1975-04-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the importance of the Berger commission hearings to the people of the Canadian north and, indeed, to all of Canada, and in view of the necessity of providing adequate funds for research and educational work if the native and environmental groups are to have a significant input to the Berger hearings, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the government to review its level of funding for the native and environmental groups involved in the Berger commission hearings, with a view to restoring such financial support to a level that will permit an adequate degree of research and educational work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent and pressing matter concerning the fate of two small children in South Viet Nam. I believe this is a matter that rises above any political consideration, on which hopefully there might be unanimity in the interests of humanitarianism. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That, in regard to Mrs. Lang Lam and her two sons who are landed immigrants from South Viet Nam living in Toronto, and in consideration of the fact that Mrs. Lam's two small daughters age 13 and 15 still remain in Saigon in serious danger of being trapped there, the House asks the government to consider taking whatever steps it feels may be
necessary to hopefully bring about the safe evacuation from Saigon and transportation to Toronto of these two children.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the government has now withdrawn its diplomatic personnel from Saigon, in what way is the government now trying to arrange the evacuation of Vietnamese personnel and families, and I think particularly of those who are long-term employees of the Canadian government offices in Saigon or in Viet Nam?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression that all the Canadians who were in Viet Nam had either decided to stay or had taken advantage of the opportunities to get out. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could be a little more specific as to particular cases?


VIET NAM-NUMBER OF VIETNAMESE DESIRING TO COME TO CANADA AND GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THEM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question does not relate to Canadians, but rather to Vietnamese who have worked for the Canadian government and have expressed a desire to come to Canada. How many such Vietnamese employees have expressed a desire to come to Canada and what is the intention of the Canadian government with regard to these people?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration can answer in detail on the policies we have been following, but in general we have been prepared to accept Vietnamese who are related to Canadians, or people of the kind referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. The

April 24, 1975
Oral Questions
difficulty arose not on our side, in that we were prepared to grant visas, but arose because they could not get exit permits.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question was asked in respect of long-term employees of the government of Canada and the Acting Prime Minister has not told me how many there are of those who wish to come to Canada. Let me put my question this way to the Acting Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How many government employees, for example, who are Vietnamese and want to come to Canada have been refused permission by the Vietnamese authorities? Is it simply that they have been unable to obtain an answer, have been refused permission, or is it the attitude of the Government of Canada that in these circumstances the Government of Canada would not be justified in taking a humanitarian attitude rather than a strictly legalistic attitude toward people who have served this country for many years.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the number of applicants. Perhaps my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has some of the figures concerning the numbers who want to come and who have been granted visas by the Canadian government. I can only reiterate that the difficulty does not lie on our side. It has arisen from the fact that the government of the Republic of South Vietnam has not been prepared to issue the permits.


VIET NAM-RIGHT OF VIETNAMESE AUTHORITIES TO BOARD CANADIAN AIRCRAFT-POSSIBILITY OF HAVING IMMIGRATION OFFICERS IN SAIGON
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Canadian government recognize the right of the South Vietnamese government to board Canadian aircraft and decide who travels on Canadian aircraft.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so long as those aircraft are in South Vietnam they are under the jurisdiction of the Government of Vietnam.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the government would adopt not a legalistic but a humanitarian attitude. Since the government is so concerned about South Vietnamese regulations will the government send several immigration officers to Saigon to facilitate the departure of those Vietnamese who receive exit permits whether they be staffers of the embassy or other Vietnamese?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration under whose jurisdiction this lies.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I totally understand the concern of opposition members in speaking on this question,

but the presence of an immigration officer in Saigon would do nothing to solve the particular problem that my colleague has described. We have issued visas. We have sent over some 14,000 names of nominated and sponsored relatives which have been supplied to us by Canadians of Vietnamese or Cambodian origin in this country over the last two or three weeks. We have done our best to locate as many of those as possible but it is very difficult under the circumstances for obvious reasons. We did issue visas to several hundred before the South Vietnamese Government requested, quite forcibly, that we refrain from issuing such visas because they were not going to issue exit visas which is the prerogative of the South Vietnamese Government. Within the last short time, however, we have sent letters to some 1,100 families from a list which contains to the best of our ability all the people named and nominated from Canada, indicating our willingness to accept them in the nominated and sponsored category under special circumstances if they are able to get out South Vietnam. That is the point at which our difficulty arises.
Although this is in the external affairs area, I might say to the Leader of the Opposition that we did indicate to our people in Saigon several weeks ago that we would most certainly welcome and accept people of Vietnamese citizenship who were related in the sense the Leader of the Opposition described. But I come back to the point that up until very recently, up until this point, the difficulty has been in the obtaining of exit visas from the Government of South Vietnam which they have been refusing to adults between 17 and 43 years of age.


