1975-04-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise to propose a motion regarding statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) outside this House, statements such as concern the revised beef premium subsidy, the cow stabilization program and, in particular, the recent dairy announcement.
Noting that the minister promised the dairy farmers of Canada a comprehensive statement on dairy policy before the new dairy year began on April 1, and that despite questioning for many months, in particular, on March 20, 24, 25 and 26, the minister purposely chose to wait until March 27, the first day of the Easter recess, to announce portions of the dairy policy; and further noting that the announcement was deceptive in terms of the return to the farmers in that it encouraged premature price escalation to the consumer and prompted hoarding by those financially capable of doing so; and, again, noting the announced intention of the minister to reveal the full policy details outside the House on April 18-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to propose a motion pursuant to the standing order, I would ask him to put it forthwith.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I will propose the motion immediately. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House severely reprimands the Minister of Agriculture and instructs that in the future all statements on matters of substance to Canadian farmers be made in this House, excepting only in cases of extreme urgency and extenuating circumstances.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so in the hope that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) has had an opportunity to give this matter consideration during the recess. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House urges the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to review the recently established scale of fees for admission to national historic sites, it being the view of this House that Canadians should be encouraged to visit a site such as Lower Fort Garry in Manitoba and should not be discouraged from doing so by a fee of $2 per person or $5 per family.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek permission to move a motion under Standing Order 43. It arises from the release of a list from the Prime Minister's office showing that 22 members of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will travel to the Caribbean at public expense in connection with the news coverage of the Prime Minister's forthcoming trip to that area. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark):
That in view of the fact that the CBC should not be used as a public relations vehicle by the government or for the promotion of the Prime Minister's image, the House requests the Prime Minister for a detailed explanation of the lavish and excessive coverage planned for his forthcoming Caribbean travels by approximately 22 CBC staff personnel at public expense and further the House requests curtailment of such plans to an extent in keeping with the actual news value of the event.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Before calling oral questions, may I make one brief comment. I had assured the House that upon resumption of the sitting after the Easter break I would make a full statement concerning the guidelines which I believe ought to govern the question period. Upon reflection it seems appropriate that, rather than doing that today, I should do it perhaps next Thursday or Friday, and I will do so.
At this time we are entering an experimental stage and operating under a new rule under which the question period is to begin forthwith and stop promptly at three o'clock. I would, therefore, admonish all hon. members to bear in mind three things.
First, as there is to be a fixed cut-off time, oral questions and answers to them ought to be as brief as possible. I refer particularly to preambles. I might say that I am fascinated by the suggestion of a provincial colleague who says that when supplementary questions are allowed they ought not to be preceded by any preamble whatsoever. That suggestion could perhaps be a guideline for us in the future.
Second, points of order and questions of privilege which might be raised during the question period ought to be deferred until after the question period, in order to make sure that the question period, which terminates at three o'clock, is not interrupted in any way, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally, motions presented under Standing Order 43 which now precede the question period, and the presentation of which is to stop in any event at 2.15, ought to have connected to them only a brief explanation establishing the urgency and pressing necessity of the matter and not debating the point.
I leave those points on the record for the moment and reiterate that I will make a more complete statement later in the week which, I hope, will form the basis of discussion, perhaps at an early meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, in order to make sure that members on both sides have an opportunity to provide input into what ought to be the guidelines governing the question period.


Mr. Baldwin:: And answers should be truthful, too.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. It arises out of the statement made last week by the Minister of Finance that he hoped by the end of May to have

reached a consensus with various interest groups on how to deal with the economic troubles in the country. As the Prime Minister is in general charge of this program, will he advise whether it is the intention of the government to reach a general understanding by the end of May or is it the intention to have ready by that time a precise and comprehensive inflationary restraint program to be put into effect immediately?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: The
former of the two, Mr. Speaker.


INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF PROPOSALS REGARDING RESTRAINT TO MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: At the ministers of finance meeting on Friday, following the meeting of first ministers, is it the intention of the government to put before them any specific proposals with regard to restraint for their consideraton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance intends being specific, but not too specific. He has to face the general dilemma of informing not only the House, but the provincial premiers of our course of action. At the same time, he will not want to announce the precise directions we want to follow until we are assured the various sectors of the economy are prepared to follow them. That is why he assumed the government will take until about the end of May to hopefully have general agreement on the general guidelines he wants to follow. With reference to the previous question, the more specific we can be by the end of May, the better it will be. However, at this time, the discussions with the various economic groups within the society are along general terms. They are not of an exploratory nature. They are of a suggestive nature.


INFLATION-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF FIRST PHASE IN PROGRAM SEEKING CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the government House leader said a couple of weeks ago that the government was near the end of the first phase of these discussions, I presume the first phase is now finished. Perhaps the Prime Minister, without giving too much away, can tell us in general terms what was the first phase.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first phase was one of exploration to try to ascertain from the various groups in the economy what they would be prepared to consider as modes of restraint on condition that other people were also prepared to consider restraint. There was no attempt to have anybody give anything away during the exploratory phase, but to know their conditional position. With regard to the present phase, knowing what each party is prepared to do, the various ministers and myself are attempting to reconcile these positions and state a general course which can be followed by others.
April 7, 1975


OIL AND GAS PRICES-RELATIONSHIP OF INCREASES TO GENERAL CONSENSUS ON APPROPRIATE PRICE INCREASES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that this week there will be considerable discussion about price changes for oil and gas, has the position being put forth by the government as to the appropriate pricing for these two natural resources been made in relation to some general consensus as to what price increases are appropriate for the economy at this time?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the preparation of the government's approach to this conference, the Minister of Finance has, of course, been fully involved. The concern about the impact on Canadian consumers of any very substantial price increase has been at the forefront of our discussions.


James McPhail Gillies: Perhaps the minister misunderstood my question. It is precisely this. Was the position that the federal government will be putting forward at this conference arrived at in relation to a general program of consensus with respect to price increases in the economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the general program was certainly taken into account.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of recent events in South Viet Nam, will the minister advise the House what kind of aid the government of Canada is now providing to both South and North Viet Nam, the dollar value of that aid and the agencies through which it is being channelled?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Up to the present time, Mr. Speaker, we have committed in excess of $6 million for humanitarian assistance in Indo-China. That is the first phase. We are watching developments and will respond to further needs as defined by the Secretary-General of the United Nations or the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. We have allocated these funds through three international organizations; the Red Cross, the U.N. Commission for Refugees and UNICEF.


John Edward Broadbent: There is one part of my question with which the minister has not dealt; I am sure the omission was unintentional. Can he give the House a breakdown as between North and South Viet Nam?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide that information because it is expected or hoped that our primary thrust will be in the direction of helping the civilian
Oral Questions
populations which have been so tragically affected by the offensive now taking place. That will be the primary target of our assistance. I cannot provide the hon. member with a breakdown, but I will be happy to try to find out whether any approximation is possible.


IMMIGRATION
John Edward Broadbent: I will address my final supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It concerns adopted children who are being brought from Viet Nam to Canada. Can he inform the House whether these children were adopted at some time in the past, for instance, some months ago, or whether these adoptions are being carried out more or less on the spur of the moment?
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): The children we are seeking to bring out of Viet Nam in the circumstances are, in the main, children with respect to whom adoption proceedings were either completed or under way with the sanction of the South Viet Nam government and approval of provincial agencies in Canada. We are concentrating on these categories. It may happen that some children, in respect of whom formal adoption procedures have not been followed, might find their way aboard aircraft and be brought to Canada. If such were the case, we would regard them as having reached a temporary safe haven on humanitarian grounds. We are not, however, embarking upon the removal of children from Viet Nam without the sanction of a recognized government; we are fully aware of a possible aftermath in the sense that some of these children might have living parents and that they are Vietnamese citizens. We are being extremely careful about this aspect, as I sought to make clear in the public statements I have made during the last few days.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A few days ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cancelled a series of ads which had been published up till then in the Montreal daily Le Jour. Well, the hurt, frustrated and embittered press council is reported to have made representations to the Prime Minister in the name of the so-called freedom of the press. Has the Prime Minister in fact received representations from these crybabies of the press council and, if so, what has been his reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I
am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I have received no direct representations from the press council. They may have

April 7, 1975
Oral Questions
written to me, and I am of course aware of this, to the extent where you will allow me to answer a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker, this is what I would have replied.
To my mind, the freedom of the press is not really in jeopardy in this instance since in no country of the world is any press freer. In Montreal alone there are half dozen dailies, many weeklies, four television networks, seven or eight radio networks: that is certainly freedom of the press. Whether the government should help commercial undertakings through a commercial advertising is an entirely different matter, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the answer to that is based on notions of marketing, amongst others, and many other considerations.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Is the Prime Minister of the opinion that the government departments should pay for advertisements in Le Jour to prove to them that anywhere else in the world those people would not be allowed to strive towards the destruction of their country, Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not suggest that idea to my colleagues of the cabinet. It may be that some of them feel that way but I would point out to the leader of the Social Crediters that Le Jour itself published, in its first editions, a code of ethics on publicity reserving itself the right to refuse some publicity. It may do so; that, I do not know, but as the question is hypothetical I have no intention of suggesting that recourse.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Considering that the Prime Minister and certain of his cabinet colleagues have expressed solidarity with the cause of the striking asbestos workers in Quebec, referred to by the Prime Minister as "comrades", can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his support of these workers is indicative of the government's attitude today toward all collective bargaining negotiations throughout Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is indicative of the feeling of all Liberals toward people who are engaged in difficult conflicts, particularly on questions like this when there is a matter of health involved.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that all of his cabinet colleagues whose names were attached to the message of solidarity were aware, at the time the message was sent, that their support had been given to the cause of the striking workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not, of course, mail the telegram myself, but it was made in co-operation with two

other ministers, or two other of my comrades, who were associated with me not only in the telegram that was sent by my office but in the telegram received by me.


EFFECT OF ATTITUDE OF GOVERNMENT TOWARDS STRIKING
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House in what way he feels that this telegram sent by himself and his two comrades complements the efforts that he says he is making to arrive at a consensus with respect to our general economic condition at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this seems like an argumentative question. Perhaps I should tell the hon. member that it is very important, at least for people sitting on this side of the House, that feelings of humanity are expressed from time to time by the leaders of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I shall defer to a
comrade.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The experimental rules under which we are operating provide no procedure for recognizing a minister at this point. Specifically, there was a recommendation from the committee that we try to eliminate interventions by way of points of order or in other ways. Unless the minister can indicate to me that there is some pressing necessity to recognize him at this time, I would have to go on to the next question.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: It is because my name was mentioned in the question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would hope that the minister is prepared to say for the record that it is the policy of the government that employees are free to testify at the Mackenzie pipeline inquiry being conducted by Mr. Justice Berger without any prior permission or conditions, and that this is a right these employees have as citizens of this country.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: That is the policy of the government, Mr. Speaker.
April 7, 1975

Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. In view of Air Canada's continuing problems including the resignation of the vice-president of marketing, and questions raised concerning the status of the vice-president of personnel, as well as other well known difficulties which continue to plague Air Canada, has the minister considered, in the context of his long-promised reorganization of transport policies, a separate ministry for aviation to focus more clearly on the needs and priorities of Canadian civil air transport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, up to now the only aspect which has been of interest is the formation of a separate corporation in respect of Air Canada rather than it being operated as a subsidiary of the CNR, but we have never entertained the other formula that is proposed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rapid growth in civil air transport and the rapidly increasing complexity of transportation generally, will the minister undertake to have an in depth study made on the advantages and disadvantages that are obvious under such an arrangement of a separate ministry of air transport, which is the case in Britain and some other countries?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the aspects which is now under consideration.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
With regard to the conflict in Thetford Mines, and in a much more serious mood, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is prepared to give his government's technical or financial aid to any initiative from the Quebec's government with a view to processing asbestos on its own territory, and so to the development of this secondary sector?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see at least one hon. member opposite being serious about the matter. The answer generally is yes, Mr. Speaker, since there is already very intensive cooperation between the Department of the Environment and the governments of every province with regard to environment matters and production of raw materials. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has already stated the government's policy, which is to encourage the processing of Canadian raw materials before exporting them.


INFORMATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the very important discussions now going on in respect of freedom of information, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council whether the government is prepared to release the report made in the Privy Council, which is alleged to propose that more information be made public, but a report which is now being held confidential?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything being held confidential. The government has accepted that principle and does intend, as I have said when appearing before the standing committee, to reveal all the information that can be revealed without danger to the security or the economic health of the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let it all hang out.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in his excitement the hon. gentleman forgot to answer the major part of my question, that is whether the government is prepared to release that very interesting report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is such a report. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows more about these secret reports than I. All I can say is that my predecessor advised his colleagues, and I support that advice which is expressed in the guidelines which begin by stating that all information should be given to the House of Commons, except in certain specific categories.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to an inquiry into a PanArctic plane crash which happened at Rae Point in the Northwest Territories in October 1974 and involved the loss of 32 human lives. This inquest is being held up because some of the witnesses have refused to appear. Can the minister explain to the House why the employees of PanArctic Oil Limited are refusing to appear before the inquest? Does the minister plan to intervene to ensure that the witnesses will appear so that the jury can come to a satisfactory and just conclusion on this disaster?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that at no time did PanArctic instruct its employees not to attend this inquiry. I have indicated to the president that it would be my wish that they would appear, but certainly this is a decision that has been taken by them and not by me.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF LAND NEAR CHILLIWACK- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister considering the purchase of some 700 acres of prime agricultural land near the Canadian forces base at Chilliwack at a cost of some $1,600 per acre?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries. I have not heard that the department is looking at that kind of property at that price.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humher Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the ongoing attempt to assist the civilian population of South Viet Nam, in particular orphan children, could the minister advise this House whether or not Canada has sent any recent formal or informal protest to North Viet Nam concerning these further recent outbreaks of hostility in Viet Nam which are affecting the civilian populace of that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, last week I issued a statement which contained the views of the Government of Canada with regard to this unfortunate human tragedy that is unfolding in South Viet Nam. I have not made a protest or denounced the situation as such, but have made the comment that a major military offensive is under way and that the Government of Canada deplores this fact and particularly the effect the offensive is having on so many innocent civilians in the area.


IMMIGRATION
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is further to the minister's earlier statement in the House. I wonder whether he could tell us what steps if any have been taken to speed up the immigration process in respect of South Viet Nam's orphaned children in light of the fact that individuals seeking to adopt these children are receiving vague and conflicting statements from immigration offices on this matter?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think my earlier comment in reply to the Leader of the New Democratic Party went a long way towards clarifying that, as indeed I would hope

my public statements over the last few days have, but we most certainly, if I may reiterate, have been expediting the removal from Viet Nam of orphan children for whom there has been authority from the South Vietnamese government for exit and for whom adoption proceedings in Canada were completed or under way. Clearly, that is the category we have been expediting. Some 62 children arrived yesterday at Vancouver, most of whom were then transported to Montreal and placed in the hands of the families who have been waiting to receive these children, in some cases for several months and in other cases for several weeks. Our best estimate in a confusing situation is that there may not be more than another 50, 100 or 150 children left in Viet Nam who were in that process at the time this special tragedy began to unfold the other day. So, we do not anticipate great numbers.
I might say again in respect of the Canadian families who have recently offered in a great way to adopt children that very few of them will receive children because, as I indicated earlier, it is the group that was in process before this emergency developed which we are bringing forward as rapidly as we can under the circumstances.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary in respect of Viet Nam and is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the event of further deterioration of the situation in Saigon to the point where the functioning of the government would be seriously impaired, does the Canadin Government have any policy to independently assist adult refugees as well as orphans to come to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I intimated in an earlier answer, upon which my colleague elaborated, the Government of Canada would listen to any requirements or recommendations made by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and would consider any international effort in that direction. That situation has not yet arisen. We are presently dealing with orphans and nominated and sponsored relatives. That is the situation up to the present. My colleague may wish to elaborate further.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


IMMIGRATION
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister communicated with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
April 7, 1975

to indicate Canada's willingness to accept adult refugees as well as orphans?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have communicated with the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, as my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has said, and have indicated that we will support and assist any international movement to alleviate the human misery that is unfolding in Viet Nam. There is not a specific refugee declaration now. We are expediting, to the degree we can, the sponsored and nominated relatives of Canadians and landed immigrants in Canada who have been coming to our Canadian immigration centres these past few days to give us the information and the names which we have been sending to Saigon. I have to say, however, that there are extreme difficulties in locating them in Viet Nam.
As of this moment there have been about 5,500 names sent over which were given to us during the last week, and to locate them in Viet Nam is difficult. Secondly, the Vietnamese government is making quite clear it will not casually consider giving exit visas to adults between the ages of 16 and 43. So, we are inhibited in relation to what we can do under the circumstances, and have indicated our willingness to consider support for any international action the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees might wish to discuss with us.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and relates to his answer to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley with regard to the position of the Canadian Government in respect of the major military offensive which has caused this undue suffering of orphans in South Viet Nam in particular. Has the government made a formal protest in respect of the position that was set out by the minister through the proper formal channels of the United Nations and if not, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have made no formal protest. We certainly support the analysis of the situation in respect of the human aspect recently made by the Secretary General, but we have not proceeded through the United Nations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to tell us why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe what we are seeking to do at the present time is to take a constructive role in the humanitarian field and come to the assistance, where possible, of the innocent civilians involved. That appears to be the proper role for Canada which at the present time has no effective political role which it can play in the situation, except to urge the parties to cease
Oral Questions
hostilities which has been done already and which we will continue to do.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the House if the cattle quotas will be lifted or will be allowed to lapse after they have run their year and whether he can raise any hopes after his visit to Washington that Canadian feeders may again have access to the United States market?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the first question, I am not sure what the hon. member means about the cattle quotas being lifted. Perhaps he might explain that further. In answer to the second part of the question the meeting between myself, our officials and the American officials and my counterpart, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, was a very productive meeting.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question had to do with the application of the cattle quotas on United States cattle presently entering Canada.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that all depends on how productive the meetings are which we hope will follow the very productive meeting we had last Wednesday in Washington. These matters have to be discussed and proper programs have to be worked out. I believe they feel the same way.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On March 11 the minister stated that within a week an announcement would be made outlining the form and the procedure in which the review and the evaluation proceedings would take place with respect to the 6,000 miles of rail line trackage which is secured for a period of one year to the end of 1975. I wonder if the minister has as yet formulated or concluded the process under which this review will take place, and can he say when an announcement can be expected?


Jean Marchand: There have been a few delays, which everyone understands. I hope we can do it this week, Mr. Speaker.

April 7, 1975
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Canadian Livestock Feed Board.
Following the longshoremen's strike in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, and in view of the impossibility of unloading grain in those ports, has the minister been informed that the millers no longer have any grain to manufacture feed stuff, and if so, does he intend to get in touch with the authorities concerned to supply eastern producers with grain economically?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, according to the report that I had just before coming to the House, there are still some supplies and we are doing everything we can to make sure that those who are in the most direct need of extra supplies will be looked after. I am awaiting a further report later on this afternoon on just what the present situation is.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, a question which is supplementary to that of my colleague from Laval (Mr. Roy).
In view of the numerous telegrams received from the millers of the province of Quebec to the effect that the supplies in livestock feed grains are excessively limited, and since it is said that the reserves will last only a few days, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to take drastic measures to make possible at least the delivery of the livestock feed grains which are in the warehouses, in the elevators of the province of Quebec, in order to prevent speculation, the rise of prices or the massive slaughtering of animals?


Eugene Whelan: We intend to do what is within our jurisdiction to make sure that proper feed supplies, which are usually provided in this part of Canada, are provided to the livestock and poultry feeders and to make sure that there are no exorbitant rip-offs or extra charges.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the fact that the Ministry of Transport has published material relating to the proposed airport at Vancouver indicating that it is feasible to lessen appreciably the noise impact of aircraft, will the minister take this into account in considering whether there is any necessity to proceed with the

Pickering airport as the Malton airport could be expanded without appreciably increasing the noice factor there?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret but I see no relationship between the two. The government has decided to proceed with Pickering and we will proceed with it along the lines stated.



PICKERING-REQUEST FOR PLEBISCITE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION

Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister, consistent with what he and the Prime Minister have said, provide for a plebiscite in the whole area affected, which includes the city of Toronto, before proceeding with the airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Prime Minister said; he can speak for himself. But I know that I never promised any plebiscite. The only thing I said is that if ever the whole population of metro Toronto did not want an airport, we would not build one against their will.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Would he explain, perhaps today or later this week on motions, the circumstances leading up to his appointment of three federal drug prosecutors in Kitchen-er-Waterloo who are all directors of the local Liberal Association, and particularly why local opposition members of parliament were not consulted about these appointments when the minister felt it necessary to consult the local government member to obtain his suggestions.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can refer the hon. member to a couple of answers to order paper questions in the past years explaining in careful detail the manner in which the Minister of Justice takes his responsibility for appointing agents across the country. I find that hon. members opposite frequently notice that there seem to be more qualified Liberal lawyers than others, but that may simply be a part of the process.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Labour. Can the Prime Minister tell us what initiatives, if any, his government is taking to achieve a settlement of the stevedoring strikes in Mont-
April 7, 1975

Oral Questions
real, Three Rivers and Quebec in view of the mediator [English]
having thrown in the towel, so to speak?	OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am
afraid I cannot enlighten the hon. member on that, and I have not had a chance to speak to the Minister of Labour this morning.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State who is responsible for the CBC. At a time when the leaders of our land are asking for restraint among Canadians, can the minister check with the new executive vice president of the CBC, who allegedly has some experience in cost control, to find out why it is necessary for the CBC to send more people to the Commonwealth conference in Jamaica than there will be in the Prime Minister's delegation?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will find out, but I take it it is because the CBC and a lot of people in this country attach a great deal of importance to the Commonwealth.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Since CTV reportedly will cover this important conference with one cameraman and one reporter, could not a bilingual reporter with unilingual units adequately do it justice, and, if not, has Keith Spicer been consulted?



MANNER IN WHICH REPORT OF COMMISSIONER WRITTEN-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: I should like to direct this question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask him whether the government considers it acceptable that the Commissioner of Official Languages, in writing his annual report, chose to write it in such a flippant manner as to make this government's major program obscure and difficult to decipher in an analytical and critical way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I could ask the same question of the hon. member. He will realize, of course, that the Commissioner of Official Languages was appointed by parliament under the act, and that he is not responsible directly to the government.


Arnold John Malone: Inasmuch as it is important for parliamentarians to be able to analyse these matters carefully, will the Prime Minister consider directing department people to write their annual reports in such a manner as to make it possible to analyse them in the way that the reports of the various departments must be analysed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must retort with the explanation that Mr. Spicer is not a departmental person. He is an officer of this parliament, not of the government. Personally, I do not quite agree with the views expressed by the hon. member. I think I can analyse Mr. Spicer's report rather more easily than he can.



BACTERIAL VIRUS RESEARCH BY UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE SUCH RESEARCH NOT BEING CONDUCTED NEAR CANADIAN BORDER

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware of research presently being conducted in the United States involving the cloning of bacterial viruses?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stan Darling: Can the minister assure the House that such research is not being carried on in close proximity or indeed within Canadian borders by either U.S. or Canadian research organizations?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I cannot control research performed in the United States even when it is done near the Canadian border.



THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Some ten days ago the Quebec premier stated in Nicolet that he was willing to reopen the file on the constitutional review. He indicated that Quebec, before agreeing to the repatriation of the constitution, wanted to make sure that the amendment formula would be drawn up to enable that province to obtain a special status. Under the circumstances, is the Prime Minister also in position to tell us whether he is ready to reopen that file, taking into consideration the condition set by the Quebec premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member was kind enough to send me the press cutting which he quotes. I did not have the opportunity to check the matter. I did not speak recently to Mr. Bourassa to see if indeed the newspaper quotation was accurate. I very much doubt it.

Oral Questions



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Prime Minister. The Canadian Labour Congress has indicated that the inflation rate this year will be some 12 per cent. I wonder if the Prime Minister can advise the House whether he will be attending the first ministers' conference with some contingency plan or ideas to show that this government is not bankrupt in order to see to it that this level of inflation is not reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to recall, I did indicate that the second item on the agenda would be the state of the economy. Of course, the problem of inflation will be discussed. I hope it will be an occasion to show to an audience more open-minded than my usual one that the government has indeed done a great deal.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question. We are all waiting with bated breath to see the leadership given by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now, now, behave. Let me ask the Prime Minister this question. Does he agree with the statement made by the Canadian Labour Congress that inflation will reach 12 per cent this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the inflation rate will be below 12 per cent, but of course I am not a prophet.


An hon. Member:: Oh, really?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was going to say, if the hon. member would continue waiting with bated breath perhaps he will-


Mitchell William Sharp: Die.


An hon. Member:: Suffocate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -see that he should not wait too long.



UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT PLANS TO ASSURE LEVEL SUGGESTED BY CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS NOT REACHED

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Prime Minister is still cheerful, but he has not answered my question. He has said nothing whatsoever. It has been further suggested by the Canadian Labour Congress that the unemployment rate will reach 8 per cent. Does the Prime Minister agree with that or, on the other hand, is he going to the first ministers' conference with some program in order to see to it that this rate is not reached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment figures for March will be published tomorrow. I do not know what they are.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is tomorrow or the next day, I am not sure, but I hope they will not be reaching that figure at all.



HISTORIC SITES


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the concern expressed in various parts of Canada about the recently established scale of fees for admission to national historic sites, will the minister review this policy, and in particular will he take another look at the fee being charged for admission to Lower Fort Garry?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the situation of Lower Fort Garry and thinking of some sort of annual family type pass which might meet the need that is concerning the hon. member.



NATIONAL PARKS


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister reconsider the announcement made by his department in regard to tolls on the Rideau Canal which is going to cause severe hardship for the tourist industry, which is the prime source of revenue for that area of Leeds county in the summer?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to another hon. member a couple of days ago in regard to canals, the revenue which we will receive represents approximately 7 per cent of the operating costs. It seems to me it is difficult to justify lowering that figure.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture following his recent visit during the Easter break to the United States where there was an exchange of goose eggs between him and his United States counterpart. May I ask the minister whether he was pressing for a removal of the import/ export restrictions between the two countries, and what
April 7, 1975

was the hesitation on the part of Secretary Butz of the United States or on the part of the minister himself?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that any eggs, as long as they are good eggs, are all right by me. We did discuss many aspects of agricultural trade between our two countries.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary, the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. Since it appears that officials have to correct any impression which may have been left there at the moment, may I ask the minister how long he expects these negotiations will take in order to come out with another policy or a change in the present policy?


Eugene Whelan: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the strike in the asbestos industry at Thetford Mines has been lasting for a long time, and the importance that the Prime Minister formerly attached to the asbestos strike, in company with the present Ministers of Transport and Communications, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has received any protests on behalf of the Thetford Mines workers who are asking help from the central government, and further, since it is a matter of national health involving, not only provincial but also federal authorities, could he tell the House whether the government has been in touch with the employers there and whether he has given an answer to the workers who are asking for federal help to settle the dispute that has already lasted too long?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in one of my answers, some aspects are under federal responsibility. For example, the federal Department of the Environment is responsible for environmental matters. But I understand that the present conflict is not directly under federal jurisdiction. The question asked by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe on the processing of raw materials can fall under federal responsibility, as well as environmental matters but I repeat for the hon. member what I told the comrades of Thetford, this matter is not directly under federal jurisdiction.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Would the minister consider it advisable to present a pilot project in that region to implement the principle of
Order Paper Questions
the guaranteed annual income, which would settle the present dispute at least in part?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member's proposal would help settle the conflict at the present time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages copies of a report made by me pursuant to section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, relating to Bill S-10, an act to amend the Feeds Act.
* *


INDUSTRY
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages copies of a publication entitled "Private and Public Investment in Canada".


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,198, 1,228, 1,249, 1,265, 1,326, 1,346,	1,369,	1,512, 1,536,	1,541,	1,542,	1,544,	1,545, 1,558,1,568, 1,592,	1,593,	1,601, 1,680,	1,703,	1,704,	1,706,	1,731, 1,737,1,749, 1,750,	1,754,	1,757, 1,769,	1,770,	1,772,	1,775,	1,809, 1,811,1,816, 1,817,	1,818,	1,826, 1,833,	1,850,	1,856,	1,859,	1,865, 1,866,1,871, 1,873,	1,886,	1,887, 1,896,	1,899,	1,902,	1,905,	1,914, 1,936,
1,957, 2,037, 2,040 and 2,087.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 84, 724, 1,340 and 1,851 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions No. 1,707 and 1,791?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 446 to the effect that travelling expenses for Mr. Michael Pitfield paid from public funds between April 20, 1968 and March 1, 1973 totalled $14,754.14 and between March 1, 1973 and October 24, 1974 totalled $6,037.14 (a) what is a complete list of all items along with costs that make up these totals (b) where did Mr. Pitfield travel in each case (c) what other government persons, if any, accompanied him in each case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: (a) The
amounts referred to cover travel expenses (transportation, lodging, meals, etc.) in accordance with Treasury Board Travel Directive. Details of individual expense claims are not customarily made public, (b) and (c) Duplicates information requested by the hon. member for Leeds in 
question No. 447-please see Sessional Paper No. 301-2/447, 10 February 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the Prime Minister recording his daily views and visions in a diary for the benefit of posterity and for purposes of eventually supplying the Canadian people with an insight into the factors that motivated and guided the Trudeau years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Disclosure of information of a private nature should not be requested under the rules of parliament.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How long has the Official Languages Minority Groups Programme been in effect?
2.	What was the total amount expended on this Programme since its inception in each fiscal year to December 31, 1974?
3.	What was the total amount granted to each province since its inception in each fiscal year to December 31, 1974?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Since the summer of 1969.
April 1, 1974-December,
3.	1969-70	1970-71	1971-72	1972-73	1973-74	1974$	$	*	$	$	$Que.	75,845	122,480	100,981	194,700	257,841	199,440Ont.	312,696	387,982	602,900	761,528	621,188	636,470Man.	126,440	184,170	218,200	257,610	272,817	286,300Sask.	45,200	106,680	112,145	159,520	140,212	130,195Alta.	70,000	119,192	107,454	165,405	151,878	134,010B.C.	25,300	65,411	59,305	86,755	105,180	96,890Nat.	227,871	386,115	418,942	495,410	511,196	606,1641,029,680	1,645,850	1,914,976 I	2,499,998	2,500,000	2,577,469


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What has been the total cost to date for the operation of HMCS Annapolis in fisheries patrol work to assist the Department of the Environment (Fisheries)?
2.	What has been the operating cost per day for the Annapolis while engaged in such support for the Department?
3.	To what specific vote has the operating costs of the HMCS Annapolis been charged in respect of those costs incurred in fisheries patrol work for the Department?
4.	Has the cost of effecting fisheries patrol by the Annapolis for the Department been charged to its budget and, if not, for what reason?
5.	To which departmental budget are fisheries patrol work carried out for the Department by the Department of National Defence or other departments charged as a matter of specific government policy?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 and 2. The cost to operate HMCS Annapolis is approximately $3,937 per day exclusive of personnel costs. HMCS Annapolis has been used for 13 days to carry out fisheries patrol work in conjunction with military surveillance duties.
3.	Vote 1-Defence Services Program.
4.	No. Funds are provided by parliament in Vote 1 of the Defence Services Program for the Protection of Canada which includes fishery patrols by military vessels.
5.	The costs of fisheries patrols carried out by military vessels are charged to the budget of the Department of National Defence.
2.	1969-70 -
1970-	71 -
1971-	72 -
1972-	73 -
1973-	74 -April 1, 1974
$ 1,320,000 S 1,767,000 $ 2,365,000 $ 3,030,000 * 3,181,000 - December, 1974
- $ 2,959,469


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For each year since 1963, what was the defence budget, including the estimated figures for the fiscal year 1974-75?
2.	(a) What is the dollar value of each of these in terms of (i) 1963 dollars (ii) 1974 dollars (b) which economic indicators were used to arrive at such dollar values?
1974_'	Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National
December Defence): 1. The defence budget for the years in question
3.	1969-70 S	1970-71 $	1971 72 $	1972-73 S	1973-74 $	1974 *	was as follows: Fiscal Year	Net Budget ($000)Nfld.	0	1,000	7,454	6,780	7,920	15,000	1963/64	1,728,883P.E.I.	5,000	27,000	30,700	39,360	31,700	45,000	1964/65	1,546,751N.S.	49,648	105,390	85,645	98,675	92,678	108,000	1965/66	1,579,251N.B.	91,680	140,430	171,250	324,255	307,390	320,000	1966/67	1,644,599


Fiscal Year	Net Budget ($000)
1967/68	1,758,327
1968/69	1,763,940
1969/70	1,793,353
1970/71	1,829,754
1971/72	1,900,145
1972/73	1,985,147
1973/74	2,234,295
1974/75	2,507,983
2. (a) (i), (ii) The dollar value of each of the above budgets in terms of 1963 dollars and 1974 dollars was as follows:
Fiscal Year	1963 Dollars ($000)	1974 Dollars ($000)1963/64	1,728,883	2,854,2991964/65	1,518,611	2,507,1511965/66	1,515,276	2,501,6441966/67	1,515,410	2,501,8661967/68	1,558,966	2,573,7751968/69	1,505,030	2,484,7281969/70	1,461,111	2,412,2211970/71	1,452,520	2,398,0371971/72	1,455,882	2,403,5891972/73	1,447,977	2,390,5371973/74	1,501,149	2,478,3221974/75	1,519,151	2,507,983
(b) The dollar value was based on the Consumer Price Index as provided by Statistics Canada, converted from calendar years to fiscal years and adjusted from a 1961 base to a fiscal year 1963/64 base.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is CNR contemplating the sale, in whole or in part, of hotels now owned and, if so, which hotels are being considered for sale and to which corporations, Canadian or foreign-controlled?
2.	What would be the sale price of the hotels sold?
3.	Would the CNR maintain any say in the manner in which the hotels would be managed?
4.	Has the future of the present employees of CNR hotels, as to seniority, future employment, etc., been discussed with the prospective purchasers of the hotels and the unions representing the employees?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. CN is contemplating, subject to necessary approvals, the sale or lease of its hotels to a Canadian company yet to be formed in which CN and Air Canada together would own a majority of the shares. It would be a Canadian company owning or leasing hotels in Canada and abroad. The other parties would be Trizec and Hilton International.
2.	Not yet determined.
3.	The policies of the new company would be determined by the shareholders, including CN.
4.	Yes.
Order Paper Questions SALES TAX ON CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the total amount of sales tax eliminated on clothing and footwear for the year 1974?
2.	What is the estimated sales tax savings for consumers anticipated to be in 1975?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: 1. The
removal of federal sales tax from clothing and footwear, effective July 16, 1974, will reduce revenues by $280 million over the 12 month period beginning July 16.
2. For the fiscal year 1975-76 the estimated revenue loss and consequent tax savings to consumers from this exemption will amount to $310 million.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What is the budgetary allotment for the 1975 campaign "Why not?" sponsored by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women for International Women's Year?
2.	What is the breakdown of that budget regarding (a) television advertising (b) newspaper advertising (c) brochures, pamphlets etc. (d) buttons (e) administrative costs?


Marc Lalonde: 1. $855,436. ($725,000 for the advertising campaign); ($130,436 for materials in response to individual coupon and letter requests).
2. (a) $159,677.00; (b) $314,337.00; (c) $75,719.00; (d) $19,857.00; (e) $34,860 including wages, envelopes, labels and postage.


Mr. Broadbent: How many Air Canada employees at the senior management level (a) took early retirement (b) were dismissed during each year 19701971 to 1973-1974?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows:
Early Retirements
1970	5
1971	7
1972	22
1973	(i
1974	2
Total	42-Early Retirements
Dismissals 0


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?

April 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaran teed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?
Hon. Marc L&londe (Minister of National Health and Welfare):
All figures refer to the number of Pensioners and average payments in December 1974 Parts 1,2 and 3
	a)	(2)	(3)
			Maximum
		Guaranteed	Guaranteed
Old Age	Income	IncomeSecurity	Supplement	SupplementRecipients	Recipients	RecipientsNewfoundland	34,769	29,257	20,099Prince Edward Island	12,998	9,826	4,959Nova Scotia	77,166	52,049	26,136New Brunswick	57,087	39,506	20,205Quebec	459,302	286,975	148,154Ontario	694,594	337,503	120,228Manitoba	102,524	62,317	24,523Saskatchewan	99,956	58,544	23,741Alberta	128,852	76,768	25,857British Columbia	224,060	113,017	48,799Northwest Territories	969	768	492Yukon	537	311	180Total	1,892,454	1,077,441	463,373
Part 4
Average Guaranteed Income Supplement Paid to Recipients (to the nearest cent)
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Northwest Territories Yukon
National Average


[Stage Direction]
Part 5
(a)	Yes
(b)	Number of Old Age
_	Security Pensioners
Initiating Province	living outside of Canada
Newfoundland	127

Initiating Province
Number of Old Age Security Pensioners living outside of Canada
Prince Edward Island	81
Nova Scotia	472
New Brunswick	340
Quebec	3,338
Ontario	6,296
Manitoba	586
Saskatchewan	434
Alberta, Northwest <fc Yukon Territories	720
British Columbia	2,572
Total	14,972
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired federal civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to 149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired civil servants and also the number of widows of civil servants or of retired civil servants presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of federal civil servants are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: 
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?
4.	In each of the last five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Year		Number
	1959-60		14,311
	1960-61		13,885
	1961-62		12,533
	1962-63		11,709
	1963-64		10,852
	1964-65		10,077
	1965-66		9,078
	1966-67		8,162
	1967-68		7,483
	1968-69		6,860
	1969-70		6,651
	1970-71		6,474
	1971-72		5,793
	1972-73		4,647
	1973-74		3,901
	Year		Amount
	1959-60		*3,112,231
	1960-61		2,956,515
	1961-62		2,817,263
	1962-63		2,657,706
	1963-64		2,504,503
	1964-65		2,344,711
	1965-66		2,236,212
	1966-67		2,038,329
	1967-68		1,905,478
	1968-69		1,777,869
	1969-70		1,641,304
	1970-71		1,515,000
	1971-72		1,368,879
	1972-73		1,000,941
	1973-74		838,715
		(a) Public	(b) (c)
Year	Servants	Widows Others1959-60	*226.72	*124.88 *12.321960-61	225.43	124.42 11.791961-62	222.01	123.92 10.351962-63	220.60	123.59 10.061963-64	220.26	123.75 7.991964-65	217.94	123.08 6.191965-66	216.03	122.69 7.131966-67	212.52	122.64 5.931967-68	210.27	121.27 6.111968-69	208.19	119.21 4.561969-70	196.52	125.05 5.79
Order Paper Questions
(a) Public	(b)	(c)Year	Servants	Widows	Others1970-71	184.83	127.87	-1971-72	177.51	130.19	-1972-73	174.19	128.47	-1973-74	163.05	114.27	-(a)	(b>Year	Retired Public Servants	Widows1969-70	1,899	5081970-71	2,060	5771971-72	2,269	5881972-73	3,081	6871973-74	2,488	750


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the year from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974?
2.	What was the total amount paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the year from April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974, in the form of pension supplements and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (a) as at March 31, 1973 (b) as at March 31, 1974?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
(a) $18,197,923; (b) $18,197,923.
2.	$34,015,007 was paid out in pension supplements. There were 94,676 recipients at March 31, 1974. Of this, $22,844,252 was charged to the account and $11,170,755 was charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
3.	(a) $21,427,021; (b) $34,864,551.


Mr. Blackburn: With reference to Air Canada Flight 616 from Ottawa to Halifax on Monday, February 3, 1975 (a) how many passengers were on the flight (b) how many were travelling (i) first-class (ii) economy cldss (c) how many were holders of Air Canada passes?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a) 39, (b) (i) 10, (ii) 29; (c) 2.


[Stage Direction]
-
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was (a) the national debt on July 1, 1967 (b) the debt of each province?
2.	On July 1, 1974, what was the debt of (a) Canada (b) each province?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2.:
1967	1973 (Millions)	1974National Debt	30,340.2	51,715 6	55,557.0Provincial Debt*	Newfoundland	584.7	1,222.7	
April 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
1967	1973 (Millions)	1974National Debt	30,340.2	51,715.6	55,557.0Provincial Debt*	Prince Edward Island	112.0	136.9	Nova Scotia	557.2	1,299.0	New Brunswick	681.6	977.6	Province of Quebec	5,005.2	7,988.6	Ontario	5,561.3	10,817.4	Manitoba	913.4	1,719.9	Saskatchewan	658.8	749.5	Alberta	887.9	1,977.8	British Columbia	2,034.0	3,069.1	Yukon	11.8	39.9	Northwest Territories	15.0	85.3	
These figures represent total direct and indirect debt minus sinking funds. Figures were not yet available for 1974 so year-end numbers for 1973 were substituted.


Mr. Whittaker: Has the government provided Cuba with $50 million interest free and, if so, what programmes has it in mind to offer similiar assistance to Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What was Canada's National Debt 10 years ago?
2.	(a) What is the present debt (b) what is the annual interest (c) what attempts, if any, is the government making to clear up this debt?


John Napier Turner: 1. Canada's national debt in 1965 was $30,340,000,000.
2. (a) The national debt in 1974 was $55,557,000,000; (b) The annual interest was 6.47% or $3,594,537,900; (c) When economic, fiscal and financial market conditions are favourable, the government attempts to reduce this debt.


Mr. Epp: What was the total amount given to Manitoba federal constituencies under the provisions of biculturalism and bilingualism for each year 1968 to 1974 and what was the amount for each such constituency?


James Hugh Faulkner: Language Programmes Branch: The total payments made to the province of Manitoba by the Language Programmes Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State, since 1968 to the end of the fiscal year 1973-74, for bilingualism development amount to $5,827,656. The breakdown by fiscal year is as follows: 1970-71, $930,757; 1971-72, $1,190,714; 1972-73, $1,281,209; 1973-74, $2,424,976.

Programme for Official Language Minority Groups
The Programme for Official Language Minority Groups has accorded the following grants:			
Year	Constituency	Amount	Total1969-70	St. Boniface	S 125,440	$ 125,4401970-71	St. Boniface *Winnipeg	166,020 18,150	184,1701971-72	St. Boniface *VVinnipeg	216,600 1,600	218,2001972-73	St. Boniface Provencher *Winnipeg	240,492 9,000 4,059	253,5511973-74	St. Boniface Provencher Lisgar Winnipeg North Dauphin Marquette	301,710 11,500 5.500 4,400 1.500 750	325,3601974-75	St. Boniface Provencher Lisgar Winnipeg North Dauphin Marquette Portage	283,800 14,000 4,400 2,800 500 1,300 2,000	308,800Total:	$ 1,415,521
*It is impossible to give a breakdown of these amounts on a constituency basis.


Mr. Brisco: How many Canadian authors have been contributing to Canadian periodicals, magazines or publishing houses in (a) the past twelve months (b) the past twenty-four months?


James Hugh Faulkner: The
government, and specifically the Department of the Secretary of State, while concerned with an increased production by Canadian authors, has no record of the number of works submitted to, and/or eventually published by the Canadian periodical and book publishing industries as a whole.
1972 INCOME TAX REASSESSMENTS


Mr. Herbert: How many persons claiming refunds from revised assessments of their 1972 tax returns, which revisions were requested after completion of the assessment of their 1973 tax returns, have still to receive their 1972 tax return reassessment?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: As
of March 18, 1975, the department had in inventory 520 taxpayer-requested adjustments relating to 1972 and prior year income tax returns. Of this number, 466 were received after February 1, 1975. Because the department
April 7, 1975

does not record the reasons for requested adjustments, it is not possible to say how many of these requests were made as a result of assessments of 1973 returns.


Mr. Beaudoin: Was there any change in the volume of money in Canada and, if so, (a) on what date (b) how did it come about (c) what were the effects on chartered banks?


John Napier Turner: There are various forms of money in Canada including currency (coins and Bank of Canada notes) and the different types of deposit claims on chartered banks as well as other financial institutions. The table below shows the absolute amounts and rates of growth of three common definitions of the "money supply" during the last five years: (1) Currency and demand deposits-notes and coin outside banks plus chartered bank demand deposits (net of estimated Canadian dollar items in transit); (2) Currency and Privately-held Canadian dollar deposits-notes and coin outside banks plus total chartered bank Canadian dollar deposits less Government of Canada deposits; (3) Currency and total Canadian dollar deposits-including Government of Canada deposits.
Currency and Canadian Dollar Chartered Bank Deposits
Currency and Currency
Currency	privately-held	and totaland	Canadian	Canadiandemand	dollar	dollardeposits	deposits	depositsOutstanding amount. Billions of dollars Fourth quarters:	1970	9.4	30.9	31.71971	11.0	35.5	37.51972	12.5	41.2	42.91973	13.9	48.8	50.01974	14.8	57.0	60.7Latest 3 months'	15.7	59.4	63.0Percentage increase. From same period year earlier:	1970	4	9	91971	17	16	181972	14	16	151973	12	15	161974	7	19	21Latest 3 months1	8	18	22
'Preliminary data for the period December 1974 to February 1975. The behaviour of currency and bank deposits is discussed in the Annual Reports of the Governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the National Harbours Board defer any decisions respecting shed rentals policy for the Port of Halifax until such time as it has turned over the administration of the assets and employee force of the
Order Paper Questions
Board to the local Port Authority, as indicated in the press to have been done in the Ports of Montreal and Vancouver and, if not, for what reason?


Jean Marchand: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Not applicable. The National Harbours Board has not transferred administration of its assets and employee force to local port authorities in the ports of Montreal and Vancouver and has no intention of doing so at any other ports under its administration.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the National Harbours Board intend to introduce a shed rental system in the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth and, if so, on what date and for what reasons?
2.	Is the National Harbours Board aware of the views on the imposition of any such system held by all members of the community, such as the Shipping Federation of Canada, agents, operators, stevedoring concerns, local unions and elected officials, including the Mayors of Halifax and Dartmouth and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Is this system being phased out of use in the Port of Montreal or has it been otherwise mitigated in that Port in the last 16 months?
4.	How much money does the Board anticipate it will gain from the imposition of such a system in the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth?
5.	Has the Board conducted any studies as to the estimated tonnage cost assessment that such a policy would necessitate if imposed on the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth and (a) if so, what is the estimate (b) if not, for what reason?
6.	What advantage to the River Ports or to the Port of Saint John would accrue from the imposition of a shed rental policy on the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth?
7.	What advantage would accrue to the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth from such a system of shed rental?


John Mercer Reid: Because of the length of the answer to starred question 1707, I wonder if the answer could be printed in Hansard as if it had been answered orally.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above answer reads as follows:]
The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The National Harbours Board has met with groups of port users to discuss the possible implementation of a policy with respect to the operation of marine terminals at eastern Canadian ports. The policy was developed to provide better utilization of existing facilities and improve control of their use.
2.	The purposes of the meetings which have been held with interested parties was to obtain the views of users which views have been freely expressed by those in favour and opposed to the policy.
3.	The policy contains some of the principles which have been in use at both Montreal and Trois-Rivieres and will apply to all ports in eastern Canada equally.

April 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
4.	Better utilization of facilities should improve the revenue position and the amount of increased revenues will depend entirely on the degree of improvement in utilization.
5.	(a) The National Harbours Board has studied the effect of the policy on port charges to ensure that they are competitive with United States ports, (b) Not applicable.
6.	There will be no benefit to one port in eastern Canada over another as the policy with respect to operating marine terminals will apply equally to all ports.
7.	The policy with respect to operating marine terminals should result in greater throughput capacity and improved revenues through better utilization of facilities.


Mr. Francis: How much plutonium is produced annually as a by-product (a) by a standard commercial CANDU reactor (b) in all of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: (a) The exact amount depends somewhat on the design and operating history of the reactor. The rate of plutonium production for CANDU systems is in the range of 600 to 750 grams of plutonium isotopes per megawatt of electrical output per year. For the four 500-megawatt Pickering units operating at an 80 per cent capacity factor then annual plutonium production is 1,000 kilograms per year. This is midway in the range quoted, (b) Approximately 1,200 kilograms per annum.


Mr. Howie: How many persons were appointed to the Canadian National Committee for Habitat, what are their names and what remuneration will they receive?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: There have been 18 persons appointed to the Canadian National Committee for Habitat. They are: Senator Sidney L. Buck wold (Chairman); Dr. Hugh L. Keenleyside (Honorary Chairman); Mr. Claude Caston-guay; Mr. Johnny Yes-No; Dr. Lloyd Axworthy; Mrs. Adrienne Clarkson; Mr. Guy Legault; Professor Meyer Brownstone; Mrs. Frances Innes; Mr. J. Gerald Godsoe Jr.; The Most Reverend J. N. MacNeil, R.A., J.C.D.; Mrs. Brenda Hayes; Mr. E. Gaboury; Professor P. J. Fitzpatrick; Mr. Rock Robertson (resigned June 1974); Senator F. M. Lawson (resigned June 1974); Dr. M. Kirby (resigned August 1974); Mr. Howard Paish (resigned October 1974); Committee members receive an honorarium of $100.00 per day and expenses while engaged in committee business.


Mr. McKinnon: For each fiscal year 1970-71 to date, what were the capital expenditures on the Canadian Forces Staff College, Toronto and the Staff School on Avenue Road, Toronto?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Construction engineering capital expenditures at the Canadian Forces Staff College, and the staff school at Toronto for the fiscal years 1970-71 to 1974-75 were as follows:
	Staff College ($000)	Staff School
1970/71	$ 55	Nil1971/72	54	81972/73	53	Nil1973/74	244	261974/75	315	NilTotal $721	$ 34
2. Other minor capital equipment expenditures for furniture and office items cannot be identified without detailed research.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What was the total cost per graduating student from each of the service colleges during each of the past five years?
2.	What percentage of each graduating class, 1965 through 1969, are still serving in the Canadian Armed Forces?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. The total cost per graduating student from each of the service colleges during each of the past five years is listed in below.
2. The percentage of each graduating class from 19651969 still serving in the Canadian Armed Forces is as follows:
Graduating
Class
Percentage Still Serving
1965	45
1966	48
1967	52
1968	59
1969	66
Canadian Military Service Colleges Costs per Graduating Student
1969/70	1970/71	1971/72	1972/73	1973/74
Graduate Graduate Graduate Graduate Graduate * $ $ $ *
Royal Military
College (RMC) (a) Four Year	N/A	48,500	53,400	57,500	62,600RMC (b) Three Year	N/A	70,200	72,700	74,200	74,600CM It -f Two Year RMC (c) Two Year	N/A	58,800	65,100	69,800	71,500
RRMC +
Two Year RMC
April 7, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total number of employees of Canadian National Railways and of this total, how many are women?
2.	(a) What are the main job categories in which women are employed (b) how many women are there in each category (c) what percentage of the total does this represent in each category?
3.	Has Canadian National taken note that this is International Women's Year and, if so, what plans does it have to increase the number of women employed under its jurisdiction?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The total number of employees of C.N.R. as at the end of December 1974 was 81,005. Of these 4,631 or 5.1 per cent were women.
2.	The greater number of women are employed as clerks, typists, stenographers, keypunch operators, receptionists, telephone operators, secretaries and others. As at the end of December, 1974, the total number of employees engaged in clerical occupations was 15,011; the female clerical group totalled 3,675 or 24.4 per cent. In non-clerical occupations, 696 women or 1.3 per cent are included in the total non-clerical workforce of 53,673. Women in non-clerical occupations mostly work as support staff in hotels (cooks, waitresses, chamber maids, etc) and in other departments. In addition, there were 207 women out of a total of 8,805 employed in professional, technical, supervisory and administrative positions, including positions such as analysts, programmers, statisticians, accountants, librarians, personnel officers, supervisor, administrative assistants and others. They represent 2.4 per cent of the middle management employee group.
3.	Following a study undertaken last year and coinciding with the International Women's Year, a program has been launched to improve the status and involvement of women in the company.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many patients at Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue Veterans Hospital are considered to be (a) federal (b) provincial responsibility?
2.	(a) How many patients does the government charge costs to the Quebec Government (b) what is the charge per patient (c) what is the average cost per patient?
3.	What proportion of the total cost of operating the hospital is recovered from the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) 198; (b) 804.
2.	(a) 524; (b) Active care-$35 a day, Chronic care-$25 a day; (c) $40.34 a day.
3.	-28 per cent.
Order Paper Questions ENERGY CONSERVATION ADVERTISEMENT


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the full page advertisement appearing recently in various publications entitled "Why Canadians Should Start Saving Energy in 1975" (a) in how many publications did this appear (b) what was the total cost involved (c) what was the name of the advertising agency and the total advertising agency commission (d) were tenders or competitive presentations called for from various advertising agencies and (i) if so, from whom (ii) if not, for what reason?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) The full page advertisement entitled "Why Canadians should start saving energy in 1975" has appeared in all daily newspapers across Canada as well as the Financial Times and the Financial Post, (b) The total cost of the advertisement is $87,000. (c) Vickers and Benson Limited. Since the advertisement was prepared largely within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, it was not handled by an advertising agency in the usual manner. The agency will not get a commission but a fee based on work done and overhead,
(d)	No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) Proposals from competitive advertising agencies are assessed on the basis of which presentation exhibits a feel for content and creativity that will obtain maximum results. In this case, content and creativity was prepared largely within the department's information branch. Therefore, in normal advertising terms there was no basis for proposals and a Canadian agency considered well structured to handle placement of a national program was selected.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the full page advertisement appearing recently in various publications entitled "Why Canadians Should Start Saving Energy in 1975", what was the reason for the appearance in the advertisement of pictures of, and messages from, the Honourable Donald Macdonald, the Honourable John Turner and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (a) does this illustrate a new system of Troika leadership as practiced by the Soviet Union (b) was it designed primarily to portray the present Prime Minister with designated or expectant successors?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: In the advertisement entitled "Why Canadians should start saving energy in 1975" the messages of Hon. D. S. Macdonald, Hon. John Turner and Prime Minister Trudeau were used because each of them had made a significant statement about the need for Canada to conserve energy. Their pictures were used as it is a proven readership device to use the picture of a well-known person or persons to attract more attention to a message, (a) No. (b) As indicated the quotations and pictures were intended to convey the conservation message to all Canadians.


Mr. Marshall: How many applications for loans were received from the Province of Newfoundland under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries
4552

April 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act from January to December, 1974?


John Napier Turner: Applications for loans under guaranteed loans plans are made directly to chartered banks and other designated lenders. Records are maintained centrally by the government only in respect of loans granted under the guarantee and no data is available on the number of applications submitted to lenders.


Mr. Reynolds: In the recent press release from the Treasury Board dated February 19, 1975, will the additional $414 million for other equalization payments be broken down by province as was the $1,986,000,000?


John Napier Turner: The $414 million expenditure mentioned in the Treasury Board news release accompanying the 1975-76 Estimates refers to the expenditures itemized on page 8-18 of those Estimates. The expenditures consist of the following: Adjustments to prior years' equalization, $60,000,000; Part V payment, provincial share of tax paid, under Part IX of the Income Tax Act, $14,000,000; Part IV Payment, revenue guarantee, $340,000,000; Total, $414,000,000. A provincial breakdown of these payments is not presently available. Late in fiscal year 1975-76, information will become available from the public accounts of the provinces, from National Revenue, and from Statistics Canada which will allow a determination by province of these federal payments to be made.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many programmes of "Some Honourable Members" have been viewed by audiences in the current television season?
2.	(a) What is the format of the programme (b) was it designed to expose Members of Parliament, other than national leaders of political parties and Cabinet Ministers?
3.	Has there been a change of policy regarding the format of the programmes since its inception and, if so, when was a decision reached on the change of format and who made the decision?
4.	Since the start of the present season of programmes, on how many occasions were (a) Members of Parliament who were not party leaders or Cabinet Ministers participants in a specific programme (b) party leaders or Cabinet Ministers the sole participant (c) Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament together?
5.	By party, what has been the time allotted to Members of all political parties during the present season of programmes?
6.	What are the names of Members who participated on each of the programmes in the present season of programming?
7.	Does the CBC monitor this programme from the point of view of guaranteeing a political balance and (a) if so, who does the monitoring (b) if not, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: Because of the length of the answer to starred question No. 1,791 I wonder if the answer could be printed in Hansard as if it had been answered orally.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above answer reads as follows:]

I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Twenty-one.
2.	(a) Discussion program between the moderator, Patrick Watson and one, two or three members of Parliament, sometimes supplemented by short pieces of film, (b) Yes.
3.	Yes, the format was broadened for the current season to allow wider latitude in choosing guests. The program no longer is limited to using one member of each party as it had been the previous season. This decision was taken before the commencement of the current season by the responsible program officers in the CBC English TV network.
4.	(a) 14 (including one Senator); (b) Six; (c) Two;
5.	No time was allotted for members of all political parties. Liberals appeared on 16 programs, Progressive Conservatives on 13 (one of these was a Senator), New Democratic Party on nine, Social Credit on one.
6.	Hon. Eugene F. Whelan, Simma Holt, Ray Hnatyshyn, Andy Hogan, James McGrath, Norm Cafik, Lome Nystrom, Bill Rompkey, Jake Epp, John Rodriguez, Iona Campagnolo, Senator Grattan O'Leary, Peter Bawden, Robert Kaplan, Hon. Donald Macdonald, Hon. Alvin Hamilton, T. C. Douglas, John Roberts, Robert Wenman, W. A. Peters, Mark MacGuigan, Jack Marshall, Ed Broad-bent, Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, Real Caouette, Hon. Marc Lalonde, Ed Lumley, Elmer MacKay, Stuart Leggatt, Hon. Warren Allmand, Eldon Woolliams, Tony Abbott, Hon. Jean Marchand, Dean Whiteway, Les Benjamin, Hon. Otto Lang, Ron Huntington, Stanley Schumacher.
7.	It is the expectation and record of this program series that it will reflect approximately the relative strengths of the parties. Its content is the responsibility of senior public affairs officers of the English TV network.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What is the structure and membership of the Special Advisory Committee to the Cabinet on Security Matters?
2.	How often does it meet?
3.	What is its (a) legislative status (b) relationship to Cabinet Directive No. 35?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 and 2.
The information requested is not returnable by the government. The membership, structure and procedures of interdepartmental committees are normally not made public.
3.	The committee in question is not established pursuant to specific legislation but as a part of the normal processes of administration. It does not have a specific relationship to Cabinet Directive No. 35 but is advisory on policy and procedures relating to security generally.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What is the official position and title of Mr. C. S. Yarnell?
2.	What are his qualifications for the position he holds?
April 7, 1975

3.	Has he ever been (a) a student (b) an instructor at the International Police Academy in Washington, D C. and, if so (i) during what periods (ii) what positions did he hold with the CAF or any other government organization?
Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National
Defence): 1. Colonel C. S. Yarnell is the director of security.
2.	Colonel Yarnell was selected for the position because of his military training, experience and personal qualities.
3.	(a) No; (b) No; (i) and (ii) Not applicable.


Mr. Wise: For each year 1970 to 1973 fa) what were the total amounts of money lent (b) the average size of loans to applicants (c) the number of applications (i) received (ii) approved (iii) rejected by the chartered banks in the Province of Ontario under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act?


John Napier Turner: Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
($'000)
(a)	(b)	(C)	Total	Average	Ontario Applications	value of	size of	(i)	(ii)	(iii)Year*	loa,ns made	loan made	Received	Approved	Rejected$	$	$	*	$1970/71	3,300	7.1	15	1971/72	5,297	7.7	see	24	see1972/73	7,070	7.8	note	17	note1973/74	10,763	9.3	below	10	belowTotal	25,430	8.2	-	00	-
Note: The number of applications received and rejected by chartered banks is not known. The Regulations require lenders to report only loans made.
*The loan year under this plan is the fiscal year -April 1 to March 31.


Mr. Wise: For each year 1970 to 1973 (a) what were the total amounts of money lent (b) the average size of loans to applicants (c) the number of applications (i) received (ii) approved (iii) rejected by the chartered banks in the Province of Ontario under the Farm Improvement Loans Act?


John Napier Turner: Farm Improvement Loans Act (S'000)
(a)	(b)	(C)	Total	Average	Ontario Applications	value of	size of	(i) (ii)	(iii)Year	loans made	loans made	Received Approved	Rejected$	$	$ $	$1970	103,030	2.9	see 6,384	see
Order Paper Questions
(a)	(b)	(C)	Total	Average	Ontario Applications	value of	size of	(i)	(ii)	(iii)Year	loans made loans made	Received	Approved	Rejected$	$	$	$	$1971	147,429	3.2	note	7,535	note1972	181,086	3.4	below	8,705	below1973	230,265	4.0	9,382	Total 661,810	3.4	-	32,005	-
Note: The number of applications received and rejected by chartered banks is not known. The Regulations require lenders to report only loans made.


Mr. Wise: For each year 1970 to 1973 (a) what were the total amounts of money lent (b) the average size of loans to applicants (c) the number of applications (i) received (ii) approved (iii) rejected by the chartered banks in the Province of Ontario under the Small Businesses Loans Act?


John Napier Turner: Small Businesses Loans Act ($'000)
(a)	(b)	(C)	Total	Average	Ontario Applications	value of	size of	(i)	(ii)	(iii)Year	loans made loans made	Received	Approved	Rejected#	$	$	*	$1970	13,772	10.1	see	317	see1971	22,268	10.5	note	469	note1972	28,328	10.0	below	596	below1973	31,644	10.3	597	Total	96,013	10.2	-	1,979	-
Note: The number of applications received and rejected by chartered banks is not known. The Regulations require lenders to report only loans made.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs recently seize a shipment of pants manufactured by Seagoing Uniform Company of New York en route for the firm of Fred Asher Ltd., in Vancouver, B.C.?
2.	Was the reason for the seizure improper labelling and (a) if so, what was the nature of the impropriety (b) if not, what was the reason for the seizure?
3.	(a) How many pairs of pants were seized (b) was this the entire shipment and, if not, what became of the balance of the shipment?
4.	Were the pants disposed of and, if so (a) on whose authority (b) in what manner (c) at what location (d) by whom?
5.	How many pairs of pants were actually destroyed and what was the value of such items?
29557 - 13)4

April 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions
6.	Who bore the costs of (a) the items (b) the shipping (c) the disposal and in what amounts in each case?
7.	Was any consideration given to turning the items over to (a) the needy (b) welfare services (c) Salvation Army (d) underprivileged countries and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, for what reason were the items not so distributed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did seize a shipment of pants which were manufactured for Seagoing Uniform Company of New York in Mexico. They were not enroute. They were being sold by a subsidiary of Fred Asher Ltd. in Vancouver, British Columbia. The subsidiary was called Bootlegger and they were operating a warehouse-type outlet.
2.	The reason for the seizure was improper labelling. They either had a non-permanent disclosure lable or an incomplete disclosure label. There was no address or identification of the manufacturer or importer. This is in violation of the Textile Labelling and Advertising Regulations, Sections 5 and 15 (b).
3.	(a) A total of 2,120 pairs of navy cotton jeans were seized, (b) This was not the entire shipment. There were also a further 5,867 pairs which were destroyed along with the ones that were seized in order to recover the import duty that had been paid. It is believed that the original shipment was of approximately 10,000 pairs of jeans and that some 2,000 jeans were sold in the warehouse operation by Bootlegger stores before Consumer and Corporate Affairs enforcement action was taken.
4.	(a) The pants were disposed of after the Fred Asher organization, through their customs brokers, requested a refund of the customs and excise duty. The authority to dispose of the goods was given by the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise, (b) The jeans were buried in the ground, (c) At Delta City Dump, (d) Presumably by municipal employees under customs supervision.
5.	The total number of pants actually destroyed was 7,987 at a declared value of $5 each, totally $39,935.00 U.S.
6.	(a) The items were shipped on consignement to the Fred Asher organization^and not actually paid for. They were still owned by Seagoing Uniform Company of New York, (b) Fred Asher Ltd. paid the cost of the shipping not knowing what the shipment consisted of because they were not on order. Fred Asher Ltd. does quite a large amount of business with Seagoing Uniform Company, and had no reason to query the shipment until it was received, (c) The cost of the disposal was borne by Fred Asher Ltd. and this company is now in the process of reclaiming these shipping and disposal costs from Seagoing Uniform Company. At this time it is impossible to state the costs of disposal and how these were apportioned.
7.	(i)(a), (b), (c), (d). Yes. Officers of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did suggest to Seagoing Uniform Company that the items be released to charity. (ii) The owners, the Seagoing Uniform Company, refused to release the items for such disposal, and insisted on their destruction. However, other pants (2,980 pairs) which were seized on the same date but which were part of another shipment and which were owned by the Fred Asher organization, were donated by Fred Asher Ltd. to

the X-Kalay Foundation Society in Vancouver, a society for ex-convicts and families.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Are Members of Parliament entitled to obtain copies of immigration regulations and, if not, for what reason?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, they are published in the Canada
Gazette.


Mr. Towers: 1.	Did the government provide funds for Nanisivik Mines on Baffin Island and, if so (a) how much money was involved (b) was this a grant or a loan (c) if a loan, what was (i) the rate of interest stipulated and what security was furnished (ii) the term of the loan?
2.	Is Nanisivik Mines still indebted to the government and, if so (a) what amount has been paid (b) what is the balance owing?
3.	Who are the (a) owners (b) directors of the mine?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. The government is not providing funds for the development of the mine itself. However, funds will be provided for infrastructure facilities such as roads, airport and wharf and the townsite. (a) An estimated $18,335 million, of which $10,620 million will be recovered in the form of (i) user charges (wharf); (ii) ratepayers (townsite); and (iii) townsite development and housing loans (CMHC). The difference-$7,715 million is non-recoverable outlays will cover roads and the airport to serve Strathcona Sound as well as Arctic Bay, a nursing station and school at Strathcona Sound. In return for funds expended in infrastructure facilities the government of Canada will receive an 18 per cent equity interest in Nanisivik Mines Limited, (b) With the exception of CMHC townsite development and housing loans (estimated at $6,131 million and not yet approved) the government funding is neither a loan nor a grant, (c) (i) the rate of interest for CMHC loans will be the rates applicable at the time the application is approved and the security that will be furnished will be that of the real estate, (ii) Details on the terms of the CMHC loans have not yet been worked out.
2.	No funds have yet been expended or provided to Nanisivik Mines Limited by the Government.
3.	(a) The owners are Mineral Resources International Limited of Calgary, a public company, with 59.5 per cent, and Metallgesellschaft A.G. of Germany and Billiton B.V. of Holland, each with 11.25 per cent, and the Federal Government with 18 per cent, (b) The board of directors will be made up as follows: Representing, Mineral Resources International Ltd., 7; Government of Canada, 2; Metallgesellschaft A.G., 1; Billiton B.V., 1. The nominees for government directors are Mr. A. B. Yates, Director, Northern Policy and Program Planning Branch and Mr. Percy Pikoyak, Arctic Bay, N.W.T.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	When a unilingual public servant wins a competition for a bilingual position, what standard is expected in written tests when such tests are deemed necessary?
2.	Are examples of these tests available for the information of interested public servants and, if so, is the necessary standard or pass-mark also available?
3.	Does this standard or pass-mark in written examinations vary according to the position to be filled by the person taking the test?
4.	(a) How long can a unilingual person who has won a competition for a bilingual position and who fills that bilingual position while awaiting a second language instruction course, continue to work in a unilingual capacity in that position (b) is regular advancement applicable during this period?
5.	Does a bilingual person who has passed a competition for a bilingual position and, who has received a letter that they are on the eligibility list, automatically exclude themself from subsequent promotion to unilingual positions while they are awaiting a bilingual opening and, if so, how many such persons are presently prevented from accepting unilingual positions?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The language knowledge examination is administered to successful candidates of competitions for bilingual positions. To be appointed to a bilingual position, a candidate must meet the language requirements of the position at the level of language knowledge required for that position. If the successful candidate does not pass the language knowledge examination, he/she is conditionally appointed and sent on language training for a maximum period of twelve months or until able to pass the test at the required level for all factors evaluated, (i.e.) reading, writing, listening and speaking.
2.	A Candidate's Guide is available to persons taking the language knowledge examination. This guide contains samples of questions similar to those contained in the examination. Candidates are informed of the standard required for the position in question, prior to taking the language knowledge examination.
3.	Yes, the language standards for bilingual positions may vary from position to position. The level of language knowledge for each position is determined by the manager and approved by the Public Service Commission. The candidate must pass the language knowledge examination at the level approved for that position.
4.	(a) When a unilingual candidate wins a competition for a bilingual position, he/she is appointed conditionally to the position and sent on continuous language training immediately upon appointment. The selected candidate does not perform the duties of the position prior to successful competition of language training, (b) The person is entitled to all statutory increases which would normally be received as if he/she were performing the duties of the position.
5.	No, a bilingual person on an eligible list for appointment to a bilingual position is not excluded from subsequent promotion to unilingual positions. However this person must be qualified and be able to perform the duties of the position in the language required by the position.
Order Paper Questions DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT CONTRACTS


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) How many contracts does Consolidated Aviation Fueling and Services (Pacific) Limited have with the Department of Transport (b) what is the value of such contracts (c) on what date did they come into effect (d) on what date do they expire?
2.	Does the Department have any contracts with Allied Maintenance Corporation and, if so (a) what is the value of such contracts (b) on what date did they come into effect (c) on what date do they expire?
3.	Does the Department have any contracts with Consolidated Maintenance Services Limited and, if so (a) what is the value of such contracts (b) on what date did they come into effect (c) on what date do they expire?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
None, (b), (c), and (d) not applicable.
2.	No. (a), (b), (c) not applicable.
3.	The Department of Transport has five contracts with Consolidated Maintenance Services Limited, (a) (i) $421,778.38, (ii) $30,000.00; (iii) $152,688.15, (iv) $156,089.13, (v) $1,389,622.00; (b) (i) February 1, 1975, (ii) November 21, 1974, (iii) December 1, 1974, (iv) December 1, 1974, (v) March 1, 1975; (c) (i) January 31, 1977, (ii) June 30, 1975, (iii) November 30, 1977, (iv) November 30, 1977, (v) February 28, 1977.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what basis was Air Canada awarded the Calgary direct to San Francisco air route?
2.	Has Air Canada made a profit or a loss on this route and what has been the size of this profit or loss?


Jean Marchand: The
Ministry of Transport and Air Canada advise as follows: 1. The Foothills to California routes, of which Edmonton/ Calgary-San Francisco is a part, were introduced into the Canadian route proposals to the United States in 1970 on the initiative of Air Canada and because of the considerable support shown by the municipalities concerned and the Alberta Government. By and large Alberta traffic to and from California had been controlled by United States airlines. It was believed that Air Canada would be in a strong position to recapture some of that market. The carrier's existing route network in the Canadian midwest would provide that Prairie provinces with convenient connecting flights and hence improved service to San Francisco. Finally assigning the route to Air Canada was intended to dispel the image of the carrier being principally an eastern Canada oriented airline.
2. This new route became operational only on December 15, 1974. It is still too early to fairly evaluate whether the route is making a profit or a loss, but it will continue to be monitored to ensure it is making a positive contribution to Air Canada's financial results.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What are the details of the various contracts entered into by Air Canada with Sunset Crest Ltd. of the Barbados?
2.	Who approved the contracts and what is the length of each?

Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1 and 2. The information requested is of a proprietary nature and Air Canada believes it should not be made public for competitive reasons.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Since Subsection (j) of Section 13 of the Air Canada Act only allows Air Canada to own and operate hotels in Canada, under what authority is Air Canada negotiating with Hilton, Trizec and CNR to become part of a consortium which would own and operate hotels outside of Canada?
2.	If Air Canada becomes part of this consortium, what safeguards are there that Air Canada will receive sufficient prime booking dates in Hilton's overseas hotels in the high season, especially in light of the fact that Hilton is owned by Trans-World Airways?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. The airline hopes that certain of the constraints imposed by the Air Canada Act will one day be removed to give the national carrier the means to be competitive with state-owned carriers such as British Airways and Air France, and such privately-owned carriers as Canadian Pacific Air, particularly with respect to the ownership and operation of hotels. Air Canada is an interested party in the present discussions between Canadian National, Hilton and Trizec; but its participation in any consortium would be subject to government approval.
2. Should Air Canada become part of any such consortium, the airline would expect the same considerations and safeguards as normally prevail between other airlines and their subsidiary or associated hotel companies.
AIR CANADA-Mr. YVES MflNARD, VICE-PRESIDENT OF MARKETING


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	On what basis was Mr. Yves Menard selected as a Vice-President in charge of marketing of Air Canada?
2.	For what reason was it necessary to go outside of Air Canada employees to obtain a Vice-President, especially one who had no previous airline experience?
3.	Is this an indication that there are no people qualified within Air Canada ranks to assure such a position?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Mr. Menard was a well known authority in the field of marketing when he joined Air Canada in 1970. His experience and qualities in that specialized industry were recognized throughout Canada and North America.
2.	Marketing, as opposed to the sales function, is a relatively new discipline in the airline industry and in 1970 Air Canada searched both inside and outside the corporation to find an individual with the best possible qualifications. A thorough analysis of marketing executive managers then available led the airline to acquire the services of Mr. Menard.
3.	As a general policy, Air Canada endeavours to staff the majority of its key positions by promotion from within.


Mr. Reynolds: Does the Department of Transport have any contracts with Consolidated Plant Airport and Building Holding Limited (or Corporation) and, if so (a) what is the value of such contracts (b) on what date did they come into effect (c) on what date do they expire?


Jean Marchand: No. (a)
not applicable; (b) not applicable; (c) not applicable.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What assistance is being given or will be provided for Mr. David McTaggart in his case before French courts in reference to the seizing of the ship Green-peace III?
2.	What compensation has been provided Mr. McTaggart as a result of damage to his ship and expenses incurred in dealings with the Government of France consequent upon the seizure of the Green-peace III?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. 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 limited assistance of an essentially consular nature in connection with the presentation of his case before the courts.
2. The Canadian Government has not paid any compensation to Mr. McTaggart for any direct loss or damages or for any expenses incurred in dealings with the Government of France consequent upon the seizure of the Greenpeace III. The Canadian Government did, however, on December 5, 1973, grant him an ex gratia payment of $12,000 which enabled him to retrieve his vessel from French Polynesia and to bring it to Vancouver.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What land-based electronic or radar controls are in place to control ship traffic in the (a) Straits of Juan de Fuca (b) Gulf of Georgia?
2.	(a) In what location do incoming tankers or other deep-sea vessels pick up their pilots inbound from Cape Flattery (b) how far is this in nautical miles inbound from the entrance to the Straits of Juan de Fuca?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
VHF and MF radio communication equipment are in place
April 7, 1975

at the Vancouver Traffic Management Centre to control ship traffic in the Straits of Juan de Fuca; (b) VHF and MF radio communication equipment are in place at the Vancouver Traffic Management Centre to control ship traffic in the Gulf of Georgia. This Centre is also equipped to conduct radar surveillance of vessel movements in the approaches to Vancouver Harbour and in the Harbour itself.
2. (a) Vessels in-bound from Cape Flattery destined for Canadian ports pick up their pilots at the Fairway Buoy off Brotchie Ledge near Victoria, (b) The Fairway Buoy is about 60 miles from the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the National Harbours Board turned over any part of their authority to the Montreal Port Authority over any aspect of the operations in that Port and, if so (a) to what extent (b) on what date (c) what was the nature of the instrument, if any, used to accomplish this?
2.	Is the instrument a public or secret document?
3.	Is such a move contemplated for the Port of Halifax and, if so, on what date?
4.	Has the same authority been given to the Port Authority of the Port of Halifax and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Does the granting of powers to the Port Authority in Montreal and not given to the Ports of Halifax, Nova Scotia or Saint John, New Brunswick, tend to equalize the ports east of the Ottawa River and, if so, to what extent?


Jean Marchand: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The National Harbours Board has delegated some authority at the Port of Montreal to an Executive Committee, (a) With respect to day-to-day operations to a suitable degree considering the size of the port and its level of activity, (b) January 30, 1975. (c) Board Minute.
2.	Internal and not a public document.
3.	It is expected that the same principle will be extended to other large ports according to their size and level of activity. No definite date has been established for specific ports such as the Port of Halifax.
4.	Implementation of the plan has not taken place at Halifax. Implementation will be in similar order to the dates on which the Port Authorities were originally established.
5.	There has been no apparent disparity between any ports east of the Ottawa River in the short period since implementation of the plan commenced.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the Thousand Islands Bridge between Canada and the United States located on the Canadian side of the border in the Township of the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne County of Leeds, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs received a letter dated March 7, 1975 from Mr. Arnold Hamilton, Reeve of the Township of the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne, containing a motion of the Municipal Council requesting the government to agree to extension of the life of the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority to March, 1981 and, if so, will
Order Paper Questions
the government give this matter immediate attention and take into account the expressed opinions of the residents of the area as represented by their Municipal Council?
2. On what date will a decision be announced in regard to this
matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) Yes, (b) yes.
2. The government is not in a position to form a conclusion on this matter until the financial and engineering examinations of the Authority are completed. It is hoped, however, that the necessary information on which to base a decision will be available in the near future.


Mr. Baldwin: 1.	For each year 1969 to 1974, what were the total amounts of subsidy payments per annum under the Atlantic Freight Assistance Act by the government through the Canadian Transport Commission to Atlantic trucking companies?
2.	(a) For the same years, how many Atlantic trucking companies (outbound and intra) have received subsidies under this programme (b) how much of the subsidy is or was being paid to the Moffat Trucking Company of Newfoundland?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows; 1. 1969, $193,082; 1970, $1,450,907; 1971, $5,144,717; 1972, $10,206,791; 1973, $14,516,924; 1974, $20,257,336.
2. (a) 2,666; (b) $1,186,898.60.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	By year since 1970, how much money has been paid by the government or its agencies to Interpol and what are the component costs involved?
2.	What are the projected Canadian payments for the 1975-76 fiscal year and under what item or items in the estimates do the costs appear?
3.	Is classified information relating to national security made available to Interpol?
4.	What facilities are made available within Canada by the government for the use of Interpol?
5.	What are the criteria for determining the type of information on individuals made available to foreign police agencies?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1.	1970,
$30,695.00, 1971, $30,612.75; 1972, $31,497.81; 1973, $44,741.86; 1974, $56,400.00. The component costs are the operating expenses of Interpol Headquarters in Paris, France.
2.	Costs are calculated on a calendar year basis. Costs for the calendar year 1975 are $75,248.00 and appear in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police 1974/75 Main Estimates, "X" Division, under item R. 1.0.22 "other services".
3.	No.
4.	The facilities of all accredited Canadian police agencies.
5.	Restricted to matters of a purely criminal nature. Article 3 of Interpol's constitution stipulates "it is strictly forbidden to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character".

April 7, 1975
Order Paper Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES-AUDIT REPORTS


Mr. Reynolds: Has Mr. Tevlin, Secretary of Supply Administration in the Department of Supply and Services refused a request for post contract for performance reviews and operational audit reports, as requested in a letter of January 15, 1975, and, if so, will the Minister provide the information?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes. In response to a letter of January 15, 1975 from Mr. Malcom Thorne for Mr. John Reynolds, M.P., Mr. Tevlin indicated that his request for past contract for performance reviews and operational audit reports would not be met. It is the current practice in industry as in government to restrict internal operational or management audit reports to management directly involved. Any break of this confidence would most certainly impair the efficiency of any audit.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to JLJ Exploration Consultant Ltd., Calgary, Alberta for the provision of a study on oil and gas potential deposit in the West?
2.	What are the terms of the contract to the degree of outlining what use this study is to have to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
3.	Was such information already available from the Petroleum Industry in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. Yes.
2.	A study of the various exploration plays present in the plains area of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, to assist in determination of the quantities of oil and gas present, both as proven reserves and as undiscovered potential. The objective of the study is to provide basic geologic data necessary for an assessment of oil and gas resources on a probabilistic-play basis and to investigate gas deliverability from proven connected and unconnected gas reserves.
3.	No.


Mr. Marshall: Did the Department of Transport undertake a study of harbour development at Stephenville, Newfoundland and, if so (a) did consultation take place with the municipal authorities (b) has the report been made public?


Jean Marchand: The Ministry of Transport authorized in 1973 an engineering study for the construction of wood unloading facilities to be provided for Labrador Linerboard Limited. This study was completed in March, 1974, and resulted in the construction and completion by Labrador Linerboard Limited of a steel sheet pile cell dolphin wharf on the south side of Stephenville Harbour. The Ministry has not undertaken a comprehensive study of harbour development at Stephenville but at the request of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador Linerboard Limited is contemplating a

study of an extension of the present public wharf, and has had extensive consultation with the Province and the Company, but not with the municipality on this matter.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Thousand Islands Bridge between Canada and the United States located on the Canadian side of the border in the Township of the Front of Leeds and Lansdowne, County of Leeds, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs received a letter dated March 12, 1975 from Mr. Ian Stephenson, President of the Brockville Chamber of Commerce, containing the views of the Chamber of Commerce requesting the government to agree to extension of the life of the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority to March, 1981 and, if so, will the government give this matter immediate attention and take into account the expressed opinions of the residents of the area as represented by the Brockville Chamber of Commerce?
2.	On what date will a decision be announced in regard to this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) Yes; (b) yes.
2. The government is not in a position to form a conclusion on this matter until the financial and engineering examinations of the Authority are completed. It is hoped, however, that the necessary information on which to base a decision will be available in the near future.


Mr. McKay: What was the total cost of the (a) Marler Report (b) Desjardins Report?


Jean Marchand: (a)
$9,230.83; (b) $8,996.15. These sums include the investigation fees and expenses but do not include any possible costs to the Laurentian Pilotage Authority or other interested parties.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: What were the expenses or contributions made by any federal department for the Toronto and Vancouver Exhibitions, each year since 1969?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT INTEREST IN PINETREE RADAR SITE

Mr. Marshall: 1.	What interest does the government have in the property located in Western Newfoundland known as Pinetree Radar Site, which was left by the American Government after the phase-out of the Ernest Harmon Air Force Base?
2.	What is the nature of the interest, if any, of (a) the Department of National Defence (b) the Department of Transport (c) Telesat Canada (d) RCMP (e) the Department of Public Works in acquiring property
at the location?
April 7, 1975

3.	Is it the intention of the government to turn the Pinetree Radar Site over to the local communities and, if so, what action has been taken in this regard?
Return tabled.



ADVERTISING COSTS FOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND INFORMATION CANADA

Mr. Huntington: 1.	What was the total cost of advertising in (a) the Department of Labour (b) Information Canada for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What was the breakdown of the programmes against the total cost of advertising for these years?
Return tabled.



ENERGY CONSERVATION ADVERTISEMENT, MONTREAL &quot;GAZETTE&quot;

Mr. Towers: 1.	(a) What newspapers carried the full-page advertisement on energy conservation which appeared in the Montreal Gazette on February 26, 1975 (b) how many editions of each paper will publish the ad?
2.	What other forms are being used to publicize the ad?
3.	What will be the total cost of this advertising in all forms of publicity?
4.	On what date will publication of the ad terminate?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Before leaving the subject of questions on the order paper, may I suggest to the House that the proposed change in providing for the daily presentation of replies to questions on the order paper will entail an alteration in the printing of the order paper. Presently, notice of questions as received is printed daily on the notice paper and a consolidation of all questions is printed on Mondays, with a listing of question numbers on Wednesdays. In order to cut down or to eliminate what may be considered as superfluous printing, I suggest that in future the notice of written questions be printed daily as received, and that the consolidated notice of written questions be printed but once a week, on Mondays. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Petro-Canada
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-8 to establish a national petroleum company. The short title of the act is to be the Petro-Canada Act. The government, under this act, will seek authority to establish a Crown corporation to be known as Petro-Canada.
I hope the first ministers' conference this week will do great things for our resource industries. I hope the first ministers will arrive at important decisions to the benefit of all Canadians. I think this conference will become a highlight of our system of confederation and I hope we shall see consultation, instead of confrontation, involving federal and provincial constitutional rights.
In considering Bill C-8 I have talked to personnel of the oil companies-of the majors, as it were. What is their position? Although they do not endorse a national corporation for oil in Canada, they are not opposed to it. Why not, Mr. Speaker? They contend it will not interfere with their business; it will not do much in the field of exploration; it will not do much except soak up taxpayers' money: it will become, as some have described it, a tax sink offering no competition in the field of exploration. The consensus as I understand it is that the corporation will be another operation costing taxpayers many millions of dollars.
Let me point out that in no part of the world, so far as I am aware, has a Crown corporation of the type we are setting up been successful in bringing about the sort of development we envisage. Why should they be successful? After all, they do not use their own high-risk capital in exploring for oil and gas, and Crown corporations are not subject to the discipline of private corporations. I therefore wish to deal with this subject strictly from the taxpayer's, the Canadian's point of view.
Why should I, or for that matter why should anyone oppose the setting up of a Crown corporation in respect of oil? The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) have set out clearly the weaknesses of the bill we are debating and the weaknesses of the arguments promoting the formation of a Crown corporation for oil to be known as Petro-Canada. I am opposed to the establishment of a Crown corporation for oil for the following reasons, but before I give the details let me make one thing clear: there is a place for Crown corporations in our system but it is not in the high-risk capital business.
The record will show, I think, that the proposed Crown corporation, like others, will be highly inefficient. Let us consider some other Crown corporations. The government has agreed to erase a $3.5 billion debt incurred by CNR, Air Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway. That $3.5 billion is taxpayers' money which has not earned interest. It could have earned interest had it been invested in the private sector. The seaway is a different cup of tea, of course. But if the private sector had run up such an enormous debt, would it have been able to write it off? The private sector would not be able to write off $3.5 billion of taxes owed. Such a large debt could only be created by inefficiency, lack of knowledge and lack of drive.
When the government backs an enterprise, what incentive does it provide to make the enterprise pay? You cannot fire the employees or change the president without
4560

The corporation shall comply with any directions from time to time given to it in writing by the governor in council or the minister with respect to the exercise of its powers.
In other words, the president and directors will have to dance to the tune of the cabinet. Since I have been in this House-and even before that-I have not had that much faith in cabinets having the kind of expertise to tell an oil company how to invest money, how to explore, develop and process efficiently. After Imperial Leduc No. 1 was found, our whole outlook changed. Other fields were developed and we became a self-sufficient nation with regard to energy. This part of economic history can be called Canada's economic confederation. Our energy supplies and pipelines hold this country together just as effectively as culture and other forms of nationalism, and will continue to do so if leaders change their ways. The media, too, must shape future opinion, which is the only weapon which will motivate short-sighted leaders into far-sighted ones.
The system of taxation developed in the last federal budget, and those of some provincial governments, discouraged exploration and development. We only have to read the Financial Post and other periodicals to see that the drilling rigs have left western Canada. All this has happened because of the sheer cussedness and short-sightedness of this government.
Today, Canada stands at another crossroads that again affects not only the outlook for its petroleum industry but our entire economy. Again the question is one of supply. Can we continue to produce enough oil from Canadian sources to meet Canadian demands, or will we have to depend increasingly on foreign oil supplies? This time the crossroads are not technological. The situation is not one where decisions depend on geological data. Large amounts of oil and natural gas have already been discovered in the Arctic and the industry is confident more can be found. The technology to mine the surface deposits of the tar sands and convert the high viscosity crude into synthetic oil is available. This time the crossroads are political and affect the industry's ability to finance the tremendous job that lies ahead. The president of Imperial Oil stated that its budget has been cut by one-quarter, and I would not be surprised if other major companies are doing the same.
The ultimate loser in this situation is the Canadian citizen. He will not benefit from the tax and royalty revenues that would otherwise accrue to his governments from development of his petroleum resources. He could well find his way of life affected by mounting balance of payment deficits and increased dependence on unpredictable foreign supplies-unpredictable both as to price and availability. As a taxpayer, consumer and worker he will be affected by a slowdown in one of our most vital industries.
The purpose of this company is, I suppose, to guarantee self-sufficiency of supply, since once it is established the government could direct it to carry out exploration at the expense of the taxpayers. We have heard a lot of speeches about an energy crisis and shortage of supply. In this light, it is interesting to examine an article which appeared in The Economist of March 8, 1975. It reads in part:
Petro-Canada
History is being swayed by the increasing capability of important groups to cod each other and themselves that they are observing the precise reverse of exactly what is happening. In oil, what is happening is that the world is now trying to produce about 20 per cent more than people are willing to buy while the price of oil is around $10 a barrel-
According to this article there is no shortage of crude petroleum in the world; the so-called shortage has only been a reflection of political hanky-panky at government level with the formation of OPEC, hanky-panky involving large corporations, and stories by journalists all over the world selling propaganda to the effect that there is a shortage. This is the situation dealt with in the article from which I have just quoted. It continues:
Some glut at present productive capacity would probably persist even if the price dropped to $3-$4 a barrel. Medium-term energy policies all over the world are now geared to making the present glut enormously greater with every year that passes.
The article goes on to predict a growing surplus of energy in the world.
The world's governments may-as a diplomatic ploy, perhaps rightly-sign Mr. Henry Kissinger's piece of paper pretending that all this generation's successors in business and government will promise to pay through the 1980s perhaps $7 per barrel, maybe index-linked, for a commodity which costs 10 cents a barrel to produce in much of the Middle East and whose marginal operating costs (once rigs are in place, and it costs money to stop pipelines) are sometimes barely over 2 cents a barrel. If there is an index-linked floor price of $7 a barrel, then it is probable that more than half the productive capacity of primary energy either already existing or now planned for the early 1980s will have to be held or edged out of production; indeed, Mr. Kissinger's objective in talking about $7 a barrel is precisely to create such a glut.
People can believe if they wish that the capacity declared redundant will not then be the expensive (and rising marginal-cost) capacity like Alaska and the North Sea plus the high-wage coal mines of Britain and America. People can believe if they wish that countries like Japan will be bound by a piece of paper saying they must buy oil at $7 a barrel when marginal producers will be offering it at a price based on costs less than one seventieth of that figure, and that Japan's competitors will then allow their own energy costs to stay up to 70 times more expensive than hers. People will believe what they want to believe, including dear delusions.
The article goes on to say:
The breakdown led initially to a widely unsustainable attempt at more extravagant market rigging (OPEC, Smithsonian agreement) so that ordinary market forces swung into reaction. While they were thus in swing, governments who always believe they can repeal the laws of supply and demand, were holding consecutive meetings in lush hotels (OPEC summits, finance ministers' conferences) and journalists always wrote as if something important was happening there. But anybody who stayed home and based his guesses on any reasonable calculation of elasticities of substitution and supply could see that exchange rates would float again and could guess correctly what would happen first to demand for oil, then to stocks, then to supply and next to prices.
The writer of this article found a simple way of checking the amount of oil being shipped out of the Middle East: he checked the insurance coverage at Lloyd's of London relating to oil shipments from the Gulf and turned up information to confirm his contention that the world is experiencing a glut of oil at the present time. The idea that oil would become steadily scarcer and more expensive for the rest of our lives is entirely false. In fact, if I could sum up the article in a few words, the world is not short of petroleum.
I should like to ask the minister this question. What will happen if the price of oil in Canada is set, for example, at $8.50 a barrel and the world price drops to $4 a barrel? Is eastern Canada prepared to pay the higher price? Then I
29557 - 1414

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
should like to put the same question in reverse. Should the world price be $10 a barrel, how much lower can the federal government set the price in Canada while guaranteeing development and exploration at the rate necessary to maintain security of supply for this nation in the future? These are the questions we have to put to the government. There is nothing which answers them in the bill now before us, only a proposal to set up a monstrosity, a sink down which taxpayers' dollars will flow. Tax money will go down the sink because there is plenty of evidence that in this particular field, one which involves high risk, there is no substitute for know-how, expertise and management ability.
I cannot believe that a corporation along the lines of Air Canada or the CBC-I am not criticizing those two institutions at the moment, but merely making an analogy- could succeed in such a highly competitive field as the oil industry, or accomplish anything there except increase the taxes paid by the average Canadian. And while this new Crown corporation is pouring more taxpayers' money down the sink, the price of gasoline will be going up at the pumps.
Mr. Speaker, it can be said of many of the bills we question as an opposition that they contain at least some good mixed with the bad. Having been in this House since 1958, I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion there is nothing good in the measure presently before us. It will likely cost the taxpayers money out of all proportion to the services to be provided.


Mr. Dionne:: Rubbish!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says, "Rubbish!" He always makes remarks of that kind; it is the only contribution he ever makes. He will find out that I am right when this corporation is established. If he can name one Crown corporation which is really as efficient as the private sector, particularly in this high-risk capital sector, I wish he would stand in his place and do so, because I would be prepared to listen to him.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, here we are again, wasting the valuable time of this House debating a bill which should not even have been introduced. While the country is being held to ransom by one dissident labour group after another, we are debating whether we should pass legislation allowing the government to go into competition with the oil companies in our country. We could use our time better by debating how we should get people back to work, or how we should tackle the serious problem of runaway inflation.
However, the bill has been introduced and it is a foregone conclusion that it will receive approval, considering the fact that the government has a majority. It is no good hoping that members on the other side of the House will vote as their consciences dictate when the bill comes to a final vote. They will vote as they always do; they will vote as the boss dictates. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, what we say here will probably have little influence on the final result. In any case, I fully intend to make my feelings known on the bill before us and to expose the real intent of the government with respect to this so-called national petroleum company.

Members on this side of the House, those in the official opposition in particular, have been pressing the government for a number of years to develop some kind of national energy policy and to let us know what it is, if and when they have one. We have waited in vain for this to be done, as we have waited in vain for results on other important matters. Hansard is full of speeches in which we in the official opposition have used every opportunity to bring this question before the House and to the notice of the government.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) should know by now that we would support the government right down the line if they were to table something in the way of a national energy policy. But, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 is a long way from being a national energy policy or even a step in the direction of such a policy. It is simply another ploy, another attempt at power grabbing and another attempt at building another wing onto the already top-heavy bureaucracy.
It has been suggested that Bill C-8 is just another attempt on the part of the government to create a snug haven for defeated Liberal candidates and for loyal party faithful. There is good reason for such suggestions to take root in view of some of the other agencies that have been created by this government during my time in this House. Some pretty good jobs have been created in the past few years for the Liberal Party faithful, and they are good paying jobs. When you consider the power that some of these people have in the bargain, it is understandable that those of us on this side of the House look with suspicion on bills which seek to create still more of these unnecessary new agencies.
I am a little puzzled and concerned over some of the statements made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on March 12 when he tried to sell Bill C-8 to us. Anyone in the House who heard his speech would have wondered if he had the wrong speech, or the wrong audience. The minister was hardly into his speech when he said that this bill "is a most important element in the government's long-term planning to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet our national needs". Now, there is a nice little bit of double-talk, Mr. Speaker. What the minister said is what I might say if I were trying to say that I had worked out a national energy policy. So I might be forgiven if I interpret this to mean that the minister has in fact worked out a national energy policy. Well, just what is the policy? When is the minister going to let us in on his new energy policy?
I think I can speak for my colleagues when I say that I have been waiting a long time to hear the government's plan in the way of an energy policy; and if they have one now I want to see it, I want to hear about it and I want it brought into the House so that we can debate it. All I have seen so far is this bill, a bill to allow the government to establish a petroleum company to go into competition with private industry, to compete with free enterprise.
I cannot accept the minister's claim that this bill is, in effect, the cornerstone of some fanciful national energy policy. What I think, and what I am sure will be borne out next month, is that this bill will allow the government to

create a company that it can use as a club in the upcoming energy talks later this week. I think the energy minister wants this new company so he can tell Premier Lougheed that his company is bigger than the premier's. The energy conference is already expected to be a confrontation rather than a conference, and that expectation is being nurtured and fed by the energy minister and his colleagues.
It is no good the energy minister's complaining that Alberta has involved itself in energy exploitation and exploration. Alberta has been forced into that situation to protect itself, to protect the people of the province from federal government bungling and the heavy-handed treatment of the corporate sector. It is no secret to anyone that the federal government has followed a policy, or possibly a non-policy, of keeping the large energy corporations off balance with its day-to-day changes in taxation policies, especially with regard to exploration and other types of risk ventures.
It has always been a practice of governments of our type, and with good reason, that high-risk ventures are left to the private sector. The money raised by taxes and other means by the government is a trust; money and other valuables held in trust cannot be subjected to risks, and it is in fact incumbent upon those who do hold such money in trust to ensure that it is not subjected to risk without the consent of the owner. What I am saying is that the minister talks of the $1.5 billion of public money with which the national petroleum company will be funded as though it were his own money. I would like to clear that up with just a few well chosen words. It is not his money; it belongs to the Canadian taxpayers, and we are its trustees.
In addition to the half billion dollars in direct financing for the proposed company, the minister proposes to allow the company to raise a further $1 billion by what he calls debt raising. He followed this up with the statement that the federal government would stand behind the company when it seeks to raise further amounts of debt capital. There is nothing like encouraging a new bureaucracy to grow like Topsy even before it is created, Mr. Speaker.
The minister talked in glowing terms of how the Canadian people would be the stockholders in the new company. Does that mean that the minister will call annual stockholders' meetings? Does that mean that Canada will have the world's largest conference hall, one capable of handling 22 million people at one sitting? Perhaps the new hall will be called "Con-Can", to accommodate the stockholders of "Oil-Can". No, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not plan to call annual stockholders' meetings for the new company. He should have called this company "Con-Can" because in my view, in light of the fact that we do not yet have a socialist system of government, this bill is the biggest "con" job the minister has pulled on the Canadian people.
The minister went on to say that Petro-Can would provide, among other things, a social function, adding that Petro-Can would pay special attention to educating and training native peoples in the petroleum sector. If the minister is stretching and straining in an effort to justify Petro-Can, then he has missed the mark again. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have long been
Petro-Canada
under the impression that we already have quite adequate education and training institutions and facilities in this country. Taken as a whole, I would suggest that our educational system and our technical and trades training institutions are pretty good. So I cannot justify Petro-Can on these grounds.
That is not all of the stretching that the minister did in his speech on March 12. He suggested that the private sector has done an admirable job in the past in seeking out and developing supplies of oil and gas. However, he did say that the government cannot be assured that the private sector can be relied upon in the future. As a case in point, he said that they might be encouraged to pull out of Canada and go to places where investment opportunities are more attractive.
Well, the minister certainly had a point there, but he managed very skilfully to express it in reverse and completely out of context. What he really meant was that this government has done all in its power to make investment of risk capital in Canada about as unattractive as possible. I have to confess that I now believe the harassment of the private sector in the past two or three years by the federal government has been a calculated thing, designed to pave the way for this very bill. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources states in his speech in support of Bill C-8 that the private sector cannot any longer be counted on to raise the enormous amounts of capital required for future exploration for oil and gas, then he means the government is satisfied that its campaign against the private sector has been working pretty well.
The minister's statement that he believes the majority of the Canadian people desire a company like Petro-Can is based on his own fond wish and nothing more. Neither he nor anyone else had held a national referendum to find out if the Canadian people want their money put in the hands of another bureaucracy, with carte blanche to do with it as they like. Just putting taxpayers' money in the hands of this government is risky enough, judging from the way the national budget has skyrocketed in the past ten years. To take billions more and place it in the hands of people to risk in resource exploration and development is carrying this risk just a little too far. High-risk ventures in resource exploration and development have been a traditional aspect of the private sector, and over and over again it has been proven that governments cannot do it as cheaply or as well.
I simply cannot approve Bill C-8 for a number of very good reasons. In the first place, while the minister talked at length about what the new company planned to do, or what it might do, he did not make any attempt to justify the establishment of the company. Neither the minister nor anyone else has demonstrated the need for a government company to duplicate what is being done in the private sector or to go into competition with long-established oil and gas companies in the private sector.
If this government wants to get involved, I suggest it should get involved in solving some of the serious problems which are getting progressively worse as the government looks around for new worlds to conquer. What we should be doing is seeking ways to keep on the job people

Petro-Canada
who have jobs, and finding jobs for all those who want to work but cannot find suitable employment. We also face inflation, which this government seems to feel will just go away if we ignore it.
Let us leave the high-risk ventures to the private sector. Let the oil companies do what they can do best, and for goodness sake let us stop putting artificial barriers in the way of companies that want to risk their capital to find new sources of oil and gas. We have plenty to occupy us, without spending a tremendous amount of money looking for petroleum products.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate as a member representing an oil producing area in southwestern Saskatchewan. I am well aware of the desperate straits in which the industry finds itself in that area.
Canada was created in the face of difficulty and adversity. This was a remarkable achievement, only possible as a result of the spirit and dedication of the people who accomplished it. This country is still ready to respond with vigour and hope, if it can get leadership from this government and if the people are aware what the rules of the game are to be.
Bill C-8 does not mean the government now thinks that Canada has not been well served by private enterprise in the petroleum industry, because private companies, whether Canadian or foreign-owned, have worked vigorously to develop our oil and gas resources, to create transportation systems for them and to refine and distribute our oil products efficiently. The privately-owned Canadian oil industry has a good record of technical and managerial innovation. We should not be swayed by the fact that every one of the dozen countries from which we import significant quantities of crude oil has its own state oil company. A good look at these countries would soon show us that most of their rulers value the licence of unfettered sovereignty and anti-westernism more than they value food for their own people.
It is only natural to wonder when this proposed national oil company will get under way. The best estimates would indicate that it will be 15 or 20 years, perhaps even longer, and certainly there is no indication that the company will produce even one extra barrel of oil for the Canadian people. One thing is sure, and that is that it will use even more of the taxpayers' money and mean an even greater expansion of government into the private sector. So it would seem that our government will be standing passive for a good number of years and we will be living on the efforts and assets of the past for some time to come. If it is to take 15 or 20 years to get production under way, it is interesting to note that this bill proposes five-year appointments for the president and chairman, and three-year appointments for the directors. This does not seem to provide much security of tenure in a company that will be 15 or 20 years developing.
I suppose the crucial question is whether there is a real need for this bill to create a national oil company. Let me quote from the March 27 edition of the Swift Current Sun. Under the heading "April production less than 5 per cent" and "100 per cent shutdown of local pipeline", we find the following:

South Saskatchewan Pipe Line Company, with offices in Swift Current, suspended its crude oil gathering operations effective this
morning.
Another paragraph in the same article reads:
The shutdown has caused Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. of this area to also shut down production and water flood injection facilities in southwest Saskatchewan.
Further on in the article it is stated:
In April, 1974, there was the capability of producing 37,000 barrels a day, which is not the case now.
On the same page of this newspaper there is an article in respect of Texaco, which reads in part:
Texaco Canada Ltd. estimates there will be a surplus of domestic crude oil until at least 1994.
That is the situation in my area. This bill is so broad that it is clear the government is taking the position that the private sector can no longer be counted on to develop the natural resources of this country. I think that Canadians basically believe we should have an economy operated by the initiative of its citizens and not of its government. This bill asks us to incorporate a new government entity called Petro-Canada. In fact, it is setting up a national petroleum industry to be operated by the Government of Canada. This will certainly be another step in eroding parliamentary control of the expenditure of tax money- expenditures that must be covered by revenue. Expressed as a percentage of our gross national product, these revenues rose from 16 per cent in 1926 to 30 per cent in 1946, the last of the war years. In 1958 that figure dropped to 25 per cent, but today 38 per cent of the total GNP accrues to the government in the form of revenue. This trend is placing an unbearable load on the private sector of our economy. We now have one federal government employee for each 50 Canadian men, women and children in our country. In 1967, after 100 years, the federal budget was approximately $10 billion, and today it is almost triple that amount.
Presumably, the creation of this company is an indication that the government believes there is inadequate exploration by the oil industry today. The majority of informed people involved in natural resource development in Canada would agree. However, we must point out that the reason there has been a decline in exploration activity in this country is precisely the result of this government's interference. This government has evolved policies which make it almost impossible for the private sector to operate and to explore in the way it has in the past. The oil and petroleum industry has never had to live with such uncertainty as it has experienced within the last three years, or with a hodge-podge of tax legislation and confrontation that makes it impossible for the industry to operate in a normal way. The government has formulated no rules or regulations regarding exploration for oil in the vast northern areas of the country which have still to be explored.
It seems peculiar that at the very time we are concerned about supply, exploration and getting more oil on stream, there is a whole series of activities on the part of the government which makes it impossible for exploration to go ahead. We should take a good look around the world, as I am sure the evidence will demonstrate that countries with the highest standards of living are basically those

countries which depend upon the private sector to produce and distribute their resources.
By this bill, the government clearly demonstrates that it no longer has confidence in the private sector operating effectively in this country. This bill could socialize our oil industry right down to the retail service station level. Does anyone really believe that there is a need for establishing a corporation to distribute refined petroleum products in this country? A look at any of our towns, cities, villages or crossroads would indicate that the last thing the government needs to invest money in at this time is the establishment of a distribution system for petroleum products. It is obvious to everyone that the distribution system that we have is working effectively.
Surely the government does not need to take taxpayers' money to become involved in this kind of operation. It should give us cause to ponder when we think back a year to the time the Department of Supply and Services made what was probably the highest priced purchase of oil of all time, certainly in the history of this country. Surely, Mr. Speaker, before we get into this sort of nationalizing effort, the first thing to do would be to work out a set of regulations and laws making it possible for the industry to operate and to give us time to determine whether there is any need for this sort of direct government intervention.
In setting up Petro-Canada, I cannot help comparing the involvement of the federal government in the grain industry in the form of the Canadian government elevator system. This system, which costs the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars, has to all intents and purposes been unused through the years and a continual drain on the hard pressed taxpayers of this country. I cannot help wondering whether the proposed investment can be justified. You have to ask, will the exploration required from this corporation go over the same ground on which private corporations have carried out their exploration? Surely, if those private companies found nothing, what is the point in returning to look in the same place?
In Clause 22 of the statute, Petro-Canada is given what amounts to a blank cheque in the form of virtually unlimited ability to receive advances from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada. This can be done either by way of loan or purchase. It is difficult to understand how the new corporation can ensure lower energy prices for Canadians. Provincial power corporations have been unable to keep their rates down, even with 100 per cent ownership of the industry. It is equally difficult to understand how this government corporation can equalize oil prices in all regions of Canada. It is generally estimated that the cost to the Canadian taxpayers of creating this national corporation, if it is to be a significant force in the industry, will be up to $6 billion and, as I said before, the task can take anywhere from 15 to 20 years to accomplish even assuming a high degree of exploration success.
It seems that in a period in our economic history when Canada is experiencing a horrendous rate of inflation, it is really inappropriate for the government to preoccupy itself with an empire-building oil exploration venture which will increase rather than lessen the inflationary pressures that work in our economy, and which will
Petro-Canada
render more scarce already scarce materials, personnel and hardware which otherwise would be deployed in the private sector.
I have been in this business of government long enough to know that we do not have a group of wise men and women making altogether sensible decisions in the society's greater interests. I have found, instead, waste, bias, stupidity, arrogance, a concentration of trivia and, worst of all, arbitrary and often uncontrolled power. The agencies enforcing federal and provincial regulations are increasing and the administrative cost of this army of enforcers represents but the tip of the iceberg: it is the cost imposed on the private sector that is really large.
The major cost resulting from the operations of this growing force of federal inspectors and regulators shows up in the added expenses of business firms who must comply with their directives, and who inevitably have to pass on these costs to their consumers; therefore, a substantial inflationary multiplier must be applied to direct outlays in respect of federal controls. It is easy to imagine the number of superintendents and foremen across this country who spend thousands of man-hours a year guiding inspectors through their plants. This need for government inspectors also has siphoned off experienced supervisory personnel.
A direct private cost resulting from the expansion of government controls is the growing paperwork burden imposed on business firms through the expensive and time-consuming process of submitting reports, making applications, filling out questionnaires, replying to orders and directives and appealing to the courts from rulings and regulatory opinions. There are literally thousands of different types of approved government forms.
Another hidden cost of government regulation is the reduced rate of innovation. The longer it takes for some change to be approved by a government regulatory agency for a new or improved product or a more efficient production process, the less likely it is that the change will ever be made. I would like to see the Government of Canada put its efforts into developing alternate sources of energy along the lines of our good friends in the United States. Certainly, I believe atomic energy is an appropriate role for government but I am satisfied that private enterprise can continue to do a good job in our oil industry.
We are one of few nations in the world which should have surplus resources for the next 100 years, and I hope that the opportunity this gives us will not be lost by the fumbling of a politically oriented government. The real issue before us right now is how to take the best course of action to bring to the people of Canada the opportunities our resources give them at a time when the world so desperately needs them. As we have said many times in the House, the simplest, easiest and best alternative is to let Canadians as individuals own this country. This can be done by providing a tax incentive to Canadians as individuals to increase their ownership of the five major companies, for instance, which control our oil industry. This could be done in a very few years. I have great difficulty in believing that the oil companies operating in this country are our enemies.
Another clause in the bill that gives me cause to ponder is clause 7, subparagraph (2) which reads:

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
The corporation shall comply with any directions from time to time given to it in writing by the governor-in-council or the minister with respect to the exercise of its powers.
This means, very definitely, that final control reverts to the minister or, ultimately, to the cabinet. All the other clauses should be read with clause 7 in mind, for the minister or the cabinet may alter or interfere with the operation of this company at any time; and we all know what sort of control parliament has over a Cown corporation such as the CNR or Air Canada.
During the last three years we have seen changes in relation to government and the private sector that none of us could have predicted. Who would have thought, even three years ago, that we would hear a minister of the Crown suggest in this House that we nationalize the CPR, or within the last few months hear a minister of the Crown suggest that we nationalize our grain handling business? Now, in effect, we have a bill before us to nationalize our petroleum industry.
I have said many times that our civil service mandarins, the advisers to the government, are disdainful of trade; they like to deal in the smooth, professional manner in the theoretical arena. The immediate need, surely, is for some plain common sense, for some meaningful consultation between government and industry. The National Energy Board calls for an economically healthy petroleum industry. I suggest the only way to get it is to return to our traditional way of consulting with our partners in the private sector.
In the period 1947 to 1973, total government take in respect of the exploration-production phase of the oil industry's operations amounted to about $6.5 billion, or almost 30 per cent of gross revenues. These numbers include taxes, royalties, lease rentals and bonus payments made for leases. In 1974, with the introduction of higher royalties, government will take directly some $2.5 billion, or 48 per cent of the industry's gross revenue. Surely this shows that private industry is carrying its share of the tax load.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that the government deliberately attempted to destroy a necessary industry. In 1970 the federal government revoked, without prior consultation or notice, the federal oil and gas land order of 1961. For four years the petroleum industry has been left without any basis for establishing the royalties and terms under which half of the exploratory permits of the Arctic are operated, so most of the activity is confined to commitments made years ago. Now we have double royalty rates on gas and oil in the western provinces.
The idea that a national oil company will buy more efficiently than a private company will need some explanation. Our oil industry in Canada has, in a few short years, brought this country from a position of complete dependence on imported oil and gas to its place today, where it is the only developed country in the world which can claim self-sufficiency in energy. The government plans to replace all this with an oil company which will not simply search for reserves and increase Canada's present output, but it will be a tool of the government which will be motivated by political expediency.

This bill hits at one industry upon which so many others are based and are dependent on in our energy-geared economy. If the energy situation is to be analysed, I do not expect the government to stop there. I repeat, most countries which enjoy the highest standards of living basically depend upon the private sector to produce and distribute their resources.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the many years that I have been in this House, and as a result of viewing the trends in government, I have been in a quandary sometimes in reaching a definite conclusion regarding the motivation and the political philosophy of the party now occupying the treasury benches. It says it is a political party, and it says it is a middle-of-the-road free enterprise party, but I have seen over the years a very heavy intrusion of the hand of the state in the economy.
There is no question today that this administration is deeply imbued with the spirit of socialism. It has participated in a number of industries. As a matter of fact, with the development of the Canada Development Corporation the government seeks to enter into many facets of industry, not only in this country, but through the Canada Development Corporation it seeks to spend Canadian money in participation in industries abroad. Isn't that something?
Now we come to what I consider to be an act which quietly seeks to establish a national petroleum corporation, namely, Petro-Canada. The only thing is that the government has not disclosed, either to its membership or to the people of this country, the full scope of this bill. I am sure not ten members opposite have read the objects and powers of this bill. For instance, they do not know that the bill will authorize the government to enter into the business of generation, distribution and sale of electric power beyond the power of the Northwest Territories Power Commission and the Yukon Power Commission which they have already set up. To appreciate this, hon. members have only to read clause 3 and clause 6(d). The latter subclause reads, "to produce, distribute, transport and market other fuels and energy". This is what parliament will authorize Petro-Can to do. Mr. Speaker, some time, somewhere down the road recourse will be had to this particular provision and we will all wonder what has happened. The answer will be that in 1975 parliament passed an act which permitted the government to do this.
Parliament and the people of Canada are being asked to approve the creation of a national petroleum corporation. But what is its purpose? Is it to swell the ranks of the public service of Canada? That is bound to be the first conclusion. Just watch the salary scales of the executives of a corporation of this kind. Will they fight inflation? No, they will set inflation. Has anyone looked at the salary scales of executives of Canada Development Corporation? I invite members of the NDP, who were such strong advocates of the CDC, to look at the salary scales of the executive officers. Of the 14 highest salaries, not one last year was under $27,000. The chairman and the deputy chairman made $40,000 plus, and earn more than the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
April 7, 1975


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The way in which the government sets up these corporations is ridiculous. It staffs them with people with good connections and pays them extraordinarily good salaries. What is the return to the Crown? In many instances it is less than nothing, particularly in those areas where they are competing with private enterprise. I am not saying that private enterprise is necessarily 100 per cent correct. It has many faults. But compared with state corporations and many of our Crown corporations they are paragons of efficiency and virtue. One would expect that in order to justify the establishment of this new Crown organization, this new infant Frankenstein, it would be indicated by the government- and they have failed to do so-that the Canadian populace would benefit by lower prices of petroleum products: that does not mean only stove oil, but also gasoline at the pumps and lubricating oils-the whole panopoly of petroleum products. One would expect there would be a more efficient operation of the oil and gas industry in this country. I am not saying the oil industry is 100 per cent efficient, for I dare say in areas such as marketing it could be improved. Mistakes are made in the private sector, so God only knows what blunders will be made in the public sector, and there are many classic examples already in this country and other countries.
We should have, as a third objective, a more efficient and more intensive search for oil and gas in this country, and perhaps even offshore. There has been not the slightest indication by the minister or any of his supporters that we would pay less, that the administration would be more efficient or that there would be an increase in reserves of petroleum resources as a result of this bill. Why, then, should we go through this exercise, Mr. Speaker? We must start exploring the minds of this administration. I was going to say "mind" of this administration, but I cannot discern one. We can discern the minds of people who have put together this potential industrial-I was going to say "Frankenstein", but I do not know if it would even come to life, to be capitalized out of the pockets of Canadians in competition with the demands of industry.
The schizophrenia of this administration with regard to Canadian investment is fantastic. On the one hand they exhort Canadians to invest in Canadian business and industry, but by the Income Tax Act discourage them from doing so. They give advantages to foreigners who invest in Canada, and then wonder at the results. They pass the Foreign Investment Review Act with a hypocrisy and a piety that is unbecoming in public life in Canada. Advocates of the Foreign Investment Review Act and its extension want to see Canadians invest in Canadian industry, particularly resources.
This administration set up the Canada Development Corporation, lent it money and predicted a great future for it. But what has it done, Mr. Speaker? It took the money from the public treasury, money that Canadians were taxed to provide, or from the government bonds which they bought. It entered the resource development field by buying control of Texas Gulf and Sulphur and participated in the production of copper and related minerals in northern Ontario. You might say that is participating in Canadian development, but when it bought Connaught
Petro-Canada
Laboratories that was not participating in Canadian development, nor are several of the other purchases CDC made. Then it bought some companies operating offshore.
If this government wanted to participate in and encourage development of Canadian resources, why did it set up Petro-Can? It merely had to indicate to the Canada Development Corporation that, along with private industry, it could participate in the development of the tar sands, or it could have set up parallel participation in the exploration and development of Arctic petroleum resources with Panarctic and its associates. That is a classic example, Mr. Speaker.
Why set up this corporate bloodsucker-that is all I can call it. As the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out, it will just mean hiring more stooges to carry out government directives. Who is going to be president and chief executive officer of this corporation? The minister. Who is going to be vice-president and assistant to the chief executive officer? The deputy minister. Who will be on the board of directors? Members of the cabinet.
As my colleague pointed out, clause 7 is all too clear when we see all the powers the corporation wili have. Those powers should be inscribed in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and every newspaper should publish them to show what this so-called saviour of Canada would be able to do at the time of an energy crisis. It would show that the government's gesture in presenting this bill is a mockery and that it cannot achieve its objectives. A company such as this requires more knowledge than many people have of the oil industry. It seems to many people, that if they have hooked up to a gas pump more than three times, they consider themselves experts on the oil industry. Have they gone out into the field and seen what is required to put together a lease, or what financing is required? Have they seen what is required to undertake exploration and development.
What do the government know about the training of people involved in the oil industry? What do they know about what it takes to bring oil into production and bring it to market and sell it when it has been processed further? They have not the slightest idea. What do they know of how the industry was built up, of the camps which were established and housed the men and women who participated in the search for and development of oil properties?
What do they know about the type of industry which is needed to maintain all the mechanical equipment connected with the oil industry, equipment ranging from servicing rigs to trucks? What do they know of the expertise needed for the oil industry? I dare say that when oil was discovered at Leduc No. 1 in February, 1947, not more than five welders in Canada could put together a piece of pipeline. I do not suppose there was a steel manufacturer in Canada who knew how to provide pipe for the pipeline. People in the industry had to be trained. Now we have thousands upon thousands of specialists who have come from all walks of life in Canada and who went out to the oil fields of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Of course, Saskatchewan, because of the doctrinaire nonsense which

Petro-Canada
continued during the 1940s and 1950s, threw away its great opportunity; but that is the province's problem. The people of Saskatchewan moved to Alberta in hundreds of thousands.
This government, by the introduction of two successive budgets and some pigheaded thinking, has tried to master that industry. Why? It should not have anything to do with the industry, in any way. The setting up of the proposed corporation is a further attempt by the present administration to interfere with the development and distribution of natural resources by the provinces. Frankly, I am amazed that most provinces have not risen up in arms, although some have voiced their objections. Most of them, because they do not possess oil and gas, do not find at the moment that this question is of particular concern to them. But the provisions of the May and November budgets having to do with resource royalties affect all resource development. I am astounded by the pusillanimous and supine attitude of a number of provincial administrations to the interference by the federal government in fields in which that government has no business.
We hear people talking of more Canadian participation in Canadian enterprise. Everybody wants more Canadian participation. I was going to say that the idea is in the same category as motherhood. Unfortunately, a lot of people have downgraded motherhood. A much more acceptable idea has to do with Canadian participation in Canadian industry and in Canadian resource development. That is to be the objective, the Holy Grail of all of us in Canada. That is the government's objective. How does it propose to reach it? How does the government propose to finance the corporation?
Some important talks are scheduled to take place this week. I have heard many hypotheses as to the results and I think one can foretell some of the consequences. I will not do so at this time; I will simply say that Canadians have been exhorted to participate more in Canadian business. I should like to see much more Canadian participation in the ownership of Canadian businesses. But how can Canadians do this in the face of an Income Tax Act that overtaxes? Somehow there has developed a philosophy in Canada which says that we are to show ever greater concern for certain social services and hand-outs, all of which are provided from an extremely narrow economic base.
Certainly, we like to see the less fortunate get a helping hand when they need it; we like to see the development of good, sound health services-but not at fantastically overinflated costs. We like to see good medical services but, again, not at wildly inflated costs. We want to see less injustice and more criminals rehabilitated through a much better parole system than we have now, so that we will not have the present high concentration of Canadians in our penal institutions. We want to see programs under which we can devote appropriate sums of money to our native population. We should give them a strong base and let them achieve what they want, which is not necessarily what the white man wants. Our trouble all along has been that all the thinking on behalf of native peoples has been done by the white man, who has tried to mould them to his image. That will not be the solution in future.

Under this bill, the government is trying to mould the public mind. Canadian resources shall be developed as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and his colleagues see fit. I spoke about the president and chief executive officer of the corporation. Let me refer to clause 7(2) of this bill. It says that the corporation shall accept all written instructions from the governor in council. Did any member on the government side look at clause 7(3)? It says that the budget of Petro-Canada shall be approved annually by the cabinet. Why set up a board, Mr. Speaker? Why set up a group of executive officers? The corporation might as well be run as another section of a department, with a director in charge.
I mentioned that one of the objectives of this corporation should be lower prices. The corporation is supposed to engage in the marketing, distribution and sale of petroleum products. However, it will be much like the various liquor commissions in this country which respond to pressure from cabinet, the attorney general or some other officer. Without any justification, they hike the prices of their products merely because the government requires more money-hidden taxation without representation. I do not know why in various provinces they have not blown the whistle on the way their liquor boards operate. I notice some people in this province are getting concerned about how they operate with regard to their pricing policies.
We see interference in interprovincial trade by setting up direct tariffs against products from other provinces or engaging in indirect Customs tariff barriers. We saw an example of that this past summer between Quebec and Ontario with regard to their wines and apple ciders. This happens within Canada, but it is all done without any control. The ugly monster that is being created, Petro-Canada, could behave in precisely the same way with regard to oil and gas products. It will be responsible directly to the minister and the government, but to no one else.
If one goes through this bill page by page he will find more reasons why it should not be supported by the House. Do hon. members think this corporation is required for the participation by the Government of Canada in Syncrude? Not at all. That would be something worth while and proper for the Canada Development Corporation, namely, the development of Canadian resources.
We are told this corporation is required to purchase petroleum products from abroad. We have already in existence the Canadian Commercial Corporation. It has been in existence for many years. That corporation is engaged in the purchase of petroleum products. With the allocation of a few personnel if necessary, it would respond to whatever is required-although at the moment there has been no demonstrated need for that particular characteristic or quality by the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
Nor does Canada require to purchase petroleum products through any state organization. It would be interesting to know what happened to the last and most spectacular purchase of petroleum products on behalf of this government by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), on the advice of the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Resources. What happened to the millions of barrels of oil that were purchased, while afloat, at about $30 a barrel and then never used? Where is that oil? Maybe the minister can tell us. Was it consumed? If not, what were the storage charges to be added to the cost of acquisition? If it was disposed of, what was the price of disposition? What was the sale price? What was the total loss or cost to Canadian taxpayers? What organization bore that loss, or is that some hidden expenditure well cushioned behind some fuzzy figures and vague descriptions that may appear either in an estimate or supplementary estimate? These are answers we want with regard to the operations and the background of this organization.
Notwithstanding what the House may think about this bill, if this organization should become a fact where will it get its trained personnel? Who will put that team together? With regard to what operations will they be trained? Where will they acquire the experience to bring them up to the peak of efficiency that is supposed to be their lot? How long will this take? What will be the investment in the training and development of this corporation before it becomes a reality and starts to produce for the benefit of the Canadian people?
Yesterday, over television, I heard the Premier of Saskatchewan, an old friend of mine, talk about Sask Oil, something they put together quite some time ago in their doctrinaire approach to the development of natural resources in that province. I am surprised that the people of Saskatchewan tolerate it. In the late forties or early fifties they had the classic example of a previous administration under the direction of the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Careful!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Saskatchewan lost a golden opportunity to have the first foot in the door with regard to Interprovincial Pipe Line and the disposal of its petroleum products in an eastern Canadian market that was hungry for those products and able to absorb them. How they worked at it! One had only to be there to see the blind foolishness. I agree that some profit was made by certain people, but it was not the oil industry. They now have this outfit called Sask Oil. Premier Blakeney says they are drilling the odd hole. It will be interesting to see just what they will get, and how far the people of Saskatchewan will get with that outfit in comparison with the Canadian independents that were operating in Saskatchewan. Remember, it is the Canadian independents who were chased out of Canada. Although it may be the international conglomerates which are sitting on top of the developments, the actual drilling was being done by the independent drilling companies, or at least 80 per cent of it was. All this, including the servicing and everything that went with it, has been knocked on the head.
I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be a decade at least, maybe 15 years, before the company we are being asked to establish, Petro-Canada, ever returns a penny by way of benefit to this country. In the interval, it will cost us thousands of jobs and millions of dollars as taxpayers. It will raise false hopes among certain people,
Petro-Canada
and its presence will serve to discourage those who want to get on with the business. After all, the government has much more clout in the financial markets than have the independent companies. Talk about conflict of interest, or vested interest! Here is the Government of Canada actively engaging in competition with private firms, whether Canadian or international, and deciding what the tax structure is to be. Not a penny would be paid by Petro-Canada. In any case, that company would have no income. But what about the tax penalties imposed upon the private sector?
Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will vote against this bill and kill the ignominious corporation we are being asked to set up.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has described to us in glowing terms how the introduction of Bill C-8 will "ensure for Canadians adequate and reliable supplies of energy at reasonable prices". I am not sure what the minister considers to be a reasonable price. It is a matter of relativity, I suppose, but I find it difficult to believe that $1 billion is a reasonable price. The reasonableness of this amount is even more questionable when one realizes that it will be spent to buy a service which we already possess, and a bargain at any price, even at $1 billion, is no bargain if it is something one already has.
What the bill before us will do is establish yet another Crown corporation and, worse still, an unnecessary one. The means of assuring Canada's fair share from her natural resources is available right now. The minister says the new Crown corporation will be able to "mobilize capital on an important scale." What he is really saying is that more tax dollars will be mobilized right out of our pockets. I would point out that the government, just a short time ago, invested over $300 million for a 15 per cent share in Syncrude, which was an investment into our resource development. The ability to make future investments is already an actuality. Why should the Canadian taxpayer be asked to pay $500 million to $1 billion for something he already has? I doubt that the taxpayer will be asked, though, and I doubt very much if the government would really want to hear the answer.
We are reminded that we already hold nearly a half interest in an oil company, Panarctic Oils Limited, and that for eight years this company has carried out extensive exploration operations in the north. Yet one of the reasons we are given for the creation of Petro-Canada is that we will be able to assist in oil exploration. Why does the government not concentrate on assisting the companies already in existence? Why does it not encourage private enterprise and initiative, rather than establish joint operations? Surely, companies which have been operating within the framework of government, or working jointly with government, or even in competition with government, know all too well to whose advantage such arrangements work.
The minister said that the directors "from time to time ... may judge that short-term profit maximization is not in the interest of the shareholders." The shareholders are, of course, you and I-the Canadian people. In the next breath he tells us that the capital resources will be so substantial that we should be able to expect a significant

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
role in the petroleum investment picture at a relatively early stage in its life. Do these statements not seem somewhat contradictory, Mr. Speaker? It seems the government has ensured itself of being an accurate forecaster no matter which turn events may take.
The minister speaks of those countries from which we import crude oil, and says each one has its own state oil company. I wonder how many private companies are now allowed to operate in competition with them. Also, I wonder how significantly the people in those countries have benefited from state ownership of the industry. Why should we buy with our tax dollars, even at the minister's so-called reasonable price tag of $1 billion, something we already have in our possession? I do not understand this logic and I would be grateful if the minister could explain it to me. Am I the only member in this House to whom this kind of logic is completely illogical?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Peter Elzinga: Is there any logic in paying out three times the value of a service one already enjoys? Is there any logic in establishing an unnecessary Crown corporation? Is there any logic in creating yet more bureaucracy? Are tax dollars so abundant that we have one billion of them to waste? I think not.
The minister went on to say that his "emphasis on long-term planning is deliberate and necessary". What a lovely ring that phrase "long-term planning" has to it. Nevertheless, the ring sounds rather hollow when the hon. gentleman goes on to assure us that the petroleum venture will be undertaken in the "full realization that hazards and uncertainties await us". Does the government really plan, in the long term, to embark on a venture which is fraught with risk and uncertainty? It sounds very much as though this is the case, bearing in mind that these are the words of the minister himself, presumably the most knowledgeable person in the field of energy, mines and resources. When I hear about long-term planning filled with hazards and uncertainty, I am not very confident about the outcome of that planning. It seems reasonable to assume that long-term planning should have a much more solid base than risk and uncertainty.
I must say I was impressed by the candour of the minister when he warned us that the establishment of a national petroleum company would not likely lead to early and spectacular results in terms of energy development and financial success. It occurs to me that for a billion dollars or more we might have been allowed a few such illusions. After telling us why the change in domestic and international energy affairs made it necessary for the federal government to get into the act, the minister went on to laud private companies. It did not mean, he said, that the government finds that Canada has not been well served by private enterprise in the petroleum industry. To use his words, private companies "have generally worked vigorously to develop our oil and gas resources, to create transportation systems for them and to refine and distribute oil products efficiently." The privately-owned Canadian oil industry, he added, has a good record of technical and managerial innovation.

If the minister truly believes that private industry has done such a first rate job, why does he feel it necessary now for the government to step in and create another Crown company? Does he really feel that such a corporation can improve on this good record of technical and managerial innovation? The minister says that the government does not feel assured that the private sector can be relied upon to mobilize all the enormous amounts of capital which will be required to secure energy development for long-term Canadian needs. May I ask why he feels that private enterprise cannot be relied upon to do so, especially having given us his glowing account of its past achievements?
When the minister tells us that he believes the majority of Canadians will derive a great sense of pride, satisfaction and confidence in owning a portion of this Canadian industry, is he saying that Canadians prefer to have their industry owned by the government rather than by private enterprise? Is he saying that the Canadian people prefer public ownership? I think he is taking an awful lot for granted if that is how he interprets the preference of the citizens of this country.
The minister should ask the people of Saskatchewan how much pride and confidence they felt when the provincial government took over so much of the industry, with such disastrous results. The losses ran to millions and millions of dollars and these industries either had to be abandoned or turned back to private enterprise in order to make them viable. In the meantime, new industries bypassed Saskatchewan and established themselves elsewhere, unemployment increased and taxes were raised. An exodus of residents of the province then ensued. I would doubt that the people of Saskatchewan felt much satisfaction in that debacle.
If the government wants to get into the role of businessman, it should look closely at its record, past and present. I suggest it is less than efficient in that role. A number of instances of that inefficiency have been pointed out by other members, and if one needed some pretty concrete evidence of the government's success as an employer, one would only have to listen to some of the many hundreds of government employees who have been striking, who are striking and who will be striking. We need only look in our own front yard during the last few weeks to see some concrete evidence of the discontent of many thousands of government employees. They have been right outside the House telling us in a most visible way that their wages did not compare to those being paid to employees in similar job situations in the private sector of the business world.
Of course we want as high an employment rate as possible, with stable prices and little regional disparity in income and living conditions. However, when the government does take a direct stand in the production and distribution of goods and services, the track record is not very glowing. All we need do is take a look at the postal department today. How can the government explain away facts like Air Canada suffering heavy losses while CP Air makes a profit and provides better service on a more restricted budget? Government-operated enterprises have not been renowned for their efficiency, either by way of profits or by way of services. Is it the intention of the
April 7, 1975

government to destroy personal initiative? If so, it is certainly going about it in a most effective way.
Let us not forget that this country was built on personal initiative and enterprise, hand in hand with imagination and hard work. The minister himself says that this is no time to be short-sighted or timid. There is nothing shortsighted or timid about our ancestors who pioneered this country. If we discourage the spirit of adventure and sap the imagination of our people, what will we be left with? A lethargic, indolent public sitting around waiting for the hand-outs from Big Daddy on the Hill. Does this government want to become involved in every aspect of Canadian life? Is this the kind of society that we really want to create? I do not believe it is, but this Liberal administration is attempting to create such a society.


An hon. Member:: A lot of people in this country do not think so.


Peter Elzinga: That is because they were somewhat deceived by people on the other side of this House running around the country.


An hon. Member:: Where were you running?


Peter Elzinga: Just in my own riding. There seems to be increasing government interference in the area of private industry, private enterprise, and indeed in the private lives of individuals in this country. It is becoming increasingly clear that the direction this government is taking is toward massive central control. Canadians have the right to know of the erosion of their personal freedoms in business and in their private lives. If it is the intention of the present government to take away the self-determination of the individual and small businessman, then let it so declare this intention and stop sneaking its socialism in through the back door.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)- Administration of Justice-Dredging contracts at Hamilton-Possible consultations with minister pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of justice act; the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External	Affairs-
Government policy on assisting adult refugees from Viet Nam; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)- Environmental Affairs-Alberta decision to allow increased emissions of sulphur dioxide from Syncrude plant.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on
Pensions
today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think there will be some agreement to proceeding to notice of motion No. 31 standing in he name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to proceed with notice of motion No. 31, appearing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West, and to stand all other notices of motions preceding motion No. 31 on the notice paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of removing all limitations and restrictions whatsoever on the entitlement and payment of pensions, superannuation or retirement allowances of whatever kind to retired members of the Canadian Defence Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Senators and Members of Parliament when any such person so entitled enters into the service of the government, whether by way of the Public Service Commission, or by appointment by the federal authority to any Commission, Board or other body or to the Judiciary of Canada or in any other manner.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their unanimous consent. I merely intend to raise this matter and to speak very briefly. I think it is understood that by agreement a reply will be given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) and that the motion will then be withdrawn.
I might say it gives me a great deal of satisfaction at this moment to see incorporated the pith and substance of my motion in a bill which is now on the order paper. I refer to Bill C-52. Of course, we all hope and pray that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), as government House leader, will see to it that the bill is referred to this House for second reading and then sent to the appropriate committee for consideration.
This involves many more important aspects than just the subject matter of my motion, and I am sure hon. members will readily agree when they consider the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and a number of provisions of other superannuation acts which deal with equality as between male and female employees. I am sure they will readily agree as well that this will restore some sanity and a more equitable level to the positions of people who have been drawing pensions having served in

Pensions
the armed forces, the RCMP, as well as in the House of Commons or in the Senate, particularly as this relates to future service in the employment of the government of Canada.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have a question to ask him with his permission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Once I have concluded my remarks which will be very short.

Let me say for the record that this motion has been considered on a number of occasions in the House. The subject matter was considered by the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which made recommendations to this House in a unanimous report that was accepted in principle by the government.
Let me refer hon. members to Bill C-52 in so far as it concerns this House. If they will look at clause 91 at page 77, where sections 31 and 33 of the Senate and House of Commons Act are withdrawn, they will note that this will generally cover the problem I have spoken of as it affects this House.
There are only one or two additional things I should like to say about this motion. What the motion proposes is that individuals who have served as members of this House will be able to continue their contributions to the service of Canada without their retirement pensions being impaired in any way. I might add that this will work in the opposite direction in so far as former members of the public service serving in this House are concerned.
Pension matters are very important in today's social context, and it seems to me totally unjust that a member of the public service of Canada, the armed forces, the RCMP, or the public service of a province or perhaps even a municipality, having served 10 or 15 years during which time he acquired a vested pension interest, should not be able to enter this House and merge his pensionable service and entitlement with any entitlement he may earn in this House.
We know that under the pension scheme regulations in this House one has to participate in at least two election campaigns and serve a minimum of six years. What happens to an individual who goes out at the end of four years? All that would happen if we adopted the principle of this motion is that his service, for example, in a provincial government, of 15 years would be combined with his four years in this House so that he could retire with a pension based on the total 19 years. After all, that individual had served in the public service for a total of 19 years so why not give him a pension entitlement based on that length of service? The same thing would apply in respect of service in the armed forces.
I do not see why a man who has served for 20 years in the public service cannot bring that service and his pension entitlement to the House of Commons. The same should apply to an individual who is elected to this House and either voluntarily or involuntarily retires from this place and takes up pensionable employment in the public service of Canada. He should be entitled to add his service years here in the House to his years of public service

whether in the service of the government of Canada or of a province. I do not see any difficulty in that regard.
A member of the armed forces can join the public service of Canada and have his armed forces service added to his pensionable service time providing he makes an appropriate election and certain adjustments to contributions are carried out. That individual can then carry on with his pension scheme as though he had always been employed in the public service of Canada.
We saw a breakthrough some years ago which allowed individuals in the public service of Canada to carry their pension entitlements to provincial public service, and vice-versa, providing special adjustments were effected. Why should those at the elective level not be allowed to participate in this portability of pension entitlement? These people have earned the entitlement and should not be placed in a second class category.
What I have outlined in respect of my motion and Bill C-52 should apply to persons in the House of Commons and the Senate who might move back and forth between various public service areas with portable pension entitlements. On the basis of what I have said, and subject to the remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary, I would be prepared to withdraw my motion.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks of the hon. member I should like to direct a question to him, and I relate my question specifically to his comments during the debate on Bill C-8. At that time he referred to the fees contemplated for directors of that company as exorbitant. In the event that he was appointed to that Crown corporation would he be ready to accept the exorbitant fee and the pension from this place to which he would be entitled?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I was not referring specifically to directors' fees. I said that they would be executive officers comparable to those levels in the public service of Canada with very generous salaries. The parliamentary secretary should not try to distort my words. His memory may be faulty-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: He is a private member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the game of musical chairs that takes place over there, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I thought that the hon. member was about to be deposited on the floor, or had been deposited there. The way this government operates there would be much more likelihood of the hon. member being appointed to the positions in question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sure he would want to be in the position to take with him whatever pension entitlement he may have earned here. If the hon. member should happen to be named to the bench, as hon. members have been from both sides of the House, there is no reason why he should not take with him whatever pension entitlement he has contributed to and earned here. At the moment his estate can collect a contribution, and that is about all. I think this is total nonsense.
April 7, 1975


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that a motion in similar terms was put forward by the hon. member last year and, as a result of it or of the discussion in the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, that motion having been passed by House and sent to the committee, the government has brought forward Bill C-52 which will be discussed in due course. I think some of the problems and suggestions raised by the hon. member will be discussed in further detail, and perhaps even within a legislative framework which might see this matter come forward in law at a later date.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I now seek consent of the House to withdraw the motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) have unanimous consent to withdraw his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Usually at this point the suggestion is made that we call it six o'clock and I suspect that suggestion will be forthcoming and will probably be agreed to once more. I simply make the point that we have done this three or four times during this session by agreement, but one thing that happens is we find ourselves using up the 40 hours we are allowed on Mondays and Tuesdays for private members' business. I would suggest, since we may now be rising at 5.15 p.m., that this day not count as the 29th hour under the rule under which we have these private members' hours on Mondays and Tuesdays. There has been some discussion about this and I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find there is agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion just made. Is it agreed by unanimous consent that this hour not be counted in the 40 hours allotted to private members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it also agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, in part, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Petro-Canada


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
The order had been given to the Alberta minister, I understand, 20 minutes before the end of the meeting. I asked the minister another question:
Did the minister attempt to meet with the Premier of Alberta on his recent visit to Alberta?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I did see a report on the morning that I flew to Calgary to see the industry that the premier expected to see me. That report in the Globe and Mail turned out to be a mistake.
I suggest that the only mistake made is in having this minister as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a crucial period of time. There has not been one instance since he has taken office in which action has been taken in the best interests of Canada.
We all remember the situation, some 18 months ago, when the minister was making preparation and exciting all Canadians with the prediction that there was going to be an energy crisis. Just six months later the minister realized that the energy crisis which he had predicted had not come about. Last spring a year ago there was more oil in the pipelines in Canada than there had been for some time, and the ships then at sea were travelling a slow pace because there was no place for them to unload their oil.
In view of what I said I suggest that the minister has made a series of mistakes and is continuing to make them primarily by trying to establish another Crown corporation. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out to the minister in no unequivocal terms that Crown corporations have not worked for the best interests of Canadians to any marked degree. Consider, for instance, CBC which had a deficit of $200 million in 1972, whereas, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe stated, at the same time three national networks in the United States accumulated profits amounting to the same figure. Let us consider also Air Canada as against CP Air. It was Air Canada that wanted a 10 per cent increase in rates, not CP Air. In view of these facts we cannot agree that Crown corporations are the answer to our problems because it has been proven, time and time again, that this is not the case.
I would like to quote from the 1973 Canada Year Book as follows:
Alberta is Canada's major oil producer-
Incidentally, in case some hon. members do not realize that, let me point out that the reason why we from Alberta are very concerned about Petro-Canada is that the oil industry in Alberta is of the utmost importance to our economic well-being.
-as reflected in the steady increase of its share of the national output which has climbed from 69 per cent in 1967 to 75 per cent in 1971. Production could be even greater since the developed fields are now being operated below capacity. At present production rates, proven economic reserves of oil total about 20 years' supply. Current exploration in Alberta is at a moderate level with new field exploration awaiting the outcome of economic and environmental studies on new sources of oil above the Arctic Circle.
Alberta's total minerals output in 1971 was valued at $1,640 million of which fuels accounted for $1,575 million; one third of the remainder was fuel by-product sulphur and two thirds was structural materials-
In a report by the president of Imperial Oil in March of this year the following statement is to be found:
Because of reduced cash flow, the petroleum industry generally is having to cut back on its program and will not be able to meet

Canada's petroleum requirements. Canada is approaching a position where it will import more oil than it produces; with a negative effect on the country's balance of payments of several billion dollars a year. To be self-sufficient in the late 1980s will require expenditures of some $50 billion in the next ten years.
The point is that within two years we find ourselves facing a potential shortage, and perhaps by 1980 we will even be a net importer of oil because of the action of the federal government. The government should not get into areas where it has no business, and where it has neither the technical knowledge nor the ability to make the best use of the reserves.
I should like to read from Nickle's Daily Oil Bulletin for March 19, 1975, which has this to say:
Nabors Drilling Ltd., Calgary-based oilwell drilling contractor, reported that it has a rig moving out of southern Alberta. Like numerous other firms operating drilling equipment in Canada, this company is closely watching developments on both sides of the 49th parallel and will make ensuing decisions on the basis of forthcoming events. Nabors has now plans to move additional rigs out of Canada.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that his new budget was going to prevent this, it would seem that either he or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will have to reconsider his plans in order to maintain or increase exploration for oil in Canada. This is where the problem is, Mr. Speaker.
When the report to which I referred in the Canada Year Book of 1973 was made there was no doubt that at that time it was contemplated that exploration would continue. Under the policies of this government and this disaster minister, however, the situation has changed and we find that supplies will be inadequate in the foreseeable future. It is not difficult to see what will happen to Canada when this comes about. At the present time we are the only country in the industrial world that is self-sufficient in energy, but still our balance of payments is approximately $4 billion in deficit. What will be the position if we find that we have to import several billion dollars worth of oil every year? This is the course on which this disaster minister is leading us.
A bill to establish an oil company is not going to increase proven reserves. The oil is all there now and what is needed is a government that will allow exploration to take place and will ensure that supplies are available when they are needed.
I should like to quote from a brief which was presented to the National Energy Board by the Canadian Petroleum Association on February 6 this year. This brief states in
part:
The underpricing of natural gas in relation to other fuel has been basically responsible for the disproportionate growth in demand for this fuel over the past half dozen years, compared with other types of
energy.
Underpricing and an excessively high government share of the take have a depressing effect on exploration and development activity and thus lead to shortages. Increased supplies of gas may be needed in a year or two, because at current rates of growth in Canadian demand, shortages could develop that quickly. The CPA recommended that when the National Energy Board attempts to predict how much natural gas will be available to Canadians, the board should allow for the fact that higher prices will encourage oil companies to find and develop more gas and to produce more from fields already discovered. Conversely, at current price levels, large volumes of gas may remain
April 7, 1975

undiscovered and some of the reserves now known may remain in the ground, since they are beyond economic reach at present low net-back prices to the producer.
This development has not taken place, Mr. Speaker. Canada could do a great deal more to help in the exploration and development of this natural resource which is so vital to us now.
Today I asked the minister the cost of the government's publicity program to encourage the conservation of this natural resource in the last month, and he replied that it ran something over $700,000. I am still not sure what the government intended. I certainly would like to know why we spend $700,000 to tell people to conserve this natural resource when the price continues to rise. They do not need to be told. Would it not be better to spend the $700,000 on research facilities and try to make better use of the gas and oil that we have? I do not know the purpose behind this publicity campaign which ran in 44 Ontario papers and 14 papers in Quebec. I understand that approximately six million people live in Quebec and seven and a half million in Ontario-perhaps it is harder to get through to people in Ontario. The minister should explain what he expects to accomplish by this campaign. People are already conserving energy and the government is not using this money to the best advantage.
One of the departments of government has a "Why Not" campaign running at the present time, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should run a "Why?" campaign. Why do we need Petro-Can? Why not get into those areas that call for research and development? The manager of Syncrude has stated that the basic problem is that we do not have the technical ability to develop Syncrude. Surely the government could get involved here and assist in the training of people in the required skills.
What does the minister know about going out and getting leases in order to be able to drill for gas or oil? Will he have a large group of individuals moving about the country trying to get leases that have already been taken up by oil companies? Is he going to try to get seismic crews to go out and search for oil? Is he going to get oil rigs to drill in the areas to which the seismic crews point? Is he going to hire crews to develop sites for drilling, and is he going to have crews go in afterwards to level them off when they are dry holes? The minister should realize what he is getting into in establishing Petro-Can. I think he is making a great mistake in contemplating this because there are so many other areas where the government could serve a useful purpose, such as researching methods of extracting the conventional and non-conventional oil that we have.
Certainly, we are encountering problems in the extraction of oil from the tar sands. Syncrude faces difficulties. We possess tremendous amounts of oil in the tar sands and must devise an adequate technology for extracting it. The same is true of conventional oil. I am told that in some instances only 30 per cent of available oil has been redeemed. So, Mr. Speaker, the government can play a useful role in many ways. It can devise new methods of developing Canada's oil resources. I suggest it is a national disgrace when the Minister of Energy, Mines and
_	Petro-Canada
Resources leads us on a crash course which will have disastrous consequences for all Canadians.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty in understanding Bill C-8. In no way can I support it. I rise tonight to express my deep concern about
it.
When incentives cannot induce private industry to do the sort of job we want done in this field then I agree the state must move in and create a Crown corporation which will do the job. But this is not the case in Canada, particularly not in the industry we are discussing. The minister himself admitted that the industry has shown great ingenuity and ability in exploration and development. The government itself, by passing a series of taxation measures, has removed the decision-making base from private industry and interfered with incentives which make for a healthy industry and which were responsible for our resource development and energy reserves.
Considering the way the government has behaved since 1968, what can you expect but chaos, especially as free enterprise is hampered in its decision-making processes? This, of course, is the true cause of Canada's energy crisis. Federal confrontation with resource provinces, the imposition of socialist dogmas on our taxation laws and base, the changing of rules in mid-stream, and the removal of incentives from the private sector have made it all but impossible for private industry to meet the exploration and resource development needs of this great country. In addition, the government's refusal to act responsibly in the face of inflation in Canada has had this effect: it has confiscated private savings and capital to the point where there is no investor confidence. This applies to domestic as well as to foreign capital markets.
The government has made it all but impossible for our people to generate capital with which Canadians can develop and own a fair share of their own resource industry. Mr. Speaker, the government in Canada receives some 55 per cent of all after expense revenue, before a Canadian corporation can generate one dollar of new capital. I doubt if there is any other country in which capital is as expensive to develop as in Canada.
When a Canadian industry wants to sell its goods in Canada we protect it with tariffs. At the same time the government makes the creation of a dollar of new capital in Canada a very expensive process. So expensive is new capital that industries which need risk capital for resource exploration and development find it difficult to get Canadian capital. The government has discouraged taxpayers from risking these precious, expensive, new dollars of capital generated in Canada.
I ask the minister to compare the cost of drilling a hole in Canada when the capital used in the process is owned in the United States with the cost of drilling a similar hole, undertaken at a similar risk, when the capital used in the process is owned in Canada. No wonder 90 per cent of energy resources in Canada are owned by foreigners. Where is the sense in present government policies, considering that between now and the end of the century we must develop our potential for energy self-sufficiency?'


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is absolutely correct.

Petro-Canada


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will ask the minister to look at the cost of creating a dollar of capital in Canada, then compare that cost with the cost of creating a dollar of new capital in the United States, in Switzerland, in Hong Kong and the Caribbean where, as the government knows, there is a tax shelter.
We protect our eastern Canadian industries with tariffs, but do not protect our home grown capital from lower cost capital generated abroad. It is small wonder that we have such a high percentage of foreign ownership in our resource industries.
The government knows the cost of generating capital in the areas I mentioned. It knows about tax shelters in the Caribbean. The Canadian Development Corporation, which took over Texas Gulf, knows about them as well. Once the CDC acquired a controlling interest in Texas Gulf, a foreign company, what did it do? It transferred ownership off-shore, to a Dutch holding company operating in a tax haven in the Caribbean. The government knows how the international capital creation mechanism works. It knows how capital, at reduced cost, can be created. Why does it not apply its knowledge to our tax laws in Canada so that we can reduce the cost of creating new capital and thus enable Canadians to participate more fully in the ownership of this country's industries?
I point to what Polymer Corporation, another CDC-owned corporation, has done. Working through an offshore trading company it transfers profits made in Canada off-shore; it pays a tax rate of between 7 per cent and 8 per cent in Switzerland, as opposed to the rate of 55 per cent it would need to pay in Canada. The company knows, of course, that if it did not pay the tax in Canada, the debt would be deferred.
I conclude that, as the government is possessed of this knowledge, its interference with the decision-making process of Canadian industry is deliberate. Therefore Bill C-8 is but one more step along the way to state capitalism in Canada.
Do we really understand what is a dollar of new capital? It is the residual of income, after you have paid all expenses and taxes. The government has access to a revenue trough slopping over with dollars. If it needs more, the printing presses print more. How can the private sector compete with that kind of resource money? It is impossible.
What does a dollar of after tax profit cost a taxpaying corporation in Canada? May I remind you that the Government of Canada has first call on the net income of any taxpaying private corporation in Canada. How can private industry compete with Petro-Can? How can it compete with the type of buck the Canadian government has for the development of resources?
One hears much talk of public ownership and public equity in an enterprise. Perhaps one could justify such equity in a company like Petro-Canada or the CDC if the equity capital were created from federal budgetary surpluses. If the government created capital that way it would have to budget for its expenditures; in addition, it would need to budget for a surplus. It would need, above all, to be honest with Canadian taxpayers, but I guess that is too much to ask.

If the government had to acquire its capital from budgetary surpluses it would need to show some respect for its tax dollars and for the tax burden it has placed on the shoulders of the work force of Canada. The ministers and their mandarins would have to be frugal enough to protect their budgetary surpluses in order to be able to invest in a capital project such as Petro-Can. There would then be an incentive for the government sector to create capital, to budget for surpluses, to be careful with tax money, and to be careful with the purchasing power of it, instead of the sickening situation we have at present. There would be an incentive for the departments of government to be productive, creative, and to participate in private capital programs with the incentive sector of the country. Most important, there would be an incentive for the government to have some respect for the taxpayer.
Foreign ownership, with all its emotional problems and excuses for more and more confusing legislation, could be corrected if we amended our tax laws and started once again to encourage Canadians to save and invest in their own resources and industries. All this confusion over foreign industry is caused by our lack of understanding as to what a dollar of capital truly is, how important it is, the risk nature of it, its creation, and the fact that it has to be competitive with other industrialized nations of the world where it is also being generated.
The most mixed up, disastrous, social dogma to be imposed on Canada yet is the syndrome that a buck is a buck is a buck. Only people who have never earned or saved a dollar of after tax income could agree with such nonsense. The fact is that a buck is a buck is not a buck when you are dealing in dollars of capital. A buck of capital is too hard to get and too precious to risk in Canada without offsetting incentives.
Since 1968 we have somehow or other removed from the Canadian scene those offsetting incentives and created the dilemma in which we find ourselves today. With a realistic knowledge of the facts that motivate men, this bill, along with many others, would not be necessary. In fact I categorically say it is not necessary.
I wish to reply to some of the reasons the minister gave for this infamous Petro-Can bill. In his speech at second reading the minister admitted that the privately owned oil industry has a good record of technical and management innovation. The incentive system has a habit of creating good records. Why has it been removed? Why has a climate been created where only something with state money can survive? I cannot foresee this solving the needs from now to the year 2000. I cannot see it solving the needs of the energy crisis we will have in the next eight years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The minister said he was concerned about the future. He believes that a significant degree of federal public enterprise is needed. I again ask, why is it needed? It is needed because the tax legislation has destroyed the decision-making bases of the country. It has created complete confusion in the private sector. It has removed the incentives that make a man tick, make him
April 7, 1975_______________COMMONS DEBATES________________________4577
innovative and make him take risks. There is no longer any motivation.
Dealing with federal public enterprise may I take a few minutes to enumerate how this drift to state capital has worked so well for the government. At the opening of this debate the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) drew to the attention of the House the national finance report of 1974-75 which lists the performance of all the Crown corporations of Canada. At the end of 1974, they had borrowed some $13.8 billion from the public trough.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I will not bore you with too much of it. You are the only one over there who has read it.
They will have returned, but not to the public trough, on balance sheets some $1 billion in earnings by the end of 1975. The deficit list grows and grows because there is no incentive for those corporations to perform. If they make a mistake, there is more in the trough. They roll over their borrowings. They do not pay them back. They work at the government cost of money, not the cost of money with which free enterprise has to work. They do not return taxes to the federal treasury as they say they do. They just defer tax. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars deferred.
The crowning one is this beautiful portfolio, Air Canada. Air Canada people cry and complain about the cost of their capital, and they borrow money that they never pay back. They just roll it over. They buy it at the cost to the Canadian government. The cost goes down to 3.9 per cent. The highest they paid on a little bit was 7.6 per cent, yet they cry about this interest burden on their operation.
Air Canada came out with a statement that I thought showed it would be $9 million in the hole. In actual fact, by the end of this year they will have reduced their retained earnings by $9 million. In addition, another $9 million will be lost by reducing their deferred income tax. They will have lost $18 million even though they have a monopoly with the cheapest sources of capital in the world. They cannot even perform at a profit or compete with anybody else in the incentive sector of this so-called industrialized nation. We are creating something that will be bigger than Air Canada. It will be more wasteful.
What we are doing with this Petro-Can bill is building political bases with performance disasters. No one in this House can believe that Petro-Can will be any different. I wonder who the new mandarin heading it will be?
I will move on to the minister's next point. He is worried about dealing with overseas states. He thinks we now have to deal on a state to state basis. What are the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs for, Mr. Speaker? Why do we have trade commissioners offshore? We used to have, and probably still have a service that is respected by trading nations all over the world. Now we need something else. Why? The minister worries about security of supply. He feels this Petro-Can bill will ensure our supply from offshore nations. Just remember the last oil purchase in which the government got involved.
Petro-Canada
What really got me is the minister's statement that the majority of Canadians want a broadening of Canadian ownership and thus this Petro-Can bill. When I look at the performance of Canadian ownership and all these other Crown corporations alongside ownership where the capital was expensive, tax paid and the performance by incentive, I cannot understand how the Canadian people got into this opiate state. Canadian people want tax laws that give them an incentive to save, own, compete and have something worthwhile that they have done on their own for their old age. That is how we should be legislating.
Also in Petro-Can I notice we have got a new school opening. He finds it very exciting that we are going to be training the native people for the industry in the north. Mr. Speaker, may I ask you where the Department of Manpower has been with all its training programs? Where has the Department of Indian Affairs been with its knowledge of this problem and its so-called inter-ministerial relationship with the Department of Manpower? More duplication. Do we really need it? Why do not the departments which were first created for these purposes function properly?
The minister also advises us that there is to be a corporate business framework subject to basic disciplines, with an operating statement and a balance sheet. I will show you another one, Mr. Speaker, and I bet you Petro-Can will not even duplicate this one. The minister cannot stand short term profit maximizing. He says short term profit maximizing under the petroleum industry is not in the best interests of this country. I am not a great admirer of large capital organizations because I think some of them are as bad as state run organizations, if not worse. However, I have taken account of the billions of dollars which the oil industry in Canada, even granted the extent of its foreign ownership, has invested for the future in exploration and in attempts to expand the known reserves of energy in this country. This work stopped as a result of legislation given to this country by the government across the way.
The minister also stated he wanted a vehicle to mobilize capital. The initial capital is to be $500 million. Where is it to come from? It is to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that great trough. But it is this $500 million which will provide the vehicle for borrowing a billion dollars. From whom, for what? The money press? Tax reform would make all this unnecessary if there was any understanding of how the incentive sector works and the motivation that any system needs if it is to solve the problems and crises we shall be facing tomorrow.
Another suggestion I would like to put forward to the minister is in the area of the capital needs we shall be facing between now and the end of the century. I am sure this suggestion has been made to him by some of the members in this party before now. It is to increase the velocity of the use of capital in this expensive northern development, as has been done in the case of the North Sea development. I might say that countries almost as socialized as this one have seen fit to allow 170 per cent return of original capital before taxation and have seen fit to give further blocks of the resource to extractive organizations so that they, with their knowledge and technology, and

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
their people and men, can go ahead and perform these expensive risk projects with some sanity and with a minimum of waste.
Why are we not moving in these proven areas of known business technique instead of this circus of Petro-Can? The minister points out that the investment required is large and beyond the capability of any single corporation to provide. That can be resolved by increasing the velocity of use of capital and giving incentives to Canadians to save and create capital for our needs. All we are going to get from a state capital organization is inefficiency. There is no motivation for success within it. A buck is not a buck when it comes to this type of need and activity in Canada.
If the government were to move in harmony and partnership with the incentive sector, if it would combine its cheap buck of capital with the talent and initiative of those who react to incentives. Then we would start to make progress in this country, then we would start to own our own resources. The government itself, through the defects inherent in its own organization, is doomed to failure as the performance of these 131-odd Crown corporations shows.
The minister says he wants to participate in exploration, development and research. I agree. But do we not already possess in-depth organizations capable of this? Why should there be more duplication?
He claims that the public company can import at lower cost than can a private concern. We have seen no example of this to date and I doubt very much that we shall encounter one in the future. The track record of Crown corporations and government bureaucracy just does not support the minister's dream.
He worries about the extent of foreign ownership of our resource industries, now standing at 90 per cent. No wonder this is the case. We have never in Canada had tax laws which allowed us to generate capital competitively with other countries. And here is the greatest sin against the Canadian people. Let us give incentives to Canadians, not to foreigners. We continue to allow the import of low-cost capital from Hong Kong, Switzerland and the Arab countries. How can we ever compete when it costs about 50 cents out of every dollar to create a private dollar of capital in Canada?
The Petro-Can bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is just another move by the government toward state capitalism. The powers in this bill are too broad. With some people you just have to tell them what you are going to say and then as you are closing you have to remind them again of what you said. The powers in the bill are too broad to be justified by the reasons given by the minister. The track record of state-owned Crown corporations working without incentives give us no hope that Petro-Can can be anything but just another Liberal barrel. Not an oil barrel, Mr. Speaker-a big pork barrel.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: The basic objection one has to take to Bill C-8 is that it is a fraud, Mr. Speaker. It does not do what it purports to do. It does not achieve the goals which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), when introducing the bill, suggested would take a long time to become evident. It does not do those things, but it does do a number of things

which are not listed among its purposes and which have, indeed, been denied from time to time by spokesmen on the government side.
It is clearly going to change, without any cause, the relationship between the private and the public sector in the country; it is going to change the climate which exists in the petroleum exploration industry, and it is going to change this relationship for the worse. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill which fails to do those things which it is purported to do and, indeed, is a cover for smuggling in an influence which has the potential of doing serious harm to the Canadian economy and to Canadian society.
When the minister was introducing this bill on March 12 he went through an extensive effort to explain to us all why it was necessary for Canada now to approve this new bill to set up the Petro-Canada Corporation. At one point he said, and I quote him in the direct language he used:
The government does not feel assured that the private sector can be relied upon to mobilize all the enormous amounts of capital which will be required to secure energy development consonant with Canadian needs over the longer term.
In other words, he thinks that over time the private sector is going to turn out to be money short. So what does he do about that? He sets up a corporation to be funded at $500 million. I remind the House that this sum is roughly half of what the government spent last year, and proposes to spend, on consultant fees. Proposing to compete with a money-short private sector, the minister intends to set up a Crown corporation which is to have operating capital amounting to only half of what the government now spends on supplementing its own public service by employing consultant services.
The minister went on, trying to find a second reason he could offer us. He raised a further concern, and again I quote him:
Nor can it be certain that faced with attractive investment opportunities and geological opportunities abroad the private oil industry will be able to concentrate as much effort on our own petroleum prospective areas over the next decade as our needs require.
Now that raises two kinds of spectre, Mr. Speaker. One, of course, is that it creates the implication that Petro-Can, which we are funding and which the Government of Canada will be required to fund from now on into the future, will keep looking for oil and will keep spending Canadian money in the search for oil after it is no longer profitable to do so. Perhaps we could spend that money better by procuring supplies from elsewhere in the world. Clearly this implication is in the justification offered by the minister, and it causes concern for everyone, whatever be their view as to private sector involvement, that public money should not be spent foolishly.
0 (2050)
The other aspect that is alarming here is the reference of the minister to the possibility that the private sector will have to pull out of the search for oil and production of energy. The fear expressed by many members here, one that is enhanced by and continued on the back of this particular bill, is that the private sector will not pull out voluntarily but instead will be forced out.
It is clear to anyone who has watched the events in this country unfold relative to the energy question in the last
April 7, 1975

few years, and particularly within the last two years, that a great climate of uncertainty has been created, first by . the failure to reform the tax laws and build in incentives, secondly by the invasion of previously held provincial jurisdictions by the federal government through its export tax, and finally by the continuing conflict over jurisdiction and energy related matters between governments. It is that, as much as anything, that raises some questions as to the capacity of the private sector to carry on in this field.
We also now have the personification of an interventionist philosophy in the Petro-Canada bill. This is one more piece of evidence causing fear and uncertainty in the private sector, one that causes people and companies that have spent a great deal of time and money developing Canada's energy potential to look elsewhere. In addition to that, whenever a Crown corporation in this country is established the prospect of unfair competition is raised, and this must be considered and gauged by the private sector.
The minister also indicated that this new Crown corporation was necessary in order to purchase from abroad. As several members on this side of the House and elsewhere have pointed out, the government does not need this Crown corporation, this fraud of an act, to achieve that capacity because it already has it in the Department of Supply and Services, that great department that is so expert at buying expensive oil and recruiting Koreans. It might not be very intelligently applied, but nevertheless that capacity is there. It is simply unnecessary duplication to use this requirement of capacity as an attempt to justify this fraud of an act.
Then the minister said this:
The national petroleum company may also be able to play an important role in regional development.
I suppose that means that in future Petro-Can will be drilling by the DREE principle. In other words, perhaps it will abandon geological considerations in determining where to drill, and will go into areas of high unemployment or where there are a lot of Liberals. The fear that most of us have when we look at the prospect of drilling by the DREE principle is that most of the activity will be in Montreal or Rosedale.
Another of the major justifications that the minister offered for Canada having a national petroleum company, and for passing this bill, is this: the minister said, as reported at page 4038 of Hansard:
It is a striking fact-
It appears that even the facts in this country are striking, Mr. Speaker.
-that every one of the dozen countries from which we import significant quantities of crude oil has its own state oil company and is progressively increasing the role of that company in relation to international transactions.
Many of those other countries also have vast expanses of sand or tropical forest. Is that any reason for Canada suddenly to create a Crown corporation to become engaged in the creation of vast expanses of sand, or in any way to duplicate corporations in other countries? It is simply a silly proposition for the minister to suggest that Canada has to have a state petroleum corporation because
Petro-Canada
other countries have one. That is the height of silliness, yet it is clearly one of the justifications offered by the minister in his opening remarks.
A final justification offered by the minister, as well as by some of his colleagues, is that we have a mixed economy. We have a tradition of public and private corporations, and public and private participation. Of course we have. That is a tradition of which I am personally proud, and which distinguishes this country. But I do not believe that the reason we have a mixed economy now is any justification to mix it up some more simply for the limited purpose of mixing it up.
We need a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a state corporation. The justification for the creation of the CBC was not that we had a mixed economy situation; the justification was that we needed a state broadcasting agency. There is no such need here. It is fatuous for the minister and his supporters to suggest that simply because the state has acted in areas where it is necessary for it to be active, it also has to be active in fields where there is no requirement at all for it to be active-a field such as this.
In all of his justifications-and perhaps we will hear some more tonight-the minister has been unable to explain the basic question that is posed about this bill, which is: why do we need it? Why do we need Petro-Can? Either he cannot explain it or he will not explain it.
In my view, the real reason for this bill being put before us is the same as the reason for the raid on Alberta's jurisdiction regarding energy matters. It is the same reason that the minister's colleague is holding up the development of cable communications across this country. Quite simply, the reason is that the government wants power. If the government sees something moving in the country, it wants to get into the act, not as a mediator, not as a regulator or in the traditional way that the federal government and governments as a whole have operated, but as a controller. It wants power. It is prepared to extend its influence and its activities by intruding upon the jurisdiction of the provinces, by moving into the private sector whatever the consequences. It is preoccupied with extending its own power and influence whatever the cost. That is the real reason why we have this piece of legislation before us tonight.
In reviewing the powers that are set out for Petro-Canada in this legislation it occurred to me that the people of Canada surely do not realize how extensive a carte blanche they are giving this Crown corporation in the bill before the House. It is a fact that most Canadians do not read clause by clause the majority of the bills that are put before the House. In introducing the bill the minister said it was quite straightforward and simple, that the language was not particularly technical. That is true. But as well as being straightforward it is horrendously alarming in view of the kind of power being vested in this particular Crown corporation. It is a corporation that is not simply answerable to the cabinet; it is more complicated than that. The fact that it is to be told by the cabinet from time to time what to do makes it even more dangerous than its not having to report back to or be controlled by this House.

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
I want to review some of the powers that are set forward for this Crown corporation, or agency of the Liberal government, that wants to extend its powers simply for the purpose of extending them. For one thing, clause 7 goes right through the alphabet from 7(1)(a) to (z), and it makes it absolutely clear that the powers of this corporation are not limited. It can do almost anything. Let me point out that 7(1)(a) states that the corporation can:
(a) carry on any other business that may seem to the Corporation capable of being conveniently carried on in connection with its business or calculated directly or indirectly to enhance the value of or render profitable any of the property or rights of the Corporation;
There is no limit at all in that. This corporation could get into the building of rickshaws, or it could operate laundries or anything at all in the country, once we embark upon the ambit of that particular piece of legislation or provision. Indeed, not only could it get into anything in this country, by another provision it could get into anything in any other country, if any other country would be so foolish as to let it do so.
There is also clause 7(l)(d) which provides that the corporation can enter into partnership or into any other arrangement for the sharing of profits, etc. I think that holds out a very alarming prospect for a kind of coercion or leverage which can be brought to bear on various private sector companies already operating in the petroleum field or, indeed, in the rickshaw field, because when a Crown corporation, with the amplitude of powers this corporation has, comes up to you and suggests that you should go into partnership, and you live or die by their regulations, you are going to be inclined to go into that partnership although it may not be the thing you want to do.
This is the kind of power which, in the hands of a board of directors or of a government that was malevolent toward the private sector, or toward any individual, could be used in a very seriously harmful way.
In clause 7( 1) (1) there is provision for the corporation to lend money to persons having dealings with this corporation or dealings with any other corporation. Later on in (n) there is provision for the corporation to sell anything at all, from the land to the trucks that run on it, to the plush chairs and leather couches in the executive suite. It can sell anything.
The bill goes on to say that this power does not simply rest with the directors. The power to activate this broad sphere of powers set forward here, or this capacity, can be overrun by clause 7(2) which says that the corporation shall comply, and I emphasize that word "shall", with any directions given the corporation from time to time by the Governor in Council or by the minister. So this wide range of powers is not simply to be exercised by whatever group of lucky Liberals the minister appoints to the board of directors. These powers can also be exercised by the government, or by the minister whose tact in these matters is well known. These powers can be exercised by this person unilaterally without the country knowing anything about it. This is a tremendously wide range of powers capable of the most direct political interference, and by statute.

I note that the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) shakes his head, and well he should in view of this wide range of powers outlined in this bill. These are powers that are not simply to be used by the board of directors appointed by this Liberal government for the purpose of the Liberal party, but are powers that can be interfered with by the government directly because it has the power to order compliance on the part of the board of directors in respect of anything which the government, from time to time, chooses to have done.
As far as I can see, the budget of this Crown corporation can be approved virtually without reference to parliament. All of the directors are appointed by the cabinet and are themselves empowered to delegate certain of their wide powers to various anonymities or nephews across the country.
There is the possibility under the provisions of this bill of the government making loans on special terms to Petro-Can. I understand these specific matters are to be dealt with later, but it is important to the people of Canada and the members of this House to understand the wide range of powers we are giving this group of 15 Liberals to be appointed by the minister. These powers are also being given to the minister in view of the fact that he can move in and force the board of directors to comply with any particular whim he wants complied with at any time.
The point has been made many times, apparently without effect on the minds of members opposite, and has been made even by the minister, that it is going to take a very long time for this Crown corporation to have any appreciable impact on prices, supply, or individual concerns in Canada in relation to energy. You cannot start a major petroleum company overnight, and this one will not be started overnight. Its impact will not be felt for a long time, perhaps never, and there is the danger that, given the long start up time involved and the suddenness with which alternate energy supplies can come into being, we will be setting up a $500 million per annum white elephant, because it may be that before this thing gets to the stage that it is useful to the Canadian people the particular function it is supposed to perform will no longer be there to be performed, or no longer be profitable to be performed, and at that time it may well have to get into the production of rickshaws.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe it could go into dredging.


Charles Joseph Clark: As the hon. member suggests, perhaps the corporation could go into dredging. There is a very real danger here to which I should like to refer briefly, namely, that Petro-Can will become subject to special treatment by the government. The government is in the unusual situation of establishing regulations and rules by which it and other players must play, but it is the only player in the field which has that capacity. There is bound to be some suspicion that Petro-Can will enjoy an unfair access to information. There is bound to be the suspicion, or the probability in reality, as there is in respect of Panarctic, that the virtually unlimited budget of Petro-Can will allow it to interfere with the hiring practices of other companies with which it is presumably in competition.

What we are establishing here is not just another oil company, it is an oil company with virtually an unlimited budget behind it, and playing as the only player in the field who is also the referee That is the very dangerous aspect of any intervention of this kind.
There are a number of other options available to the government in achieving the goals it says it wants to achieve by establishing this Crown corporation. It could have extended the powers, the activities and the budget of Panarctic. It could, as the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and others have said, put incentives into the Canadian tax law to encourage Canadians to invest in the energy field, and encourage foreigners to divest themselves of Canadian interests, thereby increasing the Canadian percentage of control in this field.
There is also, as has frequently been mentioned before, the option insofar as imports are concerned for purchases by the Department of Supply and Services. It already has the power we are vesting in Petro-Can. If there is a genuine concern on the part of the government about the private sector, and a genuine appreciation of the capacity of the private sector to do the job, there is the option for the government to go ahead now and enact regulations regarding exploration in the north which would give the private sector a fair chance to prove what it can do in the frontier areas where the minister says this Crown corporation will concentrate its activities.
There were a variety of other things that could have been done instead of establishing this particular Crown corporation. But they were not done, not for reasons related to energy or even for reasons related to a philosophy about a mixed economy. The reason those other options were not taken was that they would have interfered with the basic goal of the government in this bill, as in so many other actions, simply to extend its own power. That is the only general over-all policy the government has. It is a policy to extend its own power, to get into more things whether they are traditionally things which belong to the private sector or traditionally powers which belong to the provinces. It is the only philosophy the government has, and it has been the motivating policy in the establishment of Petro-Can here. We have it clearly demonstrated in the question of the intrusion upon the jurisdictions of the provinces, the intervention into the provincial jurisdiction relating to energy matters and petroleum.
This is not, as the apologists might suggest, for the purpose of protecting any part of Canada against any other part of Canada because negotiations as to price have been conducted, as this one is being conducted this week, by first ministers sitting down together and reaching an agreement. There was no need to have an invasion of a provincial field in order to accomplish that purpose. It would have been accomplished in any event. The motive of the government in that particular intervention was not price but power. It was an attempt to enlarge its own sphere of power, not with any particular purpose in mind but simply so that it could have and exercise more power.
I regret that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) has left the House. Again we have seen a similar determination, or a similar willingness by the government
Petro-Canada
to frustrate completely the development of cable communications in this country because of jurisdictional questions. The people in my constituency and in your constituency, Madam Speaker, as well as in every constituency in this country, perhaps with the exception of a few major cities, are suffering because jurisdiction over cable is unclear. The capacity of whatever government will have that jurisdiction is unsettled. That has directly to do with a determination to aggrandize power, which is the single motivating philosophy of the government. It is a philosophy perhaps which involves fouling up anything and intervening anywhere, in the private sector or in the provincial sphere, simply to extend the government's powers.
There is no demonstrated need for Petro-Can. The reason we have this legislation simply is that the government wants another Crown corporation to do what does not need to be done, and to duplicate what is already being done in other aspects of government. That is insufficient reason to ask for the approval of this House to obtain $500 million, and perhaps more, each year. It is for that reason I, and other members on this side of the House, intend to vote against this particular fraud of a bill at this stage, again in the committee, and again if it comes back to the House for third reading.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I realize, Madam Speaker, that there have been a number of speeches on this particular piece of legislation. I wish to say there have been a number of excellent speeches this afternoon and this evening. It is unfortunate that members opposite just close their ears and tend to ignore the very good points raised by members on this side of the House. Many of those points are very legitimate. I think if members were objective in their assessment of the deliberations they would find that the speeches have been very thought provoking, sensible and reasoned.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), this afternoon in his comments during a very well reasoned speech, referred to this piece of legislation as merely a gesture toward fulfilment of Canada's energy requirements. While it may be a gesture insofar as fulfilling that purpose is concerned, I want to say that in my opinion it is a horrendous gesture, and perhaps nothing more than an octopus which is unwieldy and which we could do without. In a society which is already saturated by the complexities of large central bureaucracies and dominated by them when, in my view, society could be more effectively served by the private sector, I find it startling that so many members opposite blindly find comfort in supporting this measure.
This having been conceived during the days of unions I would have thought the government in consideration of the NDP might have seen fit to drop this measure which, in my view, we do not need. There is no need to create an empire such as this. I believe experience tells us that such enterprises become unwieldy and out of control. We have only to look at the operations of the CBC. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) today mentioned the fact that the CBC requires some 22 odd people to cover the Commonwealth Conference in the Carribbean while its counterpart, CTV, will be covering that same operation with one cameraman and one reporter.

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
I think the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) very accurately defined the operations of Air Canada vis-a-vis the private sector, notwithstanding the fact that CP Air is confined to limited access in respect of domestic routes in this country. When we look at the performance and efficiency of any Crown corporation we find that it does not stack up with its private enterprise counterpart, except in losing money as my colleague from Central Nova pointed out.
I have listened to a number of speeches in this debate, and have read others. It has seemed to me that many members opposite presume that this Crown corporation will in fact solve the bulk of the fossil fuel problems we have in this country and give the federal government a firmer hand in dealing with the producing provinces and the multinational corporations.
We hear in effect from members opposite that the corporation will provide the major impact in respect of self-sufficiency and advanced technology. One member, I believe the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne), indicated that this corporation will be the major supplier and holder of a great new amount of technology under its licence We note as well that they contend this corporation will become a major instrument for providing cheap energy.
They go further to say that the measure is necessary for the government to move in with a petroleum corporation in order to check rising prices. In my view this argument is fallacious as well as simplistic, for we have only to look at any Crown corporation to see that it does not provide services more effectively or efficiently than a private corporation. In most cases, because the Crown corporation is the recipient of generous public subsidies it is even more inefficient and ineffective. The best that can be said for these arguments is that they are nothing but rhetoric.
I am disheartened by the superficial analysis some members have made in respect of their approach to energy problems. It seems there is a greater desire to protect a political doctrine than to deal with energy problems. If we are honest with ourselves in dealing with prices we know that our prices should not and cannot vary too much from the world price. That is one of the reasons why we are having a national energy conference starting in Ottawa this week. So far as self-sufficiency is concerned, it is closely related to our exploration ability and activity which at present are at a very low ebb. Unless the political and economic climate changes, we will experience a continuation of this dearth of exploration activity. We are told that no less than 50 drilling rigs left Canada this past year because of the political climate and because of the confusion of the federal government. The count continues to decrease in 1975, and 75 per cent of the rigs have left for more profitable off-shore markets, leaving us in short supply.
Security of supply is indeed the most important element in our efforts to meet our energy needs and requirements. In my view, if this bill ensured in some way a security to supply, perhaps it would merit some support. However, I contend that this bill will not do that, and I think that we have to address ourselves to the problem of exploration.

The choice is ours, either to explore or not to explore, and I do not believe that this bill will provide any initiative, incentive or new direction in exploration and development.
Surely one of the major elements in our effort to resolve the energy problem is for the federal government to take a more positive role in defining an effective, realistic and comprehensive national energy policy. We must have a climate which is conducive to exploration and development, and that is something that we have not had in the past 12 to 18 months.
As I said in my opening remarks, a number of excellent speeches on this bill have been made such as, for instance, by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour), and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I should like to refer to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Foster). I found some of his comments to be rather amusing because it seemed to me they might more appropriately have come from a member of the NDP rather than a member of the Liberal party. He suggested that private enterprise could no longer meet the demands imposed upon it. I do not know what intrepretation to place on that comment, but if he is suggesting that we are now living in such a complicated technical era that only government enterprise can meet the challenges of the day, then I say to you, Madam Speaker, that there is very little hope for this country.
I believe that the hon. member is wrong in his assessment. I believe that his assessment is nonsensical and illogical, because if we look at the past and into the future we will realize that the major breakthroughs in our scientific and technological achievements have not come from government enterprise but indeed from the resourcefulness, initiative and dynamism of the private sector. All this can be achieved, provided the climate is conducive and that there is no undue government interference, in other words, that the shackles of government do not unduly inhibit the process.
I submit that, given the right climate, private enterprise can continue to provide major breakthroughs in our scientific and technological achievements. Governments have tended to restrict and interfere too much

particularly this government-rather than to promote the initiative to which I referred.
The parliamentary secretary indicated also that there was lack of substance in the contributions to this debate by opposition members. The parliamentary secretary has not been listening carefully, and I suggest to him that he read some of the speeches that have been made because some very constructive suggestions have been made and important warnings have been advanced, for instance by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark).
As has been pointed out by other speakers, the bill before us gives to Petro-Can broad terms of reference. First, it gives Petro-Can the authority to explore, develop and exploit oil and gas deposits within and without Canada. In my view this ignores several facts.
The Canadian government, as we all know, is already involved in exploration and development under the aegis
April 7, 1975

of Panarctic and through Syncrude. Petro-Can will only duplicate these efforts and, as many speakers have pointed out, will only increase the bureaucratic employment opportunities for many Liberal friends who, I know, will find a very happy home within the directorship of this organization. It has been suggested that the minister himself may be vying for the position of the president of this new corporation. Furthermore, most of the lands expected to yield substantial new oil and gas reserves are already under lease. Further, the minister said that because of attractive investment opportunities and geological opportunities abroad, private industry will not concentrate as much effort in Canada. I submit that if he truly believes this, then why does he give Petro-Can the authority to operate outside Canada?
Second, Petro-Can has the authority to carry out research and development projects on all types of fuel. In my view this is a crucial area because we are told that oil and gas reserves are not limitless. However, can this area really be given much priority by Petro-Can when there are so many other duties and responsibilities to be performed? I think not, because historical facts have shown all too often that in the order of priorities research quite frequently fails to come anywhere near the top of the list. Perhaps it might be more advisable for these funds to be allocated to the National Energy Board which would conduct the type of research referred to.
Third, Petro-Can has the authority to engage in exploration, production, distribution, refining and marketing of all fuels. This places Petro-Can in direct competition with existing enterprises. It is rather difficult to envisage Petro-Can successfully competing against these large enterprises without spending huge sums of taxpayers' money in areas which are now adequately and effectively served by the private sector. Such a scheme is questionable, and furthermore there is no proof that Petro-Can can provide Canada with energy, either gas or oil, cheaper than is presently being provided by the private sector. One only has to look at other Crown corporations, such as CNR and Air Canada, to see that we are paying the going rate and we are not getting a break in our fares. As a matter of fact, if you look at ABC charters you will find that foreign carriers must file a tariff not less than that tariff which is provided by the Canadian flying concerns. So in no way can we envisage cheaper prices under the terms of this bill.
Fourth, Petro-Can has the authority to negotiate for and to acquire petroleum products from abroad. The experience of the Department of Supply and Services in this area speaks for itself.
The bill states that Petro-Can will be given an authorized capital of $500 million. However, I think that we all realize that in order to set up an effective national petroleum corporation something in the order of $3 billion to $5 billion would be needed, and the task would take 15 to 20 years.
According to this bill, Petro-Can has the authority to lend money to virtually anyone. It can borrow and issue debentures at will, and if it asks for government assistance there need only be the approval of the governor in council. Despite the fact that it would be set up and operated with public moneys, the public through parlia-
Petro-Canada
ment would have no control over it. What bears a great deal of consideration is the fact that Crown corporations at present are not subject to adequate scrutiny by parliament.
The terms of reference that we have under our present Standing Orders with respect to standing committees do not allow members of this House to scrutinize effectively and thoroughly the activities of the officials of Crown corporations. If the number of Crown corporations is to increase, we must find a better way to scrutinize their activities. These organizations operate under a veil of secrecy endorsed by the government and I can give you an example of this, Madam Speaker. On February 19, in a motion for the production of papers, I asked as reported at page 3362 of Hansard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Air Canada contract and all additions, revisions and amendments thereto.
The papers were not produced and the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council was:
The Air Canada contract contains considerable confidential information relating to the organization, operation and maintenance of the Air Canada lines. Air Canada's competitors are not obliged to provide such information or expose their contractual arrangements to similar scrutiny. To place Air Canada in such a disadvantageous position would not be in the public interest. Under these circumstances would the hon. member agree to withdraw the motion?
Unfortunately I was not in the House at that time, but the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) asked:
How can a monopoly be at a disadvantage?
The item was transferred for debate. I followed the matter up and found that the document, along with all original documents dating back to 1946, and all amendments provided by order in council up to and including the contract year ending 1976, were available at the Public Archives.
If we are to have a proliferation of this type of public enterprise surely the public has a right to know how they operate. The government should grant greater authority to the standing committees, or to some instrument of parliament, to examine a detailed analysis of their operations and activities.
In the last parliament when consideration was being given to the CNR financing bill, members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications were frustrated in their efforts to extract information from the officials of that Crown corporation. Their stock answer to questions was that it would not be in their competitive interest to provide the information and that the competitive company which is a private corporation is not obligated to provide the information. This sort of nonsense must stop, Madam Speaker. We must get back a greater degree of control and scrutiny so that the public will know what is happening.
In a document entitled "Policies for Social Conservatives" released on March 1, 1975, Mr. R. C. Quittenton made a statement with which I whole-heartedly agree, when he said:
It is an ironic fact that the owners of the socialized enterprises, the
29557 - 15

April 7, 1975
Petro-Canada
voters, have far, far less access to the officers of the socialized enterprise than do the shareholders of the capitalistic enterprise. Yet socialist theory makes much of the image that the enterprise belongs to the "people". When does the President of Air Canada face the taxpayers and account for his stewardship? Indeed the more dogmatic the socialist theory becomes ... the less access the "people" have to the operation of the socialized enterprises. Irony becomes tragedy.
If we are to have socialized enterprises, established for the benefit of the people, then clearly they should be operated for the people and not for the government of the day. Only in this way can the productivity of such enterprises be raised to the point where they are making their full potential contribution to the standard of living of the people. Fortunately the solution is simple and the means are at hand. Accountability must be increased and the involvement of the civil service network must be decreased. These ends can be met by having the people elect a board of directors for each socialized enterprise, with an annual report and annual public meeting and by having the government elect one-quarter of the directors.
I think that statement has a lot of merit, Madam Speaker. This bill will pass and we will continue to have Crown corporations, but it seems to me that a much improved system of checks and balances is needed to ensure that there is parliamentary control of objectives, general direction and financing, without unduly impairing the day to day operations of the corporation.
One method of improving the present state of affairs would be the adoption of certain principles followed in the United Kingdom such as the establishment of a select committee on nationalized industries. Such a committee would have wide powers, highly expert assistance and a permanent membership. Evidence would be heard in secret, but it would be published later along with a report. Officials of the Crown corporation would be informed in advance of the questions to be asked so that there would not be any possibility of witnesses being pilloried. The report would be unanimous and would be prospective as well as retrospective beyond parliamentary control and secrecy. All committee members would be bound by secrecy regarding the report and evidence, and all politics would be confined to the floor of the House. The committee could tackle one corporation or industry at a time. It could also examine the relations of those corporations with the public.
The advantages are obvious, Madam Speaker. For the public and parliament, the Crown corporations would come under effective scrutiny. The managers of these corporations would be relieved of undue ministerial interference and would have an opportunity to put forth their own point of view knowing that the committee was dealing with their operations in an objective fashion in the interests of the public, in the interests of parliament, and in the interests of true accountability.
If we are to continue to have a proliferation of Crown corporations in this country it is, I repeat, imperative that we also have the mechanism for parliament and its institutions to explore adequately and examine their activities.
As I have indicated, this bill will undoubtedly pass. But I do not believe that the bill is needed, Madam Speaker. It is difficult to understand why we have to establish another Crown corporation in our so-called free enterprise society. If the idea is to have a greater degree of Canadian ownership in this industry I have no argument against that. I think it would be better, however, to change the tax laws to make it more attractive for Canadians to invest,

and more attractive for oil companies to divest themselves of their shares and sell to Canadians.
The government seems determined to go full steam ahead with the bill as it stands, however, ignoring its built in dangers. Surely a more effective method of scrutiny should be considered. Many Canadians would find a greater degree of comfort if there were greater public scrutiny and, indeed, a better system involving parliamentary examination of the operations and objectives of this bill. If we fail to influence the government of the soundness of our reasons, the result will be nothing but increased debt for the taxpayers of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The minister wishes to speak. I remind the House that, if he speaks, he will close the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, before I commence my remarks may I ask the House to agree to something which I gather has been discussed by those responsible for House business, namely, that in view of the wish of the official opposition for a recorded vote on this matter, the vote shall not be taken this evening but shall be postponed until orders of the day are called tomorrow afternoon? If I have correctly interpreted the agreement, perhaps it could be made an order of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the recorded vote shall be taken tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, the prolonged speeches we have heard on this bill from the official opposition probably involve two essential points. The one which can be briefly stated is that, according to the official opposition, no responsible government, no responsible first minister, and no responsible minister of energy, mines and resources would bring forward a bill to propose the creation of an energy company under government auspices which would use public funds in order to supply energy in Canada. Repeated speeches made by those opposite condemned the government for proposing to go ahead, by the creation of this bill, and provide for further energy security for Canadians.
I am sure that other members, as I have, found it amusing to hear the Progressive Conservative party condemn the kind of proposition which has been adopted by the Premier of Alberta with the formation of the Alberta Energy Company, and by the Premier of Ontario by the creation of the Ontario Energy Company. Apparently those two gentlemen, for whom I have the highest respect and whom I look forward to meeting this week, are condemned by the official opposition for being horrendous and irresponsible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not at all. The government is condemned, not the premiers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, it is clear both these gentlemen are socialists. Perhaps the hon. gen-
April 7, 1975

tleman's party in this House is out of step with this new and potentially socialist leadership which may make itself felt in this House.
The second point made by the official opposition was that federal Crown corporations such as Air Canada and the CBC are inefficient in their operations and should be condemned for the manner in which they are carried on. However, not one member of the official opposition, in any condemnation, referred to the existing Crown corporations in the field of energy which have been among the most efficient and effective energy companies either in the private or public sector of Canada. I refer, of course, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which, over the past 25 years and working in combination with provincial hydro utilities, including Ontario Hydro, developed the CANDU nuclear reactor, which is the single most imaginative and successful energy and engineering achievement of this country. That achievement was carried out by public servants upon whom the official opposition heaped such scorn and abuse.
I think the best answer to hon. gentlemen opposite is that none of the claims put forward for the private sector, that is to say, not one of the companies referred to in the private sector in Canada, has equalled the achievement of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.
In the same way I wish to refer to Eldorado Nuclear Limited, which has become competitive in the processing of uranium ores in Canada. It is competitive with the private sector in terms of developing Canadian energy resources.
It was suggested in this debate that no capable persons from the private sector would work for the Canadian government in the energy field. Let me point out that that company was capable of hiring, in the person of its chief executive officer, one of the leading chief executive officers working for a competitive energy company in this country. In other words, there are some people, contrary to the suggestions put forward by hon. members opposite, who are prepared to work for their country and make such corporations successful in the energy field.
I also refer to the achievement of PanArctic Petroleum, a corporation 45 per cent owned by the people of Canada through the investment of the government of Canada. It has achieved significant exploration successes in the Arctic islands and holds out one of the best prospects for future energy supplies in Canada.
It seems to me that the underlying theme raised by some hon. members opposite, some of whom I see sitting in the chamber, is that no capable, able people would come forward to work for the corporation being established, that it would be impossible to constitute an able and qualified management to forward the petroleum interests of Canadians generally.


Charles Joseph Clark: But can you defend the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I certainly can and will be glad to do so. I am dealing with the kind of abuse which has been heaped on the bill by hon. members like the hon. member who just spoke. It is rather strange that hon. members, like the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Petro-Canada
Clark), think that although able people will work for the British government in Canada, in BP Canada; for the French government, in Elf and Aquitaine; and for 'the Italian government, in Agip; that no qualified Canadian would work for his own country in the national petroleum corporation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member rising to ask a question? '


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. It is this: the minister, to no one's surprise-this being his tactic-has attributed to me suggestions that I at no time made, as the record will show. The minister's only strength-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has the floor.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain has indeed confirmed that I hit a sensitive point. I would say this: there can be no greater defamation of able Canadians than the suggestion made by members of the official opposition that no capable, experienced Canadian in the petroleum field would go to work for his country. I deny that categorically, and deny that it is true of Canadians in the petroleum field either in this country or outside.


Charles Joseph Clark: But can you defend the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: People working for international companies and Canadian independents, good and able people, have come to me and said they would like to work for their country, work for the national petroleum company.


Charles Joseph Clark: But can you defend the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: When the bill has been enacted I am confident that it will provide a lasting and complete condemnation of members of the opposition who have said that there is no good Canadian petroleum man who is prepared to work for his country. I think there are good ones. I look forward to presenting over-all details and filling in fine points when the bill is in committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister cannot defend the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
29557-15'/2

April 7, 1975
Adjournment Debate
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to order made earlier, the recorded vote will take place tomorrow after Government Orders are called. There is no indication of further business.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, on March 19, as recorded at page 4243 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) the following question:
In his capacity both as minister and as Attorney General of Canada, has he been consulted in any respect regarding the Hamilton Harbour and dredging matters pursuant to sections 4 and 5 of the Department of Justice Act and if so, when was this done?
The minister went into a defensive crouch and, in my opinion, did not answer the import of the question.
As this whole matter involving dredging contracts unfolds, it becomes increasingly evident that the Minister of Justice and his predecessors ought to have been more alert and provided more guidance and direction than apparently was the case.
As this House well knows, the Minister of Justice has, under Section 5 of the Department of Justice Act, powers and duties as Attorney General to Canada to, among other things, advise the heads of the several departments of the government upon all matters of law connected with those departments.
In addition, as minister, under section 4 of the said act, he is obliged, among other things, to be "the official legal adviser of the Governor General and the legal member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada;" and he shall "see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law;" and have the superintendence of all mat-
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
ters connected with the administration of justice, in Canada, not within the jurisdiction of the governments of the provinces.
The Minister of Justice and his cabinet colleagues have been less than frank when opposition members have tried to find out why the government has allowed this whole unfortunate matter involving possible fraud and millions of dollars to develop. Make no mistake, this type of situation did not develop overnight.
Let us look back a few years to see what has happened to the Ministry of Justice. When Prime Minister Pearson decided to split off from the Ministry of Justice in 1965 the present portfolio involving the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), knowledgeable people expressed concern that there would be a severe diminution of the effectiveness of this portfolio which, up to that time, had been a portfolio pre-eminent among cabinet ministries and second only to the Prime Minister's position in terms of political power and prestige.
A succession of Ministers of Justice, which include the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), have, since then, obviously failed to halt the erosion that the establishment of the Solicitor General's department has caused. In a December issue of the Toronto Star for 1965 which reported a press conference held by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, it was stated, and I quote;
At his press conference last Friday, Mr. Pearson spoloe rather vaguely of the need for a more vigorous fight against organized crime. It is probable that the poor showing the department made in the Rivard affair contributed to the decision that a change was necessary.
But here again the remedy may only aggravate the disease. As former Justice Minister Davie Fulton put it this week, "It would be far more likely under the new setup that an RCMP report would never get to the Department of Justice."
What the department needs, in fact, is not a hasty amputation but a careful reorganization to improve co-ordination between its various branches.
In view of the subsequent events, Mr. Justice Fulton, as he now is, was a very good prophet.
It is obvious, looking back over the warning signals extending back to the 1960's, that the ministers of Justice were either out of touch or did not pay sufficient attention to their primary role or else we would not have before us the spectacle of ministers of the Crown hastily passing the buck to their executive assistants and piously denying they had any reason to suspect anything out of the ordinary or wrong with dredging or other related matters.
I am quoting from a December 14, 1971, article in the Hamilton Spectator dealing with a news story involving the National Harbours Board and Hamilton Harbour in relation to whether it was proper for a man named Earl Perkins to be both Hamilton's port director and part owner of a firm that handled cargo at the harbour. The mayor of Hamilton at the time also said that the board of control would meet with the harbour commissioners to discuss a waterfront land exchange between the commission and Stelco and Dofasco, something which is now very relevant and current in view of the revelations of what has been going on in recent years. The interesting part is that the newspaper article goes on to say:
Federal Health and Welfare Minister John Munro, Liberal MP for Hamilton East, said he will talk with members of the commission later
April 7, 1975

this week about the situation. "I want to find out what it's all about," he said.
That was a long time ago. There is no indication the government has yet found out what it is all about. The foregoing is to illustrate that neither the Solicitor General nor the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), nor, apparently, anyone else in government, had enough perspicacity or initiative to look into these matters as they developed to provide sound advice, to take proper action and exhibit responsible leadership.
We must remember that the federal appointees to the Hamilton Harbour Commission constituted a majority of two out of three, which is not a bad majority, and anything that has been done in the Hamilton Harbour affair, I suggest, would have been very difficult to achieve without the agreement of at least one of the federally appointed commissioners. Here one must ask, where was the guiding hand and the advice from the Minister of Justice?
There has been a strange lack of frankness from the government ministers which goes far beyond the need for the normal reticence which could be justified by having the mantle of sub judice thrown over some of the matters at issue.
I believe that there are many things yet to be explained and I hope that the Minister of Justice will very soon tell us exactly what he and his predecessors have been doing in discharging their responsibilities, whether there is any truth in reports that the preliminary hearings with regard to dredging will not begin until next fall at the earliest, and whether the Minister of Justice has any input into this state of affairs.
Perhaps the Prime Minister would have been as well advised when he was Minister of Justice, in addition to worrying about the state having no place in the bedrooms of the nation, to have concerned himself with the relationship of the government in boardrooms of certain corporations.
I presume that as matters unfold we will also learn why the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) made such a clear and unequivocal answer to a question on February 25 when he said no to a question asked by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) as to whether he had any indication or believed that he would be called as a witness in respect to the Hamilton Harbour affair. We now find that he will be a witness and has in fact testified before the Grand Jury.


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


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would rather answer the question put by the hon. member on March 19. As for his comments this evening, I presume the minister will answer in due course.

As hon. members will appreciate, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and his departmental legal officers are consulted in any particular matter which may involve legal issues at various stages during the examination or investi-
Adjournment Debate
gation of the matter and by various parts of the government as well. Some of the consultations are of a very informal and tentative nature; others involve requests for formal advice or action by the Attorney General. Consequently, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint with precision an exact time at which the Minister of Justice as Attorney General was first consulted on or asked for advice in relation to a particular matter.
In respect of the criminal charges arising out of the Hamilton Harbour investigation, hon. members will appreciate that those laid under the Criminal Code were at the initiative of the Attorney General of Ontario pursuant to section 2 of the Code. The income tax charges which were laid against several of the parties connected with this matter on March 11, 1975, were of course initiated by the federal authorities, and officers of the Department of Justice were consulted by other agencies of the federal government during several months preceding the date on which charges were preferred.
On the question of withholding payments which may be due to the several contractors who have been charged in connection with the dredging contracts, advice was again sought from the Department of Justice by other parts of the federal government during the past several months on the legal position to be taken in this regard. As hon. members will be aware, several of the dredging companies commenced an action in the Federal Court against the Crown, challenging the right of the Crown to withhold moneys claimed as owing to them under contracts with the Crown.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ASSISTING ADULT REFUGEES FROM VIET NAM
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are deeply concerned about the collapse of Viet Nam and are taking considerable comfort in operation baby-lift which has so far brought 1,400 orphans to the western world, 61 of whom have been brought to Canada. However, tonight I wish to make a strong plea for taking a sober second look at the implications of operation baby-lift as a way of helping the beleaguered people of South Viet Nam. I want to urge that we calm down our emotional reaction and that the Canadian government appoint a co-ordinator with respect to all aspects of Canadian aid to Viet Nam, both north and south.
I begin by reflecting that the urge to save these children springs from a deep human desire to rescue those who are least capable of defending themselves against the unfolding horror. The individuals who have given their energy, spirit and in some cases their lives to the cause of these suffering children are worthy of our deepest respect-I include all those Canadians who wish to offer their assistance by opening their homes to orphans. I also wish to take note of what has been done by both the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Andras), and commend them for the part they have placed in these humanitarian efforts.

April 7, 1975
Adjournment Debate
I wish to begin by saying that the publicity surrounding operation baby-lift both in Canada and in the United States has been most inappropriate and suggests an attempt on the part of some to look good in the midst of very bad times. Today there is a flood of articles by commentators, journalists and political leaders in various parts of the world questioning the efficacy of bringing out large numbers of orphans from Viet Nam and transplanting them in another culture as if this were the kind of response required by the situation. Mr. tV. A. Wi 1 son, a journalist in the Ottawa press gallery, has this to say today, that the process of moving babies in such huge numbers is "a do-gooder's ego-tripping carried to insanity". Then he goes on to say:
-no one has the right to pull children out of their own culture and leave them rootless. Everything about it is unattractive: the personal egotism, the white arrogance, the selfishness.
Then I notice that Mr. Charles Lynch in his column over the week end had this to say:
Communists may be cruel to their enemies, but in every Communist country I have visited, children are treated with tender loving care, impartially administered.
Then in today's New York Times Mr. Anthony Lewis said that it is an illusion if we think we can overcome the nightmare of Viet Nam and salve our own consciences by a procedure to bring out its babies.
The minister for overseas development in the British government, Judith Hart, had this to say:
One has to consider what is best for the children. In Southeast Asia there is an extended family system, she said. If such a child could go back to a village to be looked after by members of its family, that is obviously best for it.
I have recounted some of these opinions so as to suggest that the attempt to expiate the guilt that is felt in the western world will not be so easily routed. Here in Canada we cannot ever forget that we have been a silent but none the less partner in the destruction that has taken place in Viet Nam for so many years. I want to quote one or two sentences from a book by Charles Taylor entitled "Snow Job", which is one of the most complete analyses of the relationship of Canada to the Viet Nam war. He says:
Despite Ottawa's brave words about our Vietnam role, Canada was neither impartial nor objective. Whatever our initial intentions we soon became little more than American surrogates on both the ICC and the ICCS, carefully tending the interests of Washington and Saigon as well as dabbling in dubious intelligence work and selling the Americans part of the arms and ammunition with which they wrought such unparalleled destruction.
I just want to say tonight that I hope that the Canadian government will carry out the program announced by the external affairs minister, and that it will be administered in such a way, with the infusion of money and required personnel, that it will be seen by the world to be a truly humanitarian effort to respond to the chaos that is Viet Nam.
With regard to the adults I spoke about earlier today, I hope the adults of South Viet Nam who may want to emigrate under the classification of refugees will be permitted to do so. But what is to become of them? Certainly Canada should open its doors to the adult refugees of South Viet Nam; but here, as in the case of the babies, we should not consider it to be our total response just to have a refugee program.

I doubt very much whether many adults will be permitted to leave Viet Nam. In any event I should like the Canadian government to put itself under the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in respect to any program for adult refugees. I hope our Canadian program will be administered in such a way that the world will see it as an offer of truly humanitarian assistance to both sides to the conflict in Viet Nam. I trust we will move on, as the external affairs minister has said, to a new basis of international relations for Canada in which we will help to reorder the policies and priorities of nations around the world that are developing and that wish to participate in the economic and social systems to which they have the right. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I fear that we will see more cases like Viet Nam in the years ahead.
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps one of those more rare occasions during the late show, or in this House, when members on this side and on that side find themselves in so much agreement, except to the extent that the hon. member may have implied some misinterpretation in respect of what we are actually doing in this very tragic situation.
I find myself very much in agreement with some of the comments made about the movement of children. I would refer the hon. member to every statement I have made on this aspect which falls within my responsibility because it involves immigration. In respect of the movement of orphan children from Viet Nam I have tried my best to be very precise in pointing out that we are in fact limiting the movement of these children to those in respect of whom the adoptive process had begun or was completed, at least to the extent that the authority of the Vietnamese government was given, for exit and adoption and where required, with the knowledge of any relative that may be in Viet Nam associated with these children.
This movement has been limited also to those in respect of which the provincial procedures have been followed, since there is provincial jurisdiction in this matter of adoption, and the children who have been brought out to date, with one or two extraordinary exceptions, for reasons which I think are obvious in the drama and confusion of the situation, have all been in that adoptive stream, in some cases for many many months prior to this more recent emergency that has unfolded in Viet Nam. We have tended to hold to that provision.
We are not subscribing to the idea that we or any other country should charge into Viet Nam with aircraft to abduct or coerce children out of Viet Nam without the proper contact with and authority of the existing government, and, wherever families are involved, without their knowledge and concurrence. We are not doing that and in regard to the extraordinary suggestion in Mr. Wilson's column today in the Ottawa Journal to the effect that we as the Canadian government are subscribing to the kind of operation he described, when the facts are absolutely different, well I can only say it is not helpful in creating a clear picture of what is inevitably a confused situation under these very tragic circumstances in Viet Nam.
April 7, 1975

I deplore some of the publicity about the so-called operation "baby lift". We have not been a party to it, other than to respond to questions of the press, many of them legitimate and some perhaps sensation seeking. We have tried to make it absolutely clear that this is the approach we have been taking.
I might say that I was talking to Mrs. Bronstein last night, and I should like to praise her publicly for her extraordinary heroism and compassion in the efforts she and some of her immediate associates in Viet Nam and Cambodia have made during these terrible weeks, during the tragic crash of the aircraft the other day, and in flying with these 62 children from Saigon to Hong Kong, looking after them overnight and flying with them to Vancouver, and then on the same day travelling with them from Vancouver to Montreal, seeing these children right into the arms of the families who received them for adoptions. I do not think it is a gratuitous comment when I say what an admirable thing she has done. She as well totally agrees with us in deploring some of the publicity about the situation, or the recent fashionable approach being taken to this situation.
I think the proper approach lies somewhere in the middle. Thousands of fine Canadians have come forward in an emotional response, and I would not question their motives for wanting to help and wanting to adopt Vietnamese children. The fact is that very few of those people, as fine an effort as this offer is, are going to have a Vietnamese child to adopt. I do not think there are more than 100 or 150 youngsters left in Viet Nam for whom the adoptive process was in progress, or that we can locate to take out. We are trying our best and in fact there is a flight en route to Saigon now, but I do not know what the manifest of that flight will be when it comes back.
I assure the hon. member we are not doing this in the way that some of the publicity is implying, and to the best of my ability I am trying to make absolutely clear in each statement I have made, or is being made by other representatives of the government, that this is in fact the case.
We have said in respect of any adults who get out of Viet Nam to another country and apply under the refugee program of the Canadian immigration procedures and laws, that they can expect to be treated as such. Again, we cannot charge into Viet Nam with a mass refugee program because one does not exist in that sense.
We have been in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, indicating to him that we will join in any international effort to alleviate the human misery we are seeing unfold in Viet Nam. That, of course, would include consideration of an acceptance of that kind of movement to the degree past patterns have indicated we are prepared to do it. So, it would be under the advice of the United Nations High Commissioner, but in our communications with him and his office they have not yet come to the conclusion that that is the appropriate action to take. I think the reasons are fairly obvious in a situation which is a day-by-day unfolding of change in Indo-China. I think the hon. member and I are in agreement as to the proper approach in this area, and I believe the only conflict perhaps is a misinterpretation of what is said, by the press.
Adjournment Debate


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ALBERTA DECISION TO ALLOW INCREASED EMISSIONS OF SULPHUR DIOXIDE FROM SYNCRUDE PLANT
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on March 11 I raised a question with the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) on why the minister was supporting the decision of the Alberta Department of the Environment to allow Syncrude to double its sulphur dioxide emission from 140 long tons to 287 long tons a day. The Syncrude operation in the Athabasca oil sands has a potential for massive environmental damage in terms of air, land and water pollution over some 800 square miles.
On the issue of environment I should like to quote from a letter the federal Minister of the Environment wrote to her counterpart in the Alberta government. The federal minister stated:
It does appear however, from an examination of the available information, that Syncrude has failed to appreciate the real scope of environmental concerns and has also failed to address the question of environmental protection in either a realistic or an adequate manner.
Then further in the letter we find this:
To reiterate, Syncrude's documentation is deficient in detailed information in many areas of environmental concern and we believe that there is a likelihood for major environmental damage.
I would have thought the minister, having written that letter, would be following the environmental development in the oil sands very closely. On the issue of sulphur dioxide emissions we now know and have learned from a federal study, from which I shall quote later, that sulphur dioxide combined with water vapour and mists common to oil sands can produce a killer fog similar to the great London fog of 1952 which killed 3,500 people. Air inversions which trap pollutants close to the ground occur on 90 per cent of winter days in the Syncrude lease area. S02 could also combine with surface waters to produce an acid which kills vegetation in a drainage system which reaches as far away as Saskatchewan. In January, 1973, the Alberta Department of the Environment instructed Syncrude to limit maximum release of S02 to 140 long tons a day.
Pressure by the oil companies caused the Alberta government to back down in July, 1973, and the maximum rate was increased not to exceed 287 long tons a day. The Federal Department of the Environment task force report of August 19, 1974, on Syncrude environmental issue states:
Through the application of best practicable technology, total SCh emissions could be reduced from 287 long tons a day to an estimated 40 long tons a day.
The report disputes Syncrude's claim regarding environmental damage being negligible and it says that the Syncrude study was done under ideal conditions. It states:
Under normal plant operating conditions, it appears that the ground level concentrations of S02 will exceed the provincial standard and the federal objective several fold during more restrictive meteorological conditions.
In the light of major environmental damage from S02 emissions at Syncrude, as admitted by the minister's own department, and in view of the fact that there exists technology to reduce emissions from 287 to 40 long tons a day, what action does the federal government, a partner in

Adjournment Debate
Syncrude and responsible for setting national emission standards, plan to take?
Is the minister serious about protecting the environment? Will she press the Alberta government to lower its emission levels? Will she introduce national air quality standards, or can we expect only pious statements and token legislation?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker I thank the hon. member for his persistence in bringing this most important question back to the House of Commons. My answer will be relatively short.
The Alberta decision to permit emissions of 287 long tons per day of sulphur dioxide referred to by the hon. member is not a recent one. It was in fact made in July of 1973. Environment Canada's view on this matter was contained in the document tabled in the House by the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) to which the hon. member referred as the environmental impact study of August, 1974. As the hon. member pointed out, Environment Canada's recommendation was to limit sulphur dioxide emissions from the Syncrude plant to 40 tons a day. It is not intended at the present time to introduce any new federal anti-air pollution standards for this purpose.
The government has not by any means exhausted its efforts to have its views adopted by Alberta and by Syncrude. The federal government has recently become even more closely involved in this matter through our financial participation in the Syncrude project, and this can only help us in our efforts to ensure that the environment is protected.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
' ;

HnnnnHnHnh

Tuesday, April 8, 1975