and explained the regulations as they stand.
The purpose of this letter is to draw attention to yet another claimant who finds himself in a very similar position. His name is Mr. Elmer Propper of R.R. No. 2, St. Williams, Ontario. Mr. Propper drew benefits back in July of 1973. Then on January 1, 1974 he was injured in an accident which results in having a cast on his ankle and his inability to work and also, of course, being hospitalized.

April 14, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
On making application for sick benefits he was only able to draw benefits for a three-week period because the entitlement which began back in July, 1973 had continued to run and had expired now in 1974 after the three weeks of benefits which I just mentioned. I have talked with Mr. Propper personally and can attest as to this man's condition and to his need for benefit.
I draw this case to your attention as yet further evidence of the need to, in some manner, amend the regulations of the unemployment insurance program to take care of instances such as these.
I received a reply from a Mr. Lambert, on behalf of Mr. Girard, departmental assistant, dated March 29, 1974. I quote from the reply:
I might point out, however, that the commission has been examining the feasibility of allowing claimants to cancel an existing claim once the initial benefit period has expired, and setting up a new claim on the strength of labour force attachment acquired since the previous claim was established. This proposed change would facilitate a claimant requalifying for benefits at an earlier date, and thus permit cases such as Mr. Propper's to be dealt with more equitably in the future.
In other words, the Unemployment Insurance Commission sees the need for that cure. In order to be fair to the commission and those who draw benefits from it, an amendment or proposed change in the regulations should be seriously considered. At present, this is resulting in frustration for these people. They are fed up and angry with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and this is reducing their incentive to work.
My next point is with regard to the student worker. One of the largest sources of seasonal workers in agriculture is the student labour pool. Without it, farmers would be in great difficulty at harvest time. The incentive for these people to work is weakened by deductions for unemployment insurance for which they rarely or never legitimately qualify. Because they have to pay this, they feel they are being discriminated against. To support my point I wish to quote from a letter from someone who recognizes this situation-Mrs. Joy Lefler of RR No. 3, Waterford, Ontario. I quote from her letter:
As you know, the regulation as it stands now, concerning unemployment insurance deductions; once an employee has earned $250, regardless of his age, he must have unemployment insurance deducted from his wage. Can you tell me, sir, do you honestly see justification in deducting unemployment insurance from, say, a 14 or 15 year old employee? We have had plenty of workers in our employ at that age, and good workers, I must add, who fall into this category. Would a 15 year old who earned money and had the required deductions taken from his wage be able to collect unemployment insurance benefits? Impossible!
This is one regulation that needs some house-cleaning or at least some investigation. I don't believe I speak only for myself, but thousands of employers not only in our business but others as well.
The Canada pension regulation is that a person must reach 18 years of age before being eligible for deduction. I sincerely feel the unemployment insurance benefit should fall under the same regulation, or it should at least be revised so that he must reach a wage equal to that of his personal exemption or which is subject to income tax deduction.
I think that supports the argument that there must be some provision for student workers who make up a large part of our labour force. I have been rather negative and critical of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. However, I have some positive suggestions to make which I feel will improve it. They will restore in some measure the incentive to work in the labour force which is so essential to the harvesting of agricultural crops.
First, as I have already stated, the qualifying period should be lengthened. I see no earthly reason why it

should not be extended well beyond eight weeks, perhaps to six months or, as suggested in the brief by the county council from which I read, 30 weeks. Second, seasonal agricultural workers should be exempted. Let us forget about them. Don't bother with them with regard to deductions for income tax, pension plans, and so on. Let us eliminate the red tape. There will then be a real incentive for persons all over the country to go into the fields at harvest time and provide the labour which is so necessary. Some people might say, "Look at the amount of money that would be lost to the revenue." But as far as income tax is concerned, the treasury would catch up with these people at the end of the year when they paid their tax.
My third recommendation would be to raise the $250 ceiling on earnings or extend the qualifying period so that the seasonal worker would not be subject to deductions with respect to unemployment insurance. Finally, I suggest that the Unemployment Insurance Commission reinstitute the form which at one time permitted an agricultural worker to opt out of the unemployment insurance scheme of his own volition. The worker signed such a form and turned it over to his employer, who did not then have to make deductions in respect of unemployment insurance. This would have two important effects. First, it would help accomplish what I have been advocating throughout my speech and, in addition, it would simplify the administrative work which farmers are now compelled to undertake.
I hope that what I have said will help make the commission aware of the difficulties in the act as it now stands, and I trust the government will implement some of the proposals I have put forward.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam
Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate for s short time; I am aware there are a number of other hon. members who wish to speak. I found the remarks of the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) very interesting. The hon. member may be exaggerating somewhat when he suggests there has been no desire on the part of members on this side of the House to make some of the changes he believes to be necessary. I understand that in the last parliament there were to be amendments moved to the Unemployment Insurance Act, but that the party to which he belongs would not support them. For this reason they did not go forward.
I may say that I, like the hon. member, am constantly being besieged by people who say that unemployment insurance benefits are too high or too easy to get, or that there is too much abuse. But it really depends upon whose is being gored. When they themselves, or members of their immediate families, find it necessary to resort to unemployment insurance, they tend to take an opposite point of view: benefits are too hard to get, payments are not high enough, and conditions are too restricted.
Two years ago, I was among those who were critical of the structure. At that time benefits were being increased, new administrative procedures were being put into place, and rising unemployment was leading to a flood of new claims. In the past year or so the situation has changed. I do not think there is a member in the House who can
April 14, 1975

honestly say that at the present time administration of the unemployment insurance program is lax.
There are those in my constituency, particularly from some of the smaller towns in the northern end, who have taken a very aggressive stand toward unemployment insurance. They say, for example, that all kinds of people are drawing benefits when they should not be entitled to do so. According to them, some people are getting more money from unemployment insurance than they would be getting if they worked for a living. Where, they ask, is the incentive to work?
Well, Madam Speaker, I have personally looked into the cases of more than 200 people who were reported to be drawing benefits to which they were not entitled. Of those 200, I found that only five had even applied for benefits; one person was receiving benefits quite legitimately during her pregnancy and another was in the process of being disqualified for failure actively to seek work. When, out of 200 cases, one finds that only one person was receiving benefits which were questionable, and that even he had been detected and was being disqualified, I cannot believe there are many commissions which are better administered than this one.
Farming operations in my riding vary widely, and I am well aware of the problems raised by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand. It is true some farmers ask why it is justifiable to pay unemployment benefits to people at a time when farmers cannot get sufficient labour to meet their needs. Surely, they feel, there should be some meeting ground, some possible compromise. There are those who suggest that applicants for benefits should be forced to pick fruit or tobacco. But when one discusses the issue with farmers in some depth, it is apparent that the farmers themselves are not all on one side of the argument. They cannot blame workers accustomed to getting between $3 and $6 an hour, as is the case with many employed in the automobile industry, quitting temporary work in the fields to go back to their old jobs when the recall comes.
After all, the main and most reliable source of help in farming areas comes from the people who work regularly in the fields and orchards at harvest time. If it were not for them and for the help made available through the offshore employment program, the situation today would be a great deal worse than it is.
I do not know what to think about the hon. member's suggestion that those who work intermittently as farm labourers should be exempt from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. A good many farmers will argue that if it were not for unemployment insurance payments enabling workers to live between jobs, it might be even more difficult to get help since they, the farmers, could not afford to hire men on a year-round basis. I would want to look at this proposition in depth before I could agree with it.
At the same time, I am all in favour of seeing a more simple method adopted to handle the bookkeeping, and the paperwork so as to relieve the farmer of these tasks as much as possible. It is the mechanics of administration that the majority of farmers find so irksome-the paperwork-rather than the actual deductions which must be made from the pay of employees. I rather doubt that the hon. member found legitimate arguments in support of
Unemployment Insurance Act
some of the points he raised. The vast majority of these people in my riding have worked long and well. These people do not come to make a claim voluntarily. They come forward because they have some financial difficulty and they need these benefits. I have the greatest sympathy in the world for the person who has been employed for 20 years and finds, on a Friday, that he is out of work and has to make a claim. This is a very traumatic period in his life.
When we are talking about tightening up unemployment insurance, decreasing benefits and increasing qualifying periods, we must be very sensitive to this situation. This is particularly true when we are talking about the principal wage earner of a household, male or female. Such an individual is not likely to be at the higher level of income but usually is at the lower level, and is forced to live from pay cheque to pay cheque. All of a sudden, that individual finds there is no pay cheque coming, and as a result, there ensues a very traumatic and emotional period of time in that person's life.
If we set the qualifying period at eight or at 30 weeks I would then ask how the commission will handle this situation. This will cause emotional stress and will place a great load on municipal welfare schemes. One county council suggested that the qualifying period for unemployment insurance should be set at 30 weeks, if I recall correctly. I think that county council should be asked whether it would be prepared to share the costs of these joint programs with the provinces in order to fund these people for that length of time. Perhaps when they look at the size of the financial commitment they would be taking on, they will alter their view.
There are a couple of other points I want to make. I am not terribly satisfied with the basis for our unemployment statistics. Perhaps this is not germane to the topic of the resolution but, as I understand it now, during each period some 30,000 households are solicited to find out if people are unemployed and actively looking for work. That is how our unemployment figures are determined on a percentage basis. These statistics should be more definitive, and if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) were here, I would suggest to him that he ask Statistics Canada to see if there is any better way of determining them.
I would like to know, for instance, the number of households where the principal wage earner is unemployed. I think that might be different than the number of unemployed second or third persons contributing to the economy of that household. Perhaps consideration might be given to a more sensitive benefit structure, with increased benefits to the principal wage earner in a household as opposed to someone who is casually attached to the working force.
Let me also comment on a problem that seems to be at the crux of unemployment insurance difficulties at the present time. This involves the sorting out of claims and cheques that are justifiably issued to the claimants. The people in the Unemployment Insurance Commission and in the unions, as well as those representing non-union people, will have to work even harder than they are at the present time in helping people to establish their initial
4784

April 14, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
claims. If it were not for the tremendous cost and bureaucracy that would be generated, I think a good argument could be made for the idea that when a person enters the work force, a claim should be established so it is available in case of a need arising.
The greatest problem in this area seems to be in regard to the person who is not a member of a union and is laid off on a recall basis. That person expects to be recalled in the near future and perhaps does not actively seek other employment. It may well be that he would be throwing away his entire career if he accepted other work. It seems to me that that individual should be told what are his obligations and rights.
In my area, we have both the UAW and the UEW looking after the concerns of employees. I should like to compliment the union people associated with those unions for the job they have done in helping to establish initial claims when there have been major layoffs in the area. Along with people from the Unemployment Insurance Commission, they go right out to the plants and work on this matter. They work with the employees in an attempt to solve their problems and, failing that, they direct employees to their member of parliament who can have one more try at remedying the situation.
I am most anxious to see these programs carried out in close co-operation with manpower offices. People are always asking me how we can have so many employment opportunities available and a large number of people drawing benefits at the same time. The answer very simply seems to be that skills are not matched with the available jobs. The people who are unemployed do not have the skills which the marketplace is looking for or, if they do have them, they do not know about the opportunities.
I would hope we can take a long look at some of the things we could be doing under our manpower programs. For instance, if it were determined and accepted that there is no work available for a given period of time, particularly in areas where there is only one major employer who has had a layoff, it may well be to the benefit of the individuals that, rather than being confronted with a series of rejections in terms of employment, they have the opportunity of spending their time in manpower training to upgrade their skills. That way, when employment is again available, they are better qualified for the job they had, or, for an even better one.
Let me conclude on this note, as I know I have talked longer than I should. One of the most difficult things to deal with as a member of parliament is the individual who comes to the constituency office with an emotional problem brought on by some personal situation, resulting from stress on the job or because of a recent layoff resulting from a change in technology. This may involve an individual who is no longer able to cope with the situation, or who has suffered an accident or a major disability. These people go on unemployment insurance and, when the benefits begin to run out, they come to us. The real question is determining how you can get these people back into the work force. They can no longer cope with the noise or the speed of the situation, and there is a real reluctance on the part of an employer to hire this type of person. That is why I feel these pilot projects, in terms of

community programs in the country, are of real value. These programs can deal with some of these real employment problems. It is a downhill slide for such people unless someone takes a real interest in their cases.
I have been strongly aware of Unemployment Insurance Commission problems, having been involved particularly in handling the problems of a number of individuals. Rather than take up the traditional argument that we should lengthen the qualification period, decrease the benefits, do away with maternity leave and things of that sort, we should all work and offer constructive suggestions to help the Unemployment Insurance Commission do the best possible job of administering the act. If that does not satisfy the need, we should amend the act so that people who are trying very hard at this stage can do the job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I believe a number of members are anxious to speak during this hour so I shall be very brief. Although I do not agree with all the points made today by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles),- we Knowleses often agree but there are times when we do not-I welcome the fact that he has put this motion before the House calling for a revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The types of complaints made against the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act are mainly two. First, there are those who complain because there is abuse, and because there are people getting benefits to which they are not entitled. Such practices are not to be condoned, but frankly I do not worry very much about that whole aspect. There are plenty of others concerned in that way and, as the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) has just said, the administration has tightened up in that respect.
The other type of complaint about unemployment insurance-and this is the sort of thing which comes to my attention all the time-is that too many people do not seem to be able to get the benefits to which they believe they are entitled, and far too many people are called on to repay benefits they have already received. I hope this aspect of the matter can be dealt with very soon.
I think I have to take half a minute to defend my friends in the Conservative Party against a statement made by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe. It was not the Tories who blocked a certain unemployment insurance amending bill in the last parliament. It was the New Democratic Party, because the bill was directed to the first of the points to which I have referred, namely, abuses and so on. If that bill had contained some improvements in respect of benefits, as suggested so well by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe, I am certain it would have been passed.
I shall keep my promise to be brief. I am glad we are having this discussion and I hope that sometime soon there will be some work done on improving the Unemployment Insurance Act and eliminating its weaknesses in respect of the needs of those who rely on it. The only other sentiment I want to stress is that I welcome the concern of my hon. friend from Norfolk-Haldimand that there be an
April 14, 1975

incentive to work. That leads me to say that I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will soon give a green light to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and let that minister proceed with his plans for a guaranteed annual income. Most of those who advocate such a program think in terms of providing an incentive to those who are working to stay on the job by having some kind of a guarantee that makes it worth while for them to do so. It would take time to go into the details of that, and I shall not take that time now.
It seems to me that a good many people who are trying to get protection under the Unemployment Insurance Act would get better protection and would have more incentive under the kind of guaranteed income program which I believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would bring in if only he could get the green light from that ogre who sits on the front bench, the Minister of Finance.


Eudore Allard: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to rise today to discuss unemployment insurance which affects not only my constituents but all Canadian people.
Madam Speaker, the unemployment rate in Canada is high and and constantly worsening in several fields, especially in forestry, fisheries, etc. The rate is alarming and the people are facing all kinds of problems most of which are resulting from this legislation now under consideration.
At various periods of the year, several industries for a reason or another temporarily close their doors; hundreds of employees are dismissed and must draw unemployment insurance benefits. They are then subjected to a waiting period which could also be called a two-week penalty for having involuntarily lost their job. Those persons must then wait three or four other weeks to draw their first cheque or their first benefit.
Madam Speaker, the fact that at a given time those people have to turn to that famous Unemployment Insurance Act to survive is really detrimental to them. Because they are unemployed does not mean that they are lazy: far from it. Often they are laid off for reasons over which they have no control, such as a shortage of work amongst others.
The Unemployment Insurance Act inflicts difficulties upon some people. I know people who feel shy about going to the unemployment insurance office, who would certainly prefer not having to do it. After a given time, taking into account the experience of the individual, he must look for a job to prove to the commission that he is still willing to work. That is not always easy. After having applied for many jobs, without success, in his former field of work, the beneficiary of unemployment insurance must apply for jobs in a related field and give the commission proof of his efforts. Interpretation of the word "related" is left to the discretion of the civil servants with the result that, in some cases, nursing assistants have been penalized for refusing to work as waitresses in restaurants or hotels. The same thing goes when it comes to interpreting the word area.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Madam Speaker, after mistakes by commission employees a great many people find themselves in the obligation of paying back amounts of money paid to them. Is it logical that people should be penalized for mistakes made by others? Is that not prejudicial to those people?
Madam Speaker, it is most important that the Unemployment Insurance Act be revised as well as its regulations that are now stricter than the act itself. Everything must be done to make that act fair and available; information concerning that act and its regulations must be made available to people in the same way it was and is still being done with the conversion of our measure system so people can understand that act and know exactly what is expected of them. We must stop hiding from them information that is later used to disqualify them.
We suggest, Madam Speaker, that the waiting period be abolished, that first payment be made within two weeks following the claim in order to allow people who file a sickness claim to get benefits notwithstanding the stage reached by their claim and the number of insurable weeks of employment accumulated. We also call for the abolition of the reimbursement of overpayments due to mistakes by the commission. We would also agree to have the number of insurable weeks of employment required to qualify for unemployment insurance increased from 8 to 12, which would avoid the possibility of fraud and would give justice to workers all year long, in addition to allowing people to prove their love for work.
I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that an improvement of the Unemployment Insurance Act is called for and that it will in no way be prejudicial to our economy and our development, and while implementing at the same time the guaranteed minimum income plan that my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party talked about so well earlier. However, I would remind him that the guaranteed minimum income has been advocated for many years by the Social Credit Party of Canada. We like to believe that the implementation of those measures would represent an improvement that would rather help give our society the assurance of becoming better.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Madam Speaker, the resolution that the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) put forward speaks for itself. If I were given the next 50 or 60 minutes, I could probably do justice in support of it. In the very few minutes that we have left, however, I would like merely to make a few points which might help to clear up some of the misconceptions that the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) has in mind. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) cleared up one with regard to the group that blocked the bill which was brought in early in the last parliament. At that time I think it is fair to say that the term commonly used about my colleagues to the left and members of the Liberal Party was that they were bed mates. Nevertheless, that bill was blocked, although we would have liked to have seen it and other legislation come into force.
As a matter of fact, to my recollection there have been at least three promises of amendments to be made to the
4786

April 14, 1975
Unemployment Insurance Act
Unemployment Insurance Act, but none of them has been brought in as yet. In the interim period, many things have happened. Some time ago I documented almost $1 billion defrauded from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I could document those cases now from memory, but I do not think it is necessary. It is interesting to note that just recently the special investigative branch of the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been closed. I would be very curious to know whether or not the administration feels that all the various abuses have now been curtailed, or whether my colleagues and I have not spent enough time criticising the administration of the UlC and, as a result, members on the other side feel that since the heat is off they do not need to worry about it.


Mr. Rompkey:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to set the record straight. The matter of abuses has certainly not been dropped. We have been carrying out checks, and I might say that since January a thousand cases have come to light where illegalities have taken place with regard to claims for unemployment insurance. We are using a computer for the checks, and not only are we checking claimants but also employers with regard to any activities which might be not above board. Certainly checks have not been stopped.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. This is far from being a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Nevertheless it is true.


John Raymond Ellis: Not only is this not a valid point of order but I would do some very serious checking because my sources of information, which are usually impeccable, tell me that this branch has been closed for all practical purposes.
The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe asked about statistical information. This administration is extremely good at doing one thing if nothing else, that is, hiding the statistics that we could all use to judge better the efficiency of this over $2 billion a year "industry" that is dispensing funds within the administration. The document that I have here is called The Statistical Report on the Operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The .earliest you can get this document is three to four months after it has been issued. I know that the statistics contained in it are only one-quarter of the statistics available, and I also know that these statistics are available immediately after the end of the month. One thing that a computer does do well, if it does not do anything else, is to provide that type of information quickly. I suggest to the hon. member that he ask some of his colleagues to look back and they will find that, for example, in 1973 the prediction of UIC computers regarding unemployment in the country at that time were accurate within one decimal point. That information is available; it is just the case that we who could use it cannot get our hands on it.
Another point that the hon. member made has to do with the forms that are being filled by the various people who apply for unemployment insurance. These forms are probably the worst designed forms I have seen, the most ill-conceived, the least decipherable, and the most ambiguous pieces of paper that the bureaucracy has ever produced. We, as members, do not have to make unemployment insurance payments and I hope I will never have to

claim benefit because I do not know whether I could fill out those forms properly.
I have claimants who come to me frequently. If the hon. member opposite has only 200 claimants coming to him, then I can only conclude that he has not been around here too long, because those who are involved have many more than that coming to them for advice. I certainly have one person on my staff looking after them because, not only are they difficult cases, they are difficult to the point of frustration.
Admittedly the administration of the local offices has improved. Let me take a moment to compliment those in the local offices in the Belleville area. They have improved their public relations and their service. Yet the over-all administration has not changed, and the over-all need for strong amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act has not lessened at all. Consideration should be given to the possibility of someone who has worked all his life perhaps receiving a bonus for not having drawn unemployment insurance, and to a penalty being imposed on habitual users. There is also the matter of making it a load on the welfare branches in the municipalities if it is a welfare program, and sometimes it is just that. Let us not call this an actuarially sound unemployment insurance program.
Since we want to draw this debate to a close let me conclude by saying that if the hon. member wants to see these amendments brought in, let him impress on his own caucus the importance of having these amendments brought forward, and he can be sure that this party will consider them favourably as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House will be agreeable to going back into committee of the whole before the Chair calls it six o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
April 14, 1975



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose at five o'clock we were considering clause 2 of Bill C-32, and the hon. member for Regina East had the floor.


James Balfour: Before rising for the supper adjournment, Mr. Chairman, I had embarked on a few comments respecting the meeting of first ministers held in Ottawa last week. It was perfectly obvious to me, and I suspect to the entire House of Commons, that the outcome of that first ministers' meeting was a foregone conclusion, given the format in which it took place. It is also my belief that this is precisely the result the federal government anticipated and desired. How could it be otherwise? How could the premiers of oil consuming provinces, in that goldfish bowl atmosphere and in the full glare of national television, be expected to enter into meaningful negotiations and discussions on so complex an issue as the future price of their energy supplies? That question is interrelated with collateral questions involving domestic inflation, regional industrial development and, most important of all, long term security of domestic supply.
The format of the meeting was inappropriate, the time frame of the meeting was unrealistic, the whole affair was nothing more or less than an exercise in public relations, and I hope and trust the people of Canada will so perceive it.
There are important questions to be settled if Canada is to evolve a sensible, workable and realistic national energy policy. A strategy must be developed whereby Canada's long term self-reliance in energy will be achieved, and achieved in time, before the existing proven marketable reserves of oil and gas are depleted. There must be agreement with respect to the appropriate sharing of resource revenues between federal and provincial governments and with the industry itself. There must also be an agreement with respect to the appropriate level of the domestic price for both oil and gas.
About the only thing the provincial premiers achieved at the meeting was a free lunch, and even that slight benefit might prove to be a cruel illusion if the impasse between the Government of Canada and the producing provinces continues unresolved.
The minister says that he needs Bill C-32, and in particular he needs the legislative clout provided by clauses 36 and 52 in order to arrive at a satisfactory pricing arrangement. I suggest to him that this is a short sighted view of what will actually result should he have his way, should this bill become law in its present form, and should he purport to implement the unilateral price fixing mechanism contained in the bill.
What will certainly result will be a constitutional challenge by the provinces fei the courts, a challenge which, whatever the outcome-and it is by no means certain the outcome would favour the federal position-would bring about a jurisdictional process which will only escalate the increasingly bitter, ongoing confrontation between the western provinces and the government. This confrontation will contribute further to western regional alienation from central Canada, and will further exacerbate the difficul-
Oil and Petroleum
ties now being experienced in sustaining a level of resource exploration. This exploration is necessary to develop new sources of supply, which in a few short years will be so desperately needed.
The minister should not discount the depth of feeling on the part of his provincial counterparts with respect to what they perceive to be a jurisdictional power grab.
The attorney general for the province of Alberta in discussing the predecessor bill before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on May 7, 1974, had this to say:
Mr. Chairman, I wish to conclude by commenting on part 3, the part to which our most fundamental objections are directed. Far from embodying a term of the first ministers' agreement it stands as a direct negation of the principles upon which that agreement was based. It permits the executive council to terminate an existing agreement between a producer province and the federal government or to decline to negotiate a renewal agreement and to impose by unilateral action maximum prices on a natural resource owned by a province.
The inequities of part 3 are plain as well as subtle. If one of the negotiating parties reserves unto itself a right to cancel the bargain or the right not to bargain at all, then the consultative or negotiating process becomes meaningless. The concept, the grand scheme, the sensible formula, for resolving federal-provincial differences loses its very foundation.
He went on to say:
If one of the negotiating parties by legislation purports to reserve unto itself powers of the most dubious constitutional validity, it invites the other party to embark upon a course of judicial confrontation which to date all sides have attempted to avoid in the interests of the Canadian nation. In the last analysis and when viewed in practical terms part 3 amounts to an assertion by the federal government of a right to regulate the price, the flow, the production, and the sale of a provincial natural resource.
It embodies a concept which, I am sure no provincial government after measuring the consequences of its extension to other natural resources such as lumber, hydro power, potash, iron ore, asbestos, nickel, copper and coal, could accept without impliedly acknowledging that in today's economic circumstances the federal government has taken complete charge of the provinces' capacities to determine their future economic development.
Mr. Leitch concluded by saying:
Mr. Chairman, in our view there is no need for the legislation contained in part 3 which provides for the substitution of the federal will for the negotiated agreements referred to in part 2. The first ministers' conferences demonstrated the presence, strength and vitality of the national concept in a way perhaps unparalleled in our history. I trust that concept will not be impaired by the enactment of legislation which is unnecessary and susceptible to constitutional challenge.
That statement deserves to be carefully weighed, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Crowley, the minister of mineral resources for the province of Saskatchewan, in a letter to the federal minister dated December 2, 1974, said this:
Part II has two divisions-one providing for agreements with producer provinces on prices and one giving the governor in council discretionary powers to set prices in the absence of, or the breakdown of, an agreement. With the absolute powers provided for in the second division, the question must be asked how meaningful would the negotiations be as provided for in the first division?
This question may not have arisen had it not been for the series of events already referred to in this letter. An alternative would be to remove from the bill Division II of Part II. The federal government will have considerable powers under Division I. If agreements cannot be reached under Division I and action is required, then surely this

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
becomes a matter that deserves the attention of parliament in the form of special legislation.
The government of Saskatchewan has concluded that it must object to Bill C-32 as long as division II of Part II remains in the bill.
That is a clear indication of the response that will come from the two producing provinces in the event that Bill C-32 in its present form becomes the law of this country. The minister may argue that we are confronted with a situation so serious and so far-reaching in its implications in the matter of energy supply, and the necessity to fix a new domestic price for oil and gas, that these sweeping, unprecedented powers are essential in the national interest.
If this is in fact his position, then the appropriate course in our constitutional framework is clear. He should legislate the price fixing mechanism under the peace, order and good government clauses of the British North America Act, and then stand ready to defend that clear and unequivocal position in the Supreme Court of Canada if called upon to do so.
But, Mr. Chairman, what is urgently required at this point in time with respect to Canada's energy policy is a clear eyed recognition that it is neither prices, nor jurisdictional prerogatives and conflicts that constitute our basic problem. Our basic challenge is the need to put in place a policy which will ensure for Canadians future self-sufficiency of energy supplies, be its origin oil, natural gas, nuclear power or renewable energy forms, and that can only come about if there prevails in Canada a stable economic environment in which consumers, governments-be they provincial or federal-and private industry can operate in harmony, and with confidence in each other.
That situation will not prevail so long as we continue this process of conflict, and confrontation, and devil take the hindmost, with respect to relationships which in former years were seen to work effectively and which resulted in creating, in the preceding two decades, the potential capacity for that very self-sufficiency to which I refer.
At a later stage I will be introducing an amendment to the bill which I will not attempt to go into at this time but which will have the effect of replacing the unilateral price fixing mechanism with what I submit is a more democratic technique to arrive at the result desired by the minister, namely, a legislative technique to achieve finality with respect to pricing of oil and gas.
I hope that, between now and the time when we undertake detailed consideration of clause 36, the minister and his officials will reflect on the proposed amendment which is in their possession, and I hope that after reflection they will see their way clear in a spirit of compromise to give it their support.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak for a few moments on this matter before the committee I might refer to the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on October 31, 1974, as reported at page 916 of Hansard. In the fifth paragraph of the page the minister is reported as saying this:
In short, the House should look on this provision as an instrument complementary to the powers under the Energy Supplies Emergency

Act and to the steps being taken in relation to the international energy program. The intention is to safeguard Canadian oil and energy supplies in an emergency, without impairing continued implementation, in those circumstances, of the essential principle of a single oil price across the country.
That statement was made by the minister in introducing the petroleum administration legislation which is the subject of our debate tonight. I think it is of some interest to all members of the House to go over those lines in which the minister says:
In short, the House should look on this provision as an instrument complementary to the powers under the Energy Supplies Emergency
Act-
What is meant by that? The act to which the minister says this legislation ought to be considered complementary is an act which, for its very basis, depended upon an emergency. It depended upon an estimation that, under certain circumstances, it was now necessary to call upon the full powers of the federal government under the constitution to meet a need which was deemed to be a national emergency.
I should like to refer to that particular act, which came before the House as Bill C-236. It is significant that in section 11 of that act it is stated as follows:
When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a national emergency exists by reason of actual or anticipated shortages of petroleum or disturbances in the petroleum markets that affect or will affect the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada, and that it is necessary in the national interest to conserve the supplies of petroleum products within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order, so declare and by that order authorize the establishment of a program for the mandatory allocation of petroleum products within Canada in accordance with this act.
As all of us in this House at the time the bill was passed will remember, most members agreed that if the government felt that it had to call upon its extraordinary powers to pass emergency legislation in a situation of emergency, or apprehended emergency, then clearly the Government of Canada has such right. That is why it is curious that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made the statement on October 31 that the House should look upon this provision, Bill C-32, as an instrument complementary to the powers under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act. It might have been better, or accurate, had the minister said at that time that what is being attempted here in Bill C-32 is just about the same as what was being proposed in the emergency bill, with one significant exception-that there is no attempt to declare a situation of emergency in the national sense.
Clause 36 of Bill C-32 is significant because it refers to the situation which will prevail if no agreement is reached between the federal government and a province. It says in part:
Where no agreement is entered into pursuant to section 22 with the government of a producer-province, or any such agreement is terminated by the declaration of the parties, or, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is not effective or is not capable of being effective, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices for the various qualities and kinds of crude oil to which this Part applies ...
Clause 22 is interesting. It provides for the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to enter into
April 14, 1975

an agreement with the government of a producer-province for the purpose of establishing mutually acceptable prices for crude oil. Clause 23 is particularly interesting. It says in part:
When an agreement is entered into with a producer-province under section 22, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish maximum prices ...
Clearly, Bill C-32 seeks to encroach on provincial property and civil rights, an area coming under the authority of provincial legislatures. Hon. members should not disagree on this-the ownership of petroleum lies in the province in which the petroleum is found.
This afternoon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources suggested that before this legislation was brought before the House the Justice Department had been consulted as to its constitutional validity. Although it is not incumbent on the minister to file an opinion with the committee, he assisted us by referring to the Caloil Inc. case. I assumed the minister was referring to Caloil Inc v. the Attorney-General of Canada, 1970 Exchequer Court Reports, page 535. I am sure the minister, and the law officers advising him know that that decision was based on extremely limited facts. It was based on a regulation of the National Energy Board concerning oil imported from outside Canada. I am sure the minister and his law officers also know that an earlier, similar case had been decided. That was Caloil Inc. v. Attorney-General of Canada, reported in 1970 Exchequer Court Reports at page 512. Significantly, this is the case on which the minister bases his argument in favour of the constitutionality of Bill C-32, which represents an extraordinary encroachment into the field of provincial responsibility and jurisdiction.
The court found, in the Caloil Inc. No. 1 case, that the regulation as drafted was ultra vires the federal government because it purported to determine the activities of a company dealing with oil which had its origin in Canada. The regulation was changed, and there arose the second law case, known as the No. 2 case, and reported at page 551 of 1970 Exchequer Court reports. I shall read part of the judgment handed down in the No. 2 case because I think all hon. members ought to consider how tenuous is the authority put forward by the minister for the extraordinary encroachment into provincial government jurisdiction. I begin quoting from page 551 of the judgment, which says in part:
Regulation 20, before amendment, indiscriminately included "any motor gasoline in the hands of the licensee even if it is produced in Canada" . . . an extensive clause which, going beyond the boundaries of interprovincial trade, trenched on the free exercise of civil rights in the provinces ...
The judge then asked himself the following question:
Was this shortcoming not rectified in the recent text which provides instructions on the quantities imported, the time of importations, the region of Canada where such oil would be consumed?
The judge went on to say:
It goes without saying that everyone is in agreement on the commercial nature of such major transactions and recognizes the right vested in the federal authority to prohibit any product, when necessary, from entering the country. As the venerable philosophical adage observes, "He who can do more can do less". In the present case, for purposes that the board had to provide for, the regulation of this vital trade must be exercised where it takes place, namely, in all points of the ten
Oil and Petroleum.
provinces, and of the two territories of Canada. Then, the amendment decreed by the Order in Council of August 12 empowers the board to specify in what quantities, at what times and to which regions gasoline can be imported, from its place of origin to its area of consumption; it brands it to some extent-
I ask the minister to note the following words:
-and prevents its confusion with oil extracted in Canada. It may be that this is a subtle distinction; however it appears sufficient to me.
The judgment goes on to deal with a matter of great importance if we are to consider where the line between federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction is to be drawn. I continue quoting the judgment:
According to jurisprudence, which has been consistent, there should be a dividing line in such matters to indicate whether provincial civil rights are being encroached upon or whether the federal authority is exercising its responsibility for regulating both international and interprovincial trade. This was the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Rand in Murphy v. C.P.R. when he wrote, at page 641:-
The judge quoted from that case, as follows:
This diversity in structure and the scope and character of power over interstate trade and commerce, although illuminating in its disclosure of variant constitutional arrangements, suffices to require an independent approach to and appraised of the question before us. Section 91(2) of the act of 1867 confides to parliament, "Notwithstanding anything in this act", the exclusive legislative authority to make laws in relation to "The Regulation of Trade and Commerce". By what has been considered the necessary corollary of the scheme of the act as a whole, apart from general regulations, applicable equally to all trade, and from incidental requirements, this authority has been curtailed so far but only so far as necessary to avoid "the infringement, if not the virtual extinction" of provincial jurisdiction over local and private matters including intraprovincial trade-
If the federal government uses the authority of the Caloil decision to support its argument that Bill C-32 is constitutionally valid, I suggest that all hon. members ought to look at the judgment for themselves, and I contend that the second Caloil case would lead one to a conclusion different from the one the minister suggested to us this afternoon.
The federal government, under clause 36 of the bill, is asking for extraordinary powers with which to control the market of a product which belongs to a province. If this is allowed to happen, if the government is allowed to control a market without showing that there is some overriding national interest for bringing a product, the control of which is vested in the province, under federal authority, then the government will be given the power without needing to declare any emergency to control the price of any product in any province, merely because that product will cross a provincial boundary. Surely the constitution of Canada never envisaged that power being given to the federal government under the trade and commerce provisions of the BNA Act. This is very interesting because there has never been an attempt to impose an extraordinary power such as that couched in clause 36 on a provincial resource outside of a national emergency such as a war. The reason is obvious. Clearly it is not the intent and the purpose of the federal powers in the constitution to do so.
If this bill goes through in this way, the precedent is set. While it may not necessarily be right in law and it may some day be challenged, there will be a clear precedent of a federal government deciding to use one part of Section

Oil and Petroleum
91 as a means to control completely the price of a product produced in a province of this country. I suggest it is a sweeping power which, barring some evidence that there is in some way or another a national emergency either in existence or apprehended, was never intended to be given to the federal government under our constitution.
I am addressing my remarks to the constitutionality phase of this question because this is not a matter which pits one province against another. It is a matter of far greater importance than the issue which has been giving us so much concern in the House of Commons over the past number of months, and perhaps will for some time to come.
If this sort of power can be taken by the federal government under the guise of trade and commerce, there is literally no limit to how far the federal government can go in controlling the commerce and aspirations of any province. I am not just referring to an oil province in Canada, but also a province that produces hydro electric power, as does the province of Quebec, a province that produces pulp and paper and minerals as does my province of British Columbia, or the province of Ontario which produces so much of the industrialized merchandise which is vital to the trade of this country and so much of which is domestic.
This is a matter which needs a most extraordinary and careful consideration because clause 36 goes far beyond what is needed unless, as I say, the minister is prepared to state that we have a national emergency. If the minister is prepared to say that, let him come before the House and say that we are faced with a national emergency and must ask for very extraordinary powers. If that is necessary let the minister do that, keeping in mind the spirit of the constitution which gives the Government of Canada that power on the basis that it proves to the satisfaction of the House of Commons that there is a national emergency and national need that require this extraordinary legislation.
However, we ought not quietly accept a piece of legislation which, in its real effect, circumvents the constitution and arrogates unto the central government powers far beyond what Section 91 of the constitution and the decided cases in the courts since confederation would ever have allowed to a federal government. I ask all hon. members to give this very serious thought before passing this bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to support his argument the hon. member for Vancouver South purported to quote me from page 916 of Hansard for October 31. He quoted me out of context in that particular regard.
The remarks made at that point were not about Parts II and III of this bill, which are the parts to which the hon. member directed his argument and put so much substance. They are with regard to Part IV, Division II, which is a narrow application for the financing of transportation costs in the event of the kind of international effects that we had last year. The use of this very narrow reference in support of his particular argument is without foundation.
I was interested to hear the hon. member say that all provinces would be concerned about this. He made particular reference to the province of Ontario in this regard, saying this bill would perhaps put into challenge the right of that province to price from time to time its own manu-

factured products. I suppose the best answer, apart from the legal answer, is the fact that the premier of that province, the provincial treasurer of that province and the Ontario government have specifically besought the federal government to seek and to exercise the powers created by this particular bill. From the standpoint of that particular province, as a consumer in Canada, they regard this as an appropriate exercise of federal power. Indeed, I think one can say they are grateful that this parliament has not sought to-


Gerald William Baldwin: What does Quebec say?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: They agree the same way.


John Allen Fraser: The minister stated I took his quotation from page 917 of Hansard for October 31 in too narrow a context. If the minister would now say there is no analogy between Bill C-32 and the emergency bill which was passed at that time, I would be very interested in that comment. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the thrust of my remarks this evening were that nobody is saying the central government does not have this power if it says the emergency calls for it. However, we are saying there is no indication here that these extraordinary powers ought to be called for unless an emergency is established.
When I referred to the provinces I did that for a very real reason. The minister will recall that I said the issue which is being debated, especially with regard to clause 36 of this bill, will be around for a long time after the present problems we face with regard to oil and gas in this country are resolved, or have somehow ceased to have as important a consequence to the country as they now have.
The principle to be upheld is whether we act in these matters within the constitution or whether we circumvent it. I am sure the minister would be the first to say that just because we have asked for these extraordinary powers with regard to petroleum does not mean for a minute we would do this with respect to pulp and paper in British Columbia. That is all very well. Ministers have said that sort of thing in the past. However, as all hon. members know, once you set a precedent it gets easier and easier to do something that somebody should have got up and said could not be done under the constitution of Canada. That is my point. I am sure the minister realizes full well my concern.
I say to the minister that if this legislation is essential, if it has to be done in the interests of Canada, if it is to solve an emergency problem or an apprehended problem, that is one thing. However, the legislation should be drafted in that form. To try to circumvent that aspect of the constitution by coming in under trade and commerce is a very dangerous precedent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the citation again made by the hon. member does not support his argument. It is rather unfair for him to try to put those words in my mouth. Second, of course we have the power in an emergency under the constitution, to exercise any of the powers conferred on the provinces under Section 92. We do not have to seek that in the case of regulation of interprovincial trade. That is so well established that no further citation should be required.
April 14, 1975


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to join with my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, in congratulating and thanking the minister for giving the outline he did this afternoon when opening the debate on the re-introduction of Bill C-32. The minister mentioned that the objectives of the government were a single price across Canada, which all parties believe in, and the bill would provide for compensation to the eastern provinces to the extent that they had to buy their oil from offshore to achieve that single price.
The minister went on to mention that the price setting referred not only to the price of oil but also to natural gas and synthetic oil, and compared the old bill C-18 and Bill C-32 and told us the reason for the changes. He confessed quite frankly that the conference held last week was not able to find a consensus and now the government is engaged in bilateral discussions. Most important, Mr. Chairman, he gave to this House an order of priority which I think in all fairness was clearly put and frankly stated.
The first priority has to be gas export prices for the reasons the minister mentioned. Second, the domestic gas prices are next in importance. These are both crucial to the running of our industries in Canada. And away down the bottom of the list of priorities was the question of domestic oil prices.
All the heat which has been going into the debate across Canada these last 18 months has been focussed on this so-called energy crisis relating to the so-called shortage of oil in the world. No person today in his right mind would say for one second that there is anything like a shortage of oil in the world. What the complaint is all about is that the western world was caught stealing in the last 50 years the oil from the Arabs, and when this stealing stopped-


Mr. Benjamin:: The same companies stole it from us.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I don't care whether the Arabs live in the Middle East, Alberta or Saskatchewan. My point, Mr. Chairman, is that what we are dealing with here, the so-called difficulty, is trying to arrive at the single price which the minister described this afternoon. And surely price setting is not a national emergency. I just emphasize this because the minister set out his priorities very clearly and he brings the question to a point. But what is the issue all about if all we are discussing is a single price? And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that the issue about which we are really quarrelling in Canada has no relationship at all to this bill.
The key question which is causing the difficulty to the minister, the same key question which is causing difficulty in arriving at a consensus, is that we have a budget in place which is a declaration of open war on every provincial government in Canada. The budget of last May, repeated again on November 18, which included even those minor modifications on exploration, is an open declaration of war by the federal government on each provincial government. Until that issue becomes clear there will be no solution to the problems faced by the minister in trying to get a consensus among 11 governments on the question of price.
Oil and Petroleum
The province of Ontario's case at the conference last Wednesday was devastating on one point-that the price granted by the governments of the west voluntarily in 1974, raising the price to $6.50 as their contribution to national unity, resulted in very little of that increase going to find new sources of oil. Everyone knows the figures.
In Saskatchewan, if the price goes up, all the increase is taken by the provincial government. So today we have a situation in Saskatchewan that every time a company produces a barrel of oil it loses between 11 cents and 35 cents a barrel. Many of the figures I am quoting are based on the unaudited figures for 1974, but they are close enough.
In Alberta the case is slightly different. After two budgets the oil companies averaged, I think, about 11 or 13 cents a barrel in profit. Then the provincial government gave way a little and returned part of the federal taxes to the oil companies of that province, and now the oil companies in Alberta receive over a dollar a barrel. Their own figures are quoted at $1.18. By contrast, in Saskatchewan the average oil company loses a few cents a barrel.
Ontario's case was pretty devastating. What is the use of granting an increase if it is all going to be taken by the provincial government of the producing province and by the federal government?
I'm looking at a chart of the Alberta government and the figures are a little different from those in Saskatchewan. But after the two budgets of last year the cost of bringing the oil to the surface-let us call this operating costs-was 50 cents a barrel. The cost of drilling and exploration, spread over an average in the last 25 years, amounts to $1.35 a barrel. The thing that annoys me, as a Canadian who comes from western producing areas, is that the bulk of that $1.35 is not cost at all; the bulk of that $1.35 is the cost of borrowing money; it is interest charges. The provincial governments, in my view, are not only indifferent to how the wealth of the provinces is being stolen by those who lend money, but they show no intention of changing things.
When you go above the line, industry in Alberta after two budgets, got 13 cents a barrel. The provincial government in Alberta got $3.34 a barrel compared to the industry's 13 cents. The federal government jumped up its take to $1.18. Talking about Saskatchewan, where the Saskatchewan government gives the same information it shows that the federal government not only gets $1.18 but gets an extra $5.20 to boot. So we have the federal government getting $6 a barrel out of each barrel.
That's where all the federal money comes from to try to do all the things it wants to do-to compensate the people in the east and to help run the country. But that money is being taken from the people of the producing provinces in the form of the export tax and in the form of corporation taxes.
I am simply pointing out that one key factor in the conference last week which made it impossible to reach a consensus was that the price increase which was agreed to by consensus in 1974-in March-did not produce one extra barrel because it all went to greedy governments, provincial and federal. These are the records as quoted by

Oil and Petroleum
the province of Saskatchewan, as quoted by the province of Alberta, and as quoted by the oil industry.
So I come back to this one conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the minister's problem in getting the consensus he wants is that he must put the finger on the Minister of Finance and look to him to get out and end this quarrel over resource taxation, a quarrel which is patently irrational when the two levels of taxation, of the provincial governments in B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba, added to the federal taxation, are greater than 100 per cent. That, of course, applies to mining as well as to the oil and gas industry. In respect of mining I include potash, which represents an average of some 87 per cent tax liability.
It is a frightening thought that two levels of government can get themselves into a quarrel over resource taxation and impose a tax liability on private companies of greater than 100 per cent. I suggest this means only one thing, and that is that private enterprise has to go in the four western provinces. Private enterprise has a tax liability in British Columbia that is going up to 185 per cent in respect of some types of mining. That is why five companies have closed down, with hundreds of men being put out of work in B.C.
In Saskatchewan we are pretty small potatoes with only 18 oil fields in my district, and probably as many in the district of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. In southwestern Saskatchewan they have probably closed down entirely. They are still working in my area in the hope that rational men in this House and rational men in the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan will force their governments to get together as Canadians and find some sort of resolution to the situation of tax liabilities greater than 100 per cent.
I am not entirely lacking in constructive ideas about what should be done. Let me remind the committee that we will have another conference. I have made this suggestion before, and I make it again. If any government, at the provincial or the federal level, is serious about making this federal system work then there must be a position paper or two before a conference assembles, and these position papers should contain alternative proposals.
The only province that came to this last conference with a clear-cut alternative proposal was the government of Saskatchewan. The federal government should come to these conferences with these proposals. If it does not have such proposals it should inform the various provincial governments ahead of time. I do not see how these governments can make agreements before the television cameras. You cannot have meaningful negotiations and settlement of national issues unless you have working papers beforehand, on which there is general agreement as to the facts and figures.
What we saw at the conference last week was not a meeting of minds, with people prepared to make conclusions on a common basis of fact. What we saw was a deliberate confrontation, with the federal government on one side taking a position right off the bat in the opening speech. I heard the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands put it very succinctly this afternoon. The

federal government came off the starting block with the words of the Prime Minister who said the government had looked the situation over, had examined all the facts, and had concluded that the price had to go up. When you have a federal government taking this position it is obvious that there is going to be a confrontation, particularly when the government knows full well in advance the position to be taken by Ontario. In this case we had the federal government standing for high prices and the provincial government of Ontario standing for low prices.
This reminds me of the circumstances we faced the last time we discussed this matter. Since we last discussed Bill C-32 we have seen the government switch directions three times. At first the minister told us we had to accept the Montreal price, or the world price. Then we entered the so-called anti-Arab period when you might have thought that every Liberal in this country stood for low prices. They were then zigging instead of zagging. The last change came during this recent period that I call the post-election period. Now the government is for high prices. The government was first for high prices, then for low prices, and is now for high prices again. It has been zigging and zagging in every direction, and I know why it has been doing so.
First we had the Syncrude deal which tied the country to high prices. We have the National Energy Board pressing for higher prices, we have the Economic Council of Canada pressing for higher prices, and we have the experts in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources pressing for higher prices. I can understand why the government has changed its stand. It now has the election over and we are seeing a high-price type of zagging.
Let me repeat again what I said earlier when the budget was presented to us in May. That budget was just a bargaining position. The government was throwing its tough stand out. I paraphrase the Minister of Justice from Saskatchewan. He said that we have to teach these provinces that they cannot steal as much as they are stealing. The bargaining position that was set in the budget of May was not changed in the budget of October. All we have seen since the big declaration of that time is the government's position that it is going to make provincial taxes and royalties non-deductible, but if the provincial tax return is over 50 per cent then the government will bring in a federal tax of 50 per cent and we will then have a tax level of over 100 per cent. This means the end to private enterprise.
The NDP members to my left will shout hurrah to that suggestion, and the record of what they have said will indicate that. Why should a party calling itself Liberal also shout hurrah, and that is the question to be answered. They are not using this bargaining position. The Minister of Finance has been asked to go out and approach all these people, and lay down some positions which they might be willing to accept.
I suggested in my speech in response to the budget that the government should go out and suggest that the provinces were wrong in putting their taxes and royalties up so high. This government should tell the provinces that it wants them to bring the taxes down. It should present a figure in respect of which it will make taxes deductible, up to that figure and no more, and thereby get something on
April 14, 1975

paper so that the provinces will know what they have to bargain against when making their case.
It is not for me to say what that figure should be. I am simply saying that the federal government has to discuss the matter with its opposite numbers in a federal state before it can get agreement. In support of that statement I intended to quote the position of the government of Saskatchewan as made by its minister of resources, the hon. Mr. Cowley, and I was going to quote from the statement of the attorney general for Alberta. On the basis of what we know at this moment I do not think the position of Saskatchewan and Alberta can change very much in regard to this constitutional issue.
The minister is making a lot of waves tonight by saying that Ontario is asking for this type of legislation. I wonder what Ontario's attitude will be next week when it has had time to think through the statement of the Prime Minister. I am not going to quote what has been said by the provinces of Alberta or Saskatchewan because my colleagues, who are much more learned than I, have discussed this better than I could.
I should like to ask the minister this very simple rhetorical question. What kind of Canada do we want? I have the suspicion that the great majority of the members in this House, Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Creditiste, are secretively proud of the fact that of the half a dozen countries with a federal system in the world today, in spite of our constant difficulties, ours is the one that is working fairly well, and I am sure most would like to see this federal system continue.
Let me warn the minister and the government again of that party's own history. Every time the Liberal party has tried to centralize power here in Canada it has got itself into serious trouble with the' people of Canada. I do not have to remind them that the people of this country, instinctively in setting up their constitution in the beginning, tried to get a balanced set-up to give the main thrust and power position to the central government, but they did not fully trust the giving of the power to the central government so they kept power over civil rights, property and resources, and that was placed clearly in the hands of the provinces. This was to be the counterbalance against all the power given to the central government to give strong leadership, in contradistinction to the American type of federal system.
I think the majority of the people of Canada believe this is still a good system but they are suspicious when the central government, which has in time of emergency to take on great powers, begins to expand its emergency power into peacetime. I know some people believe a theory that the people of this country are not bright enough, and that members of parliament are not bright enough to make laws, so we must turn the power over to what they call the technocrats, the public servants.
I am simply warning the members on the government side tonight that we cannot maintain this federal system by centralizing power in peacetime without causing serious trouble. The minister has heard of the proposed amendment that is based on the allocation bill. I should like to ask him whether he would object if we placed a
Oil and Petroleum
time limit on the emergency power so that the emergency power would have attached to it, say, a three-year time limitation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not follow the hon. gentleman. This is not in any sense based on an emergency position but is founded, as I pointed out a few minutes ago and as I said earlier, on the constitution and the fact that the regulation of interprovincial commerce falls under the responsibility of the federal government as a sensible tool under a federal system. So the introduction of a time limit in respect of an emergency power is irrelevant. The basic question is whether we are to have a national market in Canada and, if we are, then the responsibility for that should be with the federal government. In respect of oil and natural gas this is an extension of the powers exercised for many years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think that clarifies the issue for many of us because Bill C-32 really is to put into effect the consensus agreement reached on March 27 between the 11 governments. But what we object to are clauses 36 and 52 which say that, if there is not agreement between the government, the government in the form of the minister has unilateral power to decide what will be the price. When you give the minister unilateral power over what the price will be obviously this power is given to a government only in an emergency, because the constitutional power over civil rights and property and resources lies purely in the provincial field. The spokesman for our party, the hon. member for Peace River, made clear that we would support this legislation if it will be used only when the government declares there is an emergency. This was the position of the hon. member for Vancouver South. What we are trying to say is that we want to help the government retain the power to make decisions when it cannot obtain agreement, but that this must be done in harmony with the constitution.
We have the precedent of the allocation bill which simply says that if an emergency is declared we can use the power given by this bill. I am asking a simple question to test the sincerity of the minister and the government. We are willing to go along with this on the basis that it is in harmony with the constitution before these powers are declared. It must be within the constitutional framework of government price-setting.
All the legal jurisprudence is against the government. We have the case quoted by the hon. member for Peace River this afternoon, the Hughes case, the most recent case. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, but I have read the case which appeared before Mr. Justice Hughes. The arguments used by the lawyers in this case for the company, CIGOL, were exactly the same as the federal government is using in this bill. After long consideration this very able judge at the Queen's Court level looked at all the precedents and came out flatly and said that there is only one level of government which, by law, can steal. This case in Saskatchewan is reported in layman's English. It says that a provincial government which owns these resources can steal all it wants because they belong to it. What is wrong is when someone else also steals. You cannot have two

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
thieves operating in the same chicken yard at the same time. But that is what is happening.
Here we have a government which is hungry for money and jealous of the provincial government because it is getting so much, jumping in and saying that it wants as much. The result is that the sum total of the thievery is greater than the number of chickens in the chicken yard. I am not a lawyer so I am putting this in terms that the public will understand. We have this silly story of resource taxation. Until it is resolved there will not be an agreement between the governments on this question of price which the minister wants. We must have this law in order to carry out the function of having a fair price across Canada and in order to compensate the people in the east. Of course I have in mind 13 other things I should like to see in this bill.
Essentially we are told that the villain in the piece is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but the Minister of Finance has got booby-trapped into an irrational position. That is why his friends want him to leave the country for the next four or five years so that another minister can make the retreat from Moscow in his place.
I suggest the issue comes back to the government. I have a suspicion that even though the minister is indeed a lawyer he is no more an authority than I am on this legal jurisprudence, and that the two of us should keep pretty quiet. I believe the question we must answer in respect of this bill before we can get peace with the provinces is the question of the budgetary provisions on resource taxation.
Just to repeat what must be an old gramophone record, there are two types of proposals which can be made on this very issue which I think will bring peace. One of them is to suggest that on existing mines, and oil and gas fields, the federal government state the level at which it will accept provincial royalties and taxes, and make them deductible. Once the federal government states its position, the provincial governments will know they have to come down here, bargain, and come close to that position, or there will be no agreement. That is the first thing. Secondly, if the federal and provincial governments are sincere, they will know that both have a mutual problem to extract more oil and gas either from the traditional fields or from the new synthetic fields.
I have suggested what many people consider to be a radical or revolutionary proposal, namely, that we accept the fact that these new ventures are beyond the financial competence of any of the big oil companies because they cost so much. If the House wants the figures, here they are.
The average cost of finding a barrel of oil a day from 1946 to 1972 was $400. Now the average cost of finding a barrel of oil a day in the frontier areas is approximately $10,000. The average cost of finding a barrel a day in the tar sands on the basis of a $2 billion plant is $16,000 a barrel. That is certainly different from the $400 of a few years ago, and the provincial governments cannot generate enough dollars to finance such ventures.
I am suggesting that the governments and the industry together do a very simple thing, namely, that they enter into a contractual agreement, or a joint venture, under

which the governments will simply agree to stay off the back of the industry until it can pay off the debt. If the money that comes in from the oil and gas goes to pay off the debt, instead of a 15 to 25 years pay out, with 50 per cent of the value of the product going to pay interest, the debt can be paid off in four years and the money lender shaken off your back. Then there will be several times more money for the provinces. In fact the provinces, as the owners of the resource, will be the ones to profit most. The federal government will get much more today, and the industry will get all its money back with a big fat bonus of 20 per cent or 25 per cent for having taken the risk.
What is wrong with the concept of getting more money out of the resources? The only thing against it, as stated by the Minister of Finance, is that this is not the way such ventures are financed. He sounds like a banker. They say they have never done that before, so it must be wrong. I am simply pointing out to the committee that the government of Great Britain, which at present is socialist, has accepted such a proposal. What they do is to say to these big expensive ventures in the North Sea, "We will only charge you a small royalty, the traditional one-eighth or 121/2 per cent, but when you repay that debt, we will take approximately 45 per cent."
What they do in Great Britain is to give to a company, as a quick write-off procedure, 175 per cent of the value of the investment, which means that they get their investment back, they get their interest back, and they get a big chunk extra to pay for the loss on other wells as well. Because of the value of oil on the world's market, they pay off the debt on these $2 billion and $3 billion oil field ventures in four years. Then the people of the United Kingdom collect 50 per cent or 55 per cent of the total value of the product, and they get the value of the high oil price. This is not what happens in our country. In the United States and in Canada we worship at the shrine of paying interest all our blooming lives.


Mr. Gilbert:: How true!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When a person today buys a home for $50,000 it takes him 30 years to pay off the mortgage, and he pays $150,000 in interest on top of the $50,000. We love paying interest, and that is what we are forcing the companies to do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How right you are!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is what we are forcing ourselves to pay. The whole value of the resources of our country goes into paying the interest because the provinces want the money today and they say, "To heck with the dollars tomorrow, we will take the pennies today."
That is the proposal I made in the committee a year ago and again last fall. I spoke 18 times on the budget. I will keep talking about it because it is obvious that this proposal is fundamentally sound. Certainly many people comment on it, but in general there is agreement. If you do not have the capital in place, and if you have to wait for 25 years to save it dollar by dollar, you can achieve the same by accelerating the flow of the capital. Using the capital three or four times in 20 years is the same as having four times the amount of capital. The only thing wrong with
April 14, 1975

the proposal I made is that it reduces the power of those who look after our money. Their place in the social spectrum disappears.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The NDP are approving what you are saying. You better watch it!


John Gilbert: Sinclair Stevens will really like this.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I plead with the Minister of Finance to listen to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whose statutory responsibility and right it is to ask the Minister of Finance to protect the mining and resource industry. Let him speak up for the mining people and for the oil people.
I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to put pressure on the provincial governments with regard to new mines and oil fields and tell them, "If you all stop being greedy, you will all get more money." Even a provincial premier or a provincial minister will respond to that. I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to press the Minister of Finance to amend the tax laws, to encourage the people to save increasingly and to invest. The one way to make money is to invest in the shares of the resource industries in Canada. The best way to ensure a good return on these investments is to make certain the senior capital is paid off fast, and not only will the provincial and federal governments be better off but so will the shareholders. Let the people of Canada as individuals own this country, not the provinces or the federal government.
I do not believe that the great majority of the members of the NDP want any form of socialism. I know them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There are only a few aberrations that got into the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what the Tories want.


John Gilbert: Tell us what Sinclair Stevens wants.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In winding up my remarks I am pointing out that the great majority of members of the NDP across this country, the labour people, do not want socialism, do not want technocrats ruling this country, and they will go for a program whereby individuals own this country. Therefore I suggest that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take into account the debate he has heard today and the comments made by some pretty good Canadians, such as the hon. member for Peace River, who proposed a compromise and took this out of the House in December.
We do have some constructive proposals whereby the minister can retain his power if he does it within the framework of the constitution. I hope that he will not only be flexible in looking at these amendments to improve the bill but will try to achieve that consensus, if possible without having to use the bill, by getting the Minister of Finance to change his position. As Bonaparte could retreat from Moscow, so can the Minister of Finance retreat from his irrational and silly budget.
Oil and Petroleum


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Chairman, perhaps as I have been described as a socialist conservative, I can make a constructive contribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like Saturday night.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am surprised to find that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is spending his time in such a frivolous way.
I would like to emphasize something the minister himself has made pretty clear today. Following the failure of the recent conference of first ministers to reach a consensus on the price of crude oil in Canada-leaving natural gas alone for a moment-the premiers, the Prime Minister, the minister to some extent, the government establishment and the functionaries who talk to the press immediately gave the impression to the Canadian people that in the absence of a consensus involving all of the provinces and the federal government, the federal government would have no alternative but to seek these powers under Bill C-32, and to use them.
The minister was frank enough to say today that what is really involved ultimately would be a consensus between the federal government, representing the views of all the Canadian people, and the producing provinces. It would be very helpful, of course. Everyone would like to see a consensus involving not only the federal government and the producing provinces, but the federal government and all the provinces, including the producing and consuming provinces. But I do not think the spokesmen for the federal government should try to give the Canadian public the impression that, failing a consensus involving all the provinces, the federal government has no recourse but to invoke legislation of this sort, whereas I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated quite clearly that these powers he is seeking would, in his judgment, not be necessary if the federal government could achieve a consensus with the producing provinces.
I think the country as a whole should understand that this consensus in the last analysis is necessary for the federal government to see, in effect, a level of petroleum prices which is satisfactory to the country, much as the desire, no doubt, to see a consensus which included the consuming provinces. It is not necessary for me to labour that point but-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know I am not in the same class as the hon. member for St. Boniface, and I frequently thank my maker for that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition knew that nowhere was he close to the manner in which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain brought this matter to the attention of the House a while ago. He does not have the same enthusiasm or the same phraseology, and I thought I would bring that to his attention.

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. This is far from a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to express very earnestly one or two concerns to the minister, even if my expression of these views lacks the fervour and the authority the hon. member for St. Boniface would like to see. I say without reservation that I recognize there could be a movement in oil prices within our country which would cause such a dislocation in our economy and such problems for the Canadian people that, with the authority of this parliament, the government would certainly be justified in intervening to prevent that from happening. I want to make it very clear at the outset that in no circumstances would the federal parliament be unjustified in moving into this situation, but I want to say that I have a great deal of difficulty with the minister's argument that constitutionally this parliament can authorize the government to fix the price of petroleum in this country whether there is any urgency or not, and can base such legislative action simply on the trade and commerce clause in the BNA Act.
I find it very difficult to accept, constitutionally, that in the absence of any urgency or emergency the federal parliament has this power to fix the price of something indefinitely, simply because it moves in the commerce of the provinces. That, it seems to me, is a very far reaching constitutional argument to make.
Second, quite apart from the constitutional argument, I feel very uncomfortable being asked to vote in favour of legislation whereby this parliament gives to the Government of Canada the right and the power indefinitely in the future to fix the price of petroleum products, to fix the price of crude oil and the price of natural gas, with no time limit, no anything. We are being asked to give this power to the government indefinitely in the future. I think this is a very unwise request to make. I do not have such confidence in-well, I will not get into that. I will not say it in a light that would seem to be argumentative, reflecting in any way on my judgment or on the judgment of the government.
I just say that I am deeply bothered at being asked to vote in favour of the Government of Canada being given this power indefinitely, a power which would continue, having no relation to any sense of urgency, indefinitely in the future. I think that is a very questionable power for the Government of Canada to ask for, quite apart from the constitutional arguments which have been made. I think that those who have objected to this legislation on constitutional grounds are correct but, even if they were wrong, I do not think the Government of Canada should seek this power on an indefinite basis, and I do not think I should be asked to vote this power in the government on an indefinite basis in the future. There are many reasons for this.
I do not think one has to be cynical or skeptical to recognize that the power of the government to fix the price of petroleum indefinitely into the future could very quickly and readily become what is generally called a political football. There could be enormous political pressures develop in connection with the judgment that the government would exercise from time to time as to what

this price should be. It is always going to affect a lot of people. There will be no possibilities of any market influences in this connection.
One can argue, I know, that there is no market influences at work now, that at the moment everything is rigged by the OPEC countries. This may continue indefinitely, or it may not. But once the Government of Canada has this power, and this statute stays on the statute books with these provisions in it giving the government the power to fix the price of petroleum and natural gas in Canada, then the Government of Canada, whatever its political complexion may be through the years, will have in its hot little hands something that will continue to bring enormous political pressure upon it to do not necessarily what is in the interest of the country but what may seem from time to time to be politically expedient.
Normally powers like this are not exercised directly by government. Public utilities, telephone companies-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Heavy water plants.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Well, the hon. member can be funny if he
likes, but this is a serious matter.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is a very serious matter.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The price of heavy water is fixed by contract. As I was saying, normally pricing is regulated by some independent commission, such as a public utilities board, the Canadian Transport Commission, or something of that sort. In this case the government is taking directly into its own hands the power to fix prices, and it is going to be subjected directly to all the pressures that this involves.
I am not suggesting that, if it is necessary for the Government of Canada in the year 1975 to fix the price of crude petroleum, in this country, this should be delegated to a board. In the circumstances, if there is such urgency it is a responsibility that should be accepted directly by the government. But I think this House should think for quite a long time before placing in the hands of the government-this government and governments that may succeed it-the responsibility and power to fix the price of petroleum products in this country, at least at the crude oil and natural gas stage.
That is all I want to say, Madam Chairman. There is the constitutional difficulty that I see. And quite apart from the constitutional difficulty there is the wisdom of this House voting this responsibility and power to the government on an indefinite basis.
Having said that, I repeat that I and, I am sure, my colleagues are quite prepared to recognize that the need may exist for the Government of Canada to act on behalf of the people of Canada. It may exist in the year 1975; it may arise from time to time in years to come. But this power should be hedged around in a manner that indicates it is used only in cases of urgency. It is not a power that the government should have or should be given on a routine basis.
Even if the minister refuses to agree with and rejects the constitutional arguments which I think are valid, if he will recognize the danger involved in the government and its successors having, without limitation or restriction,
April 14, 1975

without any ordinary procedural safeguards, the power to fix the price of petroleum products through the years, there can be a meeting of minds across the floor of the House that will provide the government with the powers it needs to safeguard the interests of Canadians in a situation of urgency. As I have said, if such a situation does exist in this country in the year 1975, or exists from time to time in the future, the government will have no difficulty getting this authority. But it will have a great deal of difficulty getting agreement from me at least to having this very large and unrestricted power to be exercised according to its whims indefinitely into the future, whether there be urgency or anything else to call upon its use.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I must say that the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition is an interesting one because it reflects certain aspects of his thinking with regard to the current petroleum and natural gas pricing situation in Canada. It also gives some indication of his concept of the kind of market that we have for petroleum and hydrocarbons, not only in Canada but throughout the world.
The Leader of the Opposition says that there may be an emergency situation, that there may be urgency in the year 1975. He is not convinced that there is. Obviously he does not think there is at the present time. Substantial opinion has been expressed-it is not just a case of my views against his-to the effect that even the slightest increase in this year, given the current circumstances surrounding the economy, would be against the interests of Canadians. This particular opinion was very prominently displayed last week at the conference.
When you really analyse the opinions in both directions in this regard, the final opinion that comes out is certainly that represented by the premier of Ontario, who said that this was the kind of situation not only in which we should keep the maximum price at the level of $6.50 but, as well, that we should proceed by this specific bill to exercise the jurisdiction that the premier obviously thought rested with the Government of Canada to maintain these maximum prices in Canada for both oil and natural gas. So it is an interesting concept that the Leader of the Opposition has. First, he does not share the opinion that there is the least urgency to the situation; and he has rejected the viewpoint that was put forward at the conference.
The second comment that I should like to make concerns the argument of the quality of indefiniteness of the time limit. No member now sitting on that side had the responsibility for introducing the legislation in 1959-the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was here a moment ago-that established the National Energy Board and, at the same time, established a national oil policy that fixed prices in Canada. Incidentally, they were prices that were above the international price of oil, and which in part of the Canadian market required consumers to pay more than would otherwise have been the case had market forces applied. So I find it strange to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that there is some inherent evil in the quality of indefiniteness in this bill.
He suggested there is some inherent evil in provisions for fixing the price of petroleum. After all, it was done for
Oil and Petroleum
12 years, without the horrors the hon. gentleman sought to conjure up in his statement, and without the adverse influences he mentioned. On the whole, I must say that although I resided in that part of Canada which, through those years, had to pay higher prices for petroleum as fixed by the legislation passed by the government of which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was a member, it was an effective exercise in jurisdiction. That legislation was undoubtedly the source of the present prosperity of the Canadian petroleum industry. Although Ontario had to pay more in the long run, the country prospered. I suggest that the indefiniteness of the powers sought by the Diefenbaker government for fixing the price of petroleum, powers which were invoked by that government and by successive Liberal governments for close to 12 years, did not involve any of the horrors which the Leader of the Opposition tried to conjure up tonight.
I suppose one of the most meaningful commentaries on the thinking of the Leader of the Opposition is his notion with regard to a return to market influences governing the price of petroleum. One wonders what the Leader of the Opposition thinks will happen in the international petroleum market. Certainly, no matter whether market forces had any bearing in the past on the price of petroleum, and this has been a matter of great debate, it is clear that, given the continued involvement of producing countries' governments in the exploration, development and marketing of petroleum, markets and market prices as we knew them in the past are things of the past. There will be a distinct political influence in this field and it is important for the Government of Canada, not just this government, but succeeding governments, to be given the ability to take action in order to protect citizens of Canada with regard to the price of commodities as fundamental as petroleum and natural gas.
There are distinct differences in our opinions, Madam Chairman. Indeed, we do not say that, under our constitution, only an emergency will permit the federal government to act. Such powers were available over the years under the National Energy Board Act, under which the price was maintained at a level higher than it would have attained under market forces.
As the Prime Minister said, we, in my party, want to balance supply, and the inevitable impact of price increases on supply, with the inflationary effect of the increased price of these commodities and the fiscal and economic drag which these increases could impose on the economy at this time.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Why not change your tax levels?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have received a clear indication from consuming provinces, from the hon. gentleman's native province, from my own and from others, that they regard the situation as so serious that we should not take action to allow prices to go up at this time and that we should, indeed, exercise our powers under this bill.
I think the Leader of the Opposition stated the issues clearly. There is a difference between his viewpoint and his party's viewpoint and that of certain of the provinces and of the federal government. We, on our part, are concerned to exercise control over market prices. We will make every attempt to get the agreement not just of

April 14, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
producing provinces but of all provinces to the appropriate price level for these commodities. We will do our best, with the producing provinces, to arrive at a fair level of price.
Under our constitution some level of government must have responsibility. We suggest that if any level of government should be responsible for deciding what the price level ought to be, surely it should be that level which is responsible to all the people of Canada, and which has the support of and is elected by all the people of Canada. That level of government should be given responsibility rather than one particular province. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said this afternoon, on that basis this power should ultimately reside in the federal government.
This afternoon I alluded to a matrix of discussions which will take place on these difficult and technical questions. We are under pressure, particularly with regard to natural gas, because if no action is taken, under Alberta law that price will be forced up for consumers in other parts of the country who depend on Alberta natural gas. We hope to work out a compromise on that. We recognize that the ultimate responsibility is ours, and that is why we seek the powers under this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Chairman, will the minister permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister mentioned the National Energy Board Act on which, obviously, many of his legal conclusions are based. Did that act not make clear the constitutional right of producing provinces to fix the wellhead price? Conflicting claims about the right to fix prices have arisen in Canada from time to time. Some contend that the provinces alone have the right to fix the wellhead price, and some contend that the federal government, by virtue of the National Energy Board Act, is given certain rights in this regard. For instance, the federal government has authority over the transport and/or export of natural gas and oil and petroleum products and, by that means, can indirectly fix prices. The federal government has always had that right. It has always exercised authority with regard to price fixing. The Diefenbaker government recognized the situation and provided for provincial rights to be left with the provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, the hon. gentleman referred to the wish, to the desirability, to give producing provinces the right to keep prices up. He seems to acknowledge the power for prices to be kept up under federal law. He wants the provinces not only to keep up the price of petroleum, but to impose a higher price on certain consuming provinces, a price much higher than they would have had to pay during the particular years we discussed. Let me point out that the price was kept up at a time when the international price was low, and the legislation to which he alludes was a protective device for the assistance of the hon. gentleman's province. If it was within the jurisdiction and competence of the federal government to legislate at that time, to keep prices up, because it was in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole, surely, by the same reasoning, it is within the

jurisdiction and competence of the federal government to do what is proposed in this bill, and to keep prices down when international prices have increased by a multiple of five over what they were previously.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Chairman, I want to make a few comments on the comments the minister made on my modest intervention. He asked me what I thought the outlook was for the restoration of market conditions for oil, assuming normal market conditions ever existed. I do not know the answer. I have no crystal ball. I do not think anyone knows what will happen in future to international oil prices.
On the other hand I do not think that we should assume that present uncertainty ought to be the basis for passing legislation which is to be of indefinite duration. We should not be asked to assume that conditions will remain substantially as they are.
The minister suggested there was nothing wrong with the National Energy Board in 1959 being given powers of indefinite duration. I suggest conditions were different. Parliament adopted for Canada a well-defined oil policy involving the so-called Ottawa Valley line. The government decided that the market west of the Ottawa Valley line was to be preserved for western Canadian oil. That was a well-defined policy and was to endure, naturally, for an unlimited period in the future. This government is asking for something altogether different. The minister is not bringing forward any reasonably well-defined marketing policy. He is seeking power to enable the Government of Canada for all time in future to fix the market, that is, to fix the price of oil and of natural gas, without regard to any criterion. He is asking for powers far larger and more indefinite in scope than were granted in 1959, in the legislation about which he talked.
The minister talks about the wish of the consuming provinces that the price of oil, for example, will remain stable. Of course they express that view. I am not quoting his exact words, but I heard the minister's leader say that after July 1 the price of crude oil ought to be increased.
I do not know what kind of agreement the minister will be able to negotiate with the producing provinces. I hope in his negotiations he is a little more conciliatory and persuasive than he is in his discussions with me across the floor tonight where he seeks to make points, enlarge differences, and create differences that do not exist. I must say that I noticed this somewhat from a distance in watching his dealings with the oil producing provinces in the past year or so.
There is a very serious condition in our country this year in terms of inflation and the problems faced by our consumers. It runs right through the economy, although until recently there was some suggestion that it was not all that serious.
I recognize that there is a serious problem confronting the people and the government of this country this year. I realize there will be an urgent situation if the federal government cannot reach an agreement with the producing provinces on the prices of oil and natural gas. I am prepared to face that problem. I am prepared to provide
April 14, 1975

the minister with authority to face that problem. I do not want him to twist my words and say that I am in favour of increases and he is not, when he is the one who said publicly, or through the Prime Minister, that they favour an increase. Now he is trying to skate around and get himself on the side of the premier of Ontario and the premier of Nova Scotia.


An hon. Member:: It is you who is skating.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not skating at all. I am trying to be perfectly frank with the minister. He smiles. Members opposite can laugh. I am saying there may well be an urgent situation. The minister will agree that there will not be an urgent situation with regard to pricing if he can reach an agreement. Of course there will be an urgent situation if he cannot do that. However, the minister should not use the possibility of an urgent situation in 1975 to arrogate to himself and his successors large undefined powers of undefined scope and duration at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, when the Leader of the Opposition starts pounding his desk he may be conceding that he is not too strong in the substance of his argument. The National Energy Board had a national oil policy to maintain prices for over 12 years. The Leader of the Opposition cannot escape that. The power was there and exercised by this parliament without any of the imagined horrors the Leader of the Opposition tried to trot out before us. The fact is that under that particular policy the price was maintained for the purpose of that particular national interest. Now that oil prices have gone four and five times higher than that particular price, we are seeking at this time to exercise the same jurisdiction to make sure it does not have this impact on Canadians.
The Leader of the Opposition made a lot of references to the twisting of words. However, the words are in the statute. They talk about setting maximum prices. On this basis the fact remains that this government is taking the responsibility which it has to keep the Canadian price down. It has through the legislative plan proposed here, largely by consensus because of the difficulty in getting this bill through parliament, acted to keep the price down. We propose to continue to do so. We now seek legislative sanction for the kind of program which was put before the Canadian people and was accepted by them as being in their interest.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about indefinite power. However, he has to confess he does not know what is going to happen to the international oil price. He does not know what the future will be. He would pick a specific date in the future beyond which everything will be all right.
The national oil policy was changed by this government from the earlier policy that existed for a period of 12 years. Indeed, with the change in external facts, the policy set out in this document may again be changed. However, at the moment we do not know at what particular time the international price may, if ever, come down. In the meantime we, and a lot of other people in this country, think we should have the power to carry out our responsibility of ensuring by agreement that Canadians do not pay very
Adjournment Debate
high prices. That is what the bill says. The hon. member says this is without criteria. I invite him to examine the criteria in clause 37.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have, many times.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Leader of the Opposition gives no evidence of having done that or trying to understand it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, on March 21 I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) if he would add to the good sense of his year's moratorium the deeper wisdom of a full abandonment of the iniquitous and nefarious scheme to keep the people of Prince Edward Island away from their own beaches.
I must confess the minister's reply was disappointing and not indicative of the sense and sensitivity which he has revealed on some other matters facing him since he assumed his important portfolio.
In this issue we must rely on the sense and sensitivity of the minister. The people of Prince Edward Island are of one mind on the question. They do not welcome the notion that they should be fenced off by a $2 admission barrier from the beaches and waters of their own province.
Island people are not known for being unreasonable. Indeed, as residents of the birthplace of confederation we have learned to endure many economic disadvantages. We can understand increases in fees for camp grounds, trailer parks, golf courses and the like, but to be charged to enter the park to bathe in the glorious waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, to pay $2 to enter or bring a visitor in to look at the coastline, Dalvay House or the famed Green Gables, this is an imposition devoutly to be condemned.
Someone in the minister's advisory Sanhedrin is not aware of the fact that the Prince Edward Island park in relation to the people thereby is a park unlike all the others. The park is basically a long narrow strip embracing a good portion of the northern coast of the province. It has brought pleasure to countless numbers of tourists ever since its establishment over a generation ago. Its charm is the beauty of sea, sky and sand. It is not a high-powered

April 14, 1975
Adjournment Debate
pleasure palace or a vast natural park replete with exotic wild life.
We are happy that people from other parts of the world are given an opportunity to relish the riches which naturfe has bestowed upon our little province. But Prince Edward Islanders also love their heritage. Thousands of people live within a short distance of a park entrance. They have long enjoyed a rendezvous with our scenic beauty at day's end or week's end.
You can imagine their reaction to being told that to take a refreshing swim in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or to gaze at the sand dunes at dusk they must pay an entry fee. Wordsworth said:
What is this life if full of care We have no time to stand and stare?
I don't want the minister to plagiarize Wordsworth and declare:
What care I what cares have you If you have not a buck or two?
I regard this matter as one of very great significance. I know intimately every part of the park. I have delighted to show it to visitors from abroad, enjoyed the unexcelled mackerel fishing at Covehead Harbour, visited my friends, the fishermen of Rustico Harbour. I know the park in season and out of season and I know how unnecessary is the imposition of a $2 entrance fee. The people of Prince Edward Island are not disrupting the traffic nor desecrating the environment. Indeed, Island people know the area so well that they use the swimming spots less crowded by tourists and generally are able to maximize the full use of the park, whereas the visitor often assumes that there is no place in the park except the locale of Green Gables.
I am pleased that the minister has provided for a moratorium of one year. I ask him to reflect upon the situation, to visit our park and not to hesitate to regard this as a special case. In no province is the park area such a substantial portion of the total area of the province. In no province is the sole park so accessible to so many local citizens. Let the minister not be disturbed by those who, without rhyme, reason, imagination, or that rarest of qualities, common sense, affirm we cannot make exceptions. Such a brittle line would have prevented us from establishing Confederation. The BNA Act itself is replete with special arrangements re subsidies, Senate representation, and many other things. We, like Newfoundland, are unique in that we are the only provinces which require you to pay upon entry and departure-this special status we could do without.
I close with an appeal to the minister to harken to me, to the premier of government of Prince Edward Island, to the people of the province and, I am sure, to the millions of our fellow Canadians who have learned to love our province. Make the moratorium a permanent one, not merely one of 12 months' duration. To take liberties, with Shakespeare, I say to him regarding this nefarious entry fee-kill it, not scotch it.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What? No Shakespeare!


J. Judd Buchanan: The appeals of my hon. friend opposite are always extremely difficult to resist. Indeed, I must say I shall accept part of them; I shall accept his kind offer to visit the park. I shall be down there on Saturday of this week and I shall be meeting with the tourist association which, as the hon. member is aware, I am sure, also has some concern to express.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will you have to pay to get in?


J. Judd Buchanan: Well, I had to pay last week to get into Banff and I am sure I can pay in Prince Edward Island as well. As the hon. member has stated, we have allowed a moratorium. The maritime provinces have been unique in that there has been no fee charged whatsoever, whereas the others have had fees which have been causing distress for many years. I admit we might have introduced it on a more gradual basis. However, this will now put the Prince Edward Island Park and the parks in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick on the same footing as those in the rest of Canada.
As I indicated earlier in reply to questions, we still anticipate realizing only a very small proportion of our operating costs in total revenue this year of roughly $12 million as opposed to approximately $66 million.
As the hon. member knows, the annual fee is $10. Canada has an outstanding national parks system with 50,000 square miles of unique topography. For a fee of $10 one is allowed to enter each and every one of those parks throughout Canada, and I really feel that represents outstanding value.
We have made some exceptions. Those who live in the parks, and I am not sure of the details of the park in Prince Edward Island, but perhaps some folks actually live there, are exempt from the fee. Those who must go into the parks because of their work are also exempt, and those who must pass through in order to reach their homes, where that is the only access road, and that has some application to the Cape Breton Highlands Park, are exempt. People can walk in the parks free. Those people who live in an area that abuts the parks can walk, ride bicycles or ride horses, and as long as they travel by these modes they are exempt from the fee.
I share the concern of the hon. member, but I really do not see how in justice and equity to the other parks in Canada I can go beyond the special situation which exists in respect of the deferral position for one year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-ALLEGED AGREEMENT CANADA WOULD NOT RETALIATE FOR BOARDING OF &quot;GREENPEACE III&quot; BY FRENCH AUTHORITIES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my topic tonight is the Greenpeace III, which has been referred to in the House not only today and a few times in the last couple of weeks, but also was referred to by this member and, I think, by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) in 1973.
April 14, 1975

The Greenpeace III was the ship that sailed from British Columbia to protest French nuclear testing. It left with a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wishing it a safe voyage, and it left partially financed by the government of British Columbia. As we all know, that trip ended in disaster with the boarding of the ship by French government troops, with some severe damage being done not only to the ship but as well to Captain McTaggart.
Captain McTaggart is now over in France on his case, which has been accepted by the French courts, in which he is suing the French government. A few days ago it came to our attention that the French government was not being harassed in any manner whatsoever by the Canadian government and we wondered why. We know the government condemned the French government in this House after the incident. We also know the government helped Captain McTaggart get his ship back and we wonder why this assistance has all of a sudden ended.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Acting Prime Minister, the former Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), if there had been any collusion between the two governments before the boarding of that Greenpeace III. They both denied that there was any collusion, and I have to accept their word on that.
Let me read from a story by Leo Ryan, dateline Paris, April 11, under the heading "Greenpeace skipper critical of Canada". It states:
Greenpeace skipper Dave McTaggart today accused the Canadian Government of implicity allowing a French naval vessel to board his protest yacht in a Pacific nuclear testing area in the summer of 1973.
He charged that a Canadian government denial on Tuesday of a secret agreement between the Ottawa and Paris authorities was couched in "weak and ambiguous terms".
To back up his accusation, Mr. McTaggart cited a "confidential report" addressed on Aug. 23, 1973 by Vice-Admiral Christian Claverie, commander in charge of the French nuclear testing operational group, to an air force general directing the nuclear testing centre.
Mr. McTaggart's lawyer, Hierry Garby-Lacrouts, submitted the lengthy report to a Paris court earlier this week as part of the evidence in the proceedings opened against the French Navy.
In a statement released here, Mr. McTaggart points out that "the first paragraph of this long text indicates that after being assured by the general that no retaliatory measures were to be feared from the Canadian government on the occasion of Air France and Cotam (military transport planes) stopovers in Montreal, the admiral ordered the boarding of Greenpeace III.
"It would appear from this statement that the French authorities, in some way or other, made contact with the Canadian government and obtained, explicitly or implicitly, the agreement of the Ottawa Government.
"In a statement to the press on April 8, 1975, the Department of External Affairs denies this claim in particularly weak and ambiguous terms. The Canadian government denies that there was an official consultation concerning the boarding but does not deny that there were communications in another form. Following these communications, it was up to the Canadian government to threaten the French government with retaliatory measures.
"By not doing so, the Canadian government implicity allowed the boarding to take place" Mr. McTaggart alleged.
New Zealand and Australia, besides bringing a protest against the tests to the International Court in The Hague took the retaliatory measures including barring Air France planes from landing in their countries.
Adjournment Debate
If what Mr. McTaggard alleged is true we have a situation of a Canadian citizen who has been sent on a protest mission by a number of people from British Columbia, who left here with a letter from our Prime Minister wishing him a safe voyage, who left financed by one of our provincial governments, and who was sold out by his government to the French government, and was beaten on his boat and lost an eye. I implore the government to live up to the commitment made to Mr. McTaggart and to many Canadians after the 1973 incident, to go to France with the best legal aid the government can provide and make sure that Mr. McTaggart can at least get some restitution for the great job he did in telling the French nation that Canada no longer likes to see nuclear testing take place in Pacific waters.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the question of possible subsequent retaliatory action to be taken by the Canadian government was never the subject of discussions between officials of the Department of External Affairs and of the French Government. It would appear from the CP press report regarding this matter that such assurances as may have been given regarding possible Canadian government retaliatory action were made by one French naval officer to another, without any consultation with officials of the Canadian government.
Those exchanges which did take place between French and Canadian government officials, immediately prior to the 1973 boarding of the Greenpeace III, expressed the Canadian government's concern for the safety of those Canadians, including Mr. McTaggart, who had declared their intention to enter, and were reported to be in, the French nuclear testing area around Mururoa, in protest against the summer of 1973 French series of nuclear tests.
The Canadian government, through the Canadian embassy in Paris, has been and will continue actively to press the French government for an acceptable out of court settlement. From the very beginning, the Canadian government has taken the view that it could intervene directly with the French on Mr. McTaggart's behalf. Nevertheless, we have always considered that the normal course for him to follow, under international law, would be first to pursue the local legal remedies open to him under French law. In that context the forthcoming hearing follows logically from Mr. McTaggart's earlier filing of action last summer to protect his prescriptive rights. We are keeping in close consultation with Mr. McTaggart and, further to his request, the Canadian embassy is providing him with assistance of an essentially consular nature in connection with the presentation of his case before the courts.
The original commitment that Canada would espouse Mr. McTaggart's claims has not altered. However, the time of espousal still remains open to him. We are seeking the views of Mr. McTaggart and his lawyers regarding any possible adverse effects under French law that espousal might have on his action before the French courts since we would not wish to prejudice his case if we were to espouse at this time.
Whether or not we could espouse his claims after the court hearings would, of course, depend on the outcome of the case. If Mr. McTaggart were to lose on the merits and

April 14, 1975
Adjournment Debate
thus not be denied justice, then the Canadian government would be precluded from espousing his claims under international law. Similarly, were we to espouse now and if Mr. McTaggart were subsequently to lose his case on the merits in the French courts, we would then have to abandon our espousal of his claims.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-REASON FOR ALLOCATING FUNDS FOR THE FURTHER STUDY OF CONTAINER FACILITIES AT HALIFAX
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I come here tonight to have a conversation with my friend from St. Boniface about the port of Halifax. Very specifically I am here to seek some elaboration on the matter of the inclusion of $1.5 million designated for, to quote from page ten of the actual contract addendum:
"Feasibility and conceptual design studies of additional container facilities in the port of Halifax including detailed financial and cost-benefit analysis of alternate sites, conceptual design and block layout design, required off and on site supporting infrastructure requirements such as back up storage, transportation and distribution facilities and an environmental impact assessment.
What does all this mean? I ask that, particularly in light of the statement of the minister last Tuesday as reported at page 4595 of Hansard, when he said:
The premier of Nova Scotia yesterday indicated that he hoped the work which will be financed by this $1 million will be completed in short order.
It has been reliably estimated by those in the trade that studies of this extent will take three or more years to complete. Others in the trade have suggested that in fact the bulk of this work has been done. I ask if this work has already been done, and what time perimeters, if the work has not been done, has the federal department set on these studies, if in fact any at all?
The present facility is one of the most modern in Canada, and certainly the most efficient. Even so, it became obvious in the early 1970s that it would require expansion to handle the traffic which was even then recognizing the economies of shipping through the Port of Halifax, economies of time and price and, perhaps of vastly greater importance, the fact that the Port of Halifax is virtually free of labour disruptions and has been so for many years.
This matter has been studied and studied again. We have seen the spectacle of the Nova Scotia government promising action by certain deadlines, then promising action upon extensions of those deadlines, and promising action upon the conclusion of extensions of extensions. The feasibility studies have been carried out exhaustively and expertly by officials of the Nova Scotia department of development, by outside consultants, and by Canadian National Railways. In simple terms, there is no excuse for any further feasibility studies whatsoever, and we wonder why we are bogged down in that sense.
The terms of the agreement call for three parts to these studies. I just have one. The second relates to so-called inland container terminal studies, and $150,000 has been committed for these studies. Of the entire $1.5 million, this study alone needs to be carried out yet.

The third part of the proposal is for the land reclamation feasibility study. The agreement calls for the expenditure of $350,000 for this, and yet it is well known that this study was completed to the specifications outlined in the agreement almost one month ago. In other words, it is done.
The matter of the land reclamation study brings us to a further point. It has been suggested in the Halifax and Dartmouth Port community that, on the basis of the preliminary results of this study, the province of Nova Scotia approached the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and sought agreement to share costs for a $3 million landfill operation at the Wright's Cove, navy island site on the Dartmouth side of the harbour. The suggestion is that in fact DREE agreed with the proposal but that the National Harbours Board, the landlord of the port, and unfortunately known to Liberals and Tories alike as a pathetically poor landlord, stepped in outraged, and said to the province and to DREE: "In no way are you going to interfere here. This is our jurisdiction. We have plans to frustrate that port at every turn in the road, and there will be no DREE assistance so long as we have legislative authority to act."
There were some comments in general along these lines, comments made with the full knowledge that, for example, there has been massive DREE involvement in and around the port of Quebec on the St. Lawrence River. The National Harbours Board approved dredging and landfill operations, as we all know, at the Beaufort Flats within the port of Quebec, and yet it refused the same type of project funded by the same department in the port of Halifax. One has to wonder why.
Last week we heard the announcement that a study would take place on land reclamation, a study that has been completed and upon the recommendation of which the present agreement, except for the intervention of the National Harbours Board, would have included the sum of $3 million to start a second container facility in this very calendar year. Instead of that we have another study. It is my contention that the people in the community of Halifax and Dartmouth deserve something better than this.
I want to know why there are to be more studies. I seek to be assured that the whole matter is not, as many are already suggesting, another in a series of comic frauds played upon our port community, the perpetual carrot dangled in our faces trotted out at each election, and trotted back after each election.
I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary tonight either a confirmation or a denial of the allegation that the National Harbours Board intervened destructively to halt proposed land reclamation efforts agreed upon by the government of the province of Nova Scotia and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
The reasoning is simple:
The present facilities will reach their capacity before 1975 passes. Thought and planning must turn towards either expansion of the present facility or relocation to another site, and it must be done now; otherwise, the container ports' hard earned reputation will be eroded as ships sit in the stream losing money while awaiting a berth.
April 14, 1975

That is a direct quote from page 10 of the addendum of the general agreement between DREE and the province of Nova Scotia. That reasoning is reached because there is recognition on the part of the province of Nova Scotia and DREE that something has to be done. Given the present situation all that can be done is for the province of Nova Scotia to proceed without the assistance of the federal authority, and that, while it is possible, would be a regrettable state of affairs.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I listened with considerable interest last Tuesday, April 8, when the hon. member and his colleague from Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) a number of important questions concerning the development agreements signed with the province of Nova Scotia. I speak here of hundreds of millions of dollars, over $142 million, I would suggest.
As hon. members will know, the minister has been signing subsidiary agreements over the past months with the various provinces under the authority of the general development agreement. Last Monday he signed two important agreements with the province of Nova Scotia. These agreements are included in the $142 million I mentioned. They related to development plans for the Strait of Canso area and the metropolitan Halifax-Dartmouth area. I know that copies of these agreements have been provided to the hon. member's office.
Over the past four years there has been tremendous growth in shipping and port related activities on the east coast. All major east coast ports have benefitted from this expansion, including the port of Halifax. It is expected that the container terminal in Halifax will operate at
Adjournment Debate
capacity this year. There is as well a general acceptance of the need either to expand existing facilities in that port or build a second terminal. The minister explained in his reply to the hon. member that there was a real need to determine in a precise way questions relating to design and site location factors. Because of the important economic impact this will have, not only on Halifax but on the rest of the east coast, further studies were felt to be warranted. The agreement itself spells this out more fully, and I quote:
This research will include detailed financial and cost benefit analysis of alternative sites, conceptual design and block layout design, required off and on site support, infrastructure requirements such as backup storage, transportation and distribution facilities, and an environmental impact assessment.
I believe the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) will agree at this time that the minister replied to him as fully as is possible. Part of the reply, I think, should be repeated because it states his position clearly, and I quote:
We would be quite prepared to enter into a special supplementary agreement with a view to expanding the facilities along the lines mentioned by the hon. member. Whether or not it would be an expansion of what exists at present or whether it would be in a different location are issues which still must be resolved among the parties of which DREE is really not a direct member. But when the project has been firmed up in respect of the ideas and concepts of those who are promoting it at the present time, then as I have said we are prepared to make a DREE contribution.
I realize this matter is most important to the Dartmouth area. The hon. member has raised additional points concerning the matter, and I wish to assure him that these will be brought to the minister's attention as well.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, April 15, 1975