VIET NAM-METHOD OF DEALING WITH VIETNAMESE DESIRING TO COME TO CANADA
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, would the minister kindly tell the House how he proposes to handle these admissions now, if exit visas have been refused by the South Vietnamese Government?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have been in communication with the United States authorities in an effort to determine what plans they may have for large evacuations of people from that part of the world. We have indicated to them that in the case of any people such as I have described, to whom we have given written notice, if they can get out we will certainly honour our side of the situation in terms of receiving them in Canada. I have already described to the House what our approach would be to people not in the sponsored or nominated category who might apply under refugee status.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I have a few extremely important questions to ask of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It
April 24, 1975

has been reported that funding has been drastically cutback to native and environmental organizations participating in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry. Does this cut-back in funding apply exclusively to participants in the inquiry or can the native organizations expect general cut-backs, including cut-backs in programs such as research programs, field workers' programs and land claims research?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the funding for Mr. Justice Berger's inquiry is concerned, in the fiscal year 1974-75 the native organizations received $400,000. For this fiscal year they will receive, in anticipation of the inquiry winding up by the end of the calendar year, so it would only be for the nine months, an amount of $300,000. That is the funding that has been provided for the native group, and it has no impact on the funding of other groups.


Walter (Wally) Firth: In view of the fact that only one of the 20 or so local community hearings have so far been held, and considering that a significant part of the expenditure by the native groups is for local research and educational work in connection with these community hearings, will the minister undertake to reconsider the level of funding for these organizations so that the community hearings can proceed in an orderly and thorough manner?


J. Judd Buchanan: I will look at this situation again, but we would certainly hope that the funding could be within the allocated $300,000 for the nine month period.



ELIMINATION OF FUNDS FOR NORTHERN ASSESSMENT GROUP PARTICIPATING IN BERGER COMMISSION INQUIRY-REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT

Walter (Wally) Firth: May I ask a
third and final supplementary question of the minister? In view of the fact that the northern assessment group has had its budget cut completely, and in view of the fact that this group was charged with providing valuable technical support information to the native groups participating in the inquiry, would the minister reconsider the level of funding for this organization so that it may continue its essential role in the inquiry?


J. Judd Buchanan: The government has not funded the northern assessment group; it was funded through Mr. Justice Berger's allocation last year. There is an on going discussion which started as recently as April 21 with Mr. Justice Berger to see if he could use part of the $1 million allocation to assist the northern assessment group. He seemed receptive to the idea but the commission counsel, Mr. Scott, had some doubts. There are some on going discussions to see whether or not funds can be provided out of the commission's $1 million funding to assist the northern assessment group.
Oral Questions



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of External Affairs but, in view of his absence, my question shall be directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House what is the Canadian government's position with regard to the fate of the Armenians who are now victims of the irresponsible attitude of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, whose only objective is to be on good terms with Turkey, a country that has been occupying the Armenian territory for the past 60 years, namely since the first genocide perpetrated in the 20th century by the Turks against the Armenians?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada recognizes the government of Turkey and deals with that government as a friendly power. The issue that the hon. gentleman has referred to is a long standing grievance of the Armenians but it is not one upon which we would make direct representations.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary.
Since we have here in Canada several Armenians who have become excellent Canadian citizens, would it be possible to know whether this matter has ever been discussed at the United Nations by our Canadian officials, or even by our present Acting Prime Minister, formerly Minister of External Affairs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not by Canada, Mr. Speaker. I cannot be certain that it has not been raised by some other country, but Canada, as I have said, has not felt that it had a special responsibility to raise this particular grievance of the Armenian people.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a last supplementary.
Could the President of the Privy Council confirm to the House that the Canadian government really intends to make special representations at the United Nations and to the government concerned, so as to give justice to the Armenians?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, we have not thought it advisable to do so in the past, and I see no reason for changing our policy now.

April 24, 1975
Oral Questions



VIET NAM-REASON FOR REFUSAL TO ALLOW VIETNAMESE ON CANADIAN PLANE WHICH CARRIED AUTOMOBILE AND OTHER ITEMS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to that posed by the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to ask the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs which criteria were used in the decision to airlift a Japanese car, souvenirs and other sundry items out of Saigon but to refuse space to Vietnamese employees of the Canadian embassy on the same aircraft.


Mitchell William Sharp: would like to ask the Minister of National Defence, who is familiar with the details, to answer the question.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: One of our Hercules aircraft was in Saigon yesterday and brought 22 Canadians out of Saigon to Hong Kong. There were some pieces of equipment, and an automobile on board, but there was enough space in the aircraft for all who were either authorized to leave or who wanted to leave.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that there was additional space on the aircraft to carry these questionable items, did the minister's department or our mission in Saigon make any effort to ensure that there were no relatives of Canadians left behind who wanted to come to Canada?


James Armstrong Richardson: As I have already indicated, all who were authorized to leave or wished to leave could have been accommodated on the Canadian Forces plane. It is not the responsibility of the Department of National Defence to go beyond that.


James Aloysius McGrath: Might I ask the same question, then, of the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs? What steps were taken to ensure that all relatives of Canadians were offered space on that aircraft who wished to come to Canada prior to the decision being made to allow these automobiles, etc. to be carried on the same aircraft?


Mitchell William Sharp: My colleague has made it quite clear that all those who wanted to leave and were authorized by the government of the country in which they were located to leave could have been accommodated. None appeared.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are supplementary to those asked earlier by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Does the minister agree that by cutting the budgets for these native groups he will seriously curtail a substantive input by the native people into the Berger Commission inquiry?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the intention. It was felt that the funding last year . would be primarily for research and work of that nature in preparation of the submission, and that the funds this year would be primarily for appearing before the body and for providing the educational aspect in the various communities where they were visiting. Our analysis suggested that the funding would be sufficient for those purposes.


John Robert Holmes: I am not quite satisfied with that answer, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could ask it in a different way. In view of the fact that these budgets have been cut, thus eliminating the major opposition group in terms of the inquiry, does the minister not agree that the objective of the Berger Commission, which reconvenes May 12, will be seriously compromised by the actions the minister has taken?


J. Judd Buchanan: I assume that when the hon. member mentions the major opposition group, he is referring to the northern assessment group. As I indicated in reply to the hon. member for Northwest Territories earlier, we are still discussing with Mr. Justice Berger the possibility of providing these funds out of his allocation, as he did last time, since he was the one who originally provided the funds for the group.


John Robert Holmes: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am somewhat concerned that this implies some infringement on the part of the government on the Berger Commission.
I should like to ask the minister what measures are being taken to ensure that any opposition groups will be able to present their briefs to the Berger Commission.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept this suggestion that this is an infringement. Last year Mr. Justice Berger, in his wisdom, provided $200,000 to the northern assessment group for studies. This year he is examining the situation and presumably will make a decision on whether or not he intends to provide the group with funds.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Given the number of occasions the government has interfered with this inquiry since its inception, does the minister seriously think the Canadian public will continue to regard this as an independent inquiry? Is it not merely a whitewash for a decision the government has already taken to proceed with the pipeline?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence that Mr. Justice Berger will do the task assigned to him in first class fashion. I do not accept the premise of the question.
April 24, 1975


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A further supplementary. While everybody might have full regard for Mr. Justice Berger they do not have the same confidence in the government not to interfere with his inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. Since the government recognizes that no one group will co-operate unless it knows others will be exercising similar restraint, is it the position of the government that the participation of the major unions such as the United Steel Workers would be a pre-condition to the consensus program?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of issue that is currently being discussed. To lay down, in the form of ultimata, what people must do or must not do would not help the process of trying to find a consensus.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether the government has presented any policy with regard to employment growth and job security for the consensus period and, if so, have any proposals been prepared on this matter to be part of a consensus package?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, obviously there are a number of possible scenarios which are not being prepared, projected or discussed in detail but rather there is a process of seeking consensus on general principles such as was enunciated by the Minister of Finance to the first ministers' conference and subsequently communicated to the House.



INQUIRY WHETHER QUESTIONS OF CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS BEING ANSWERED

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance regarding the consensus. Can the Acting Minister of Finance tell the House whether the questions of the Canadian Labour Congress regarding low income workers and other important matters have been answered or will be answered and not held up until the return of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in respect of specific questions, we are working on these to find answers as quickly as possible.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE



LETTER CARRIERS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON POSSIBILITY OF SIGNING CONTRACT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he can confirm reports that the long slide to chaos in the Post Office Department, if I may use a quote from a leading newspaper on the subject, "has been arrested" and that based on the element of goodwill that the Postmaster General's involvement in the negotiations has engendered, a contract has been signed with the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that less than an hour ago we were able to reach a collective agreement with the Letter Carriers' Union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in order to reduce-


An hon. Member:: Is the price right?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Somebody opposite asked if the price is right. Considering that the Post Office workers are among the lowest paid workers in the Public Service, I am dissatisfied when somebody over on the other side makes innuendoes about the price being right. These are the most underpaid people in the Public Service and I think the settlement they got, based on the terms of the report, is a fair one.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will do something I rarely do in the House, because I am as political as the opposition. I should like to say this: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris played a considerable role in convincing certain members on the negotiating team about the fairness of the settlement and in shortening the period of negotiation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris, on a supplementary.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, if I may risk a
supplementary.


An hon. Member:: It's a commercial.



REQUEST MINISTER CONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS WITH POSTAL WORKERS ON ISSUES OF CASUAL WORKERS AND AUTOMATION

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I would carry the discussion one stage further and ask the hon. gentleman if he is now going to move to the other side of the puzzle and continue the same vigorous negotiations with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, giving particular emphasis to the issues of automation and casual workers.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With the co-operation of my close friend, the President of the Treasury Board, I do not think we will in any way be impeded in obtaining a fair settlement which

April 24, 1975
Oral Questions
will take into consideration the restraint the labour movement has to exercise at this time because of inflation. This concern will be reflected, I think, in the letter carriers settlement when it is divulged to the membership. There is no reason why, if the same common sense type of responsibility is shown by inside workers of CUPW, the problems which separate us cannot be resolved. Once again I hope the hon. member for Brandon-Souris will use his influence behind the scenes to expedite this settlement.



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO AGREEMENT-POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES LEADING TO IMPROVEMENT FOR CANADA

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering the record $1.3 billion deficit in Canada-U.S. automotive trade last year and the fact that some 20 per cent of those normally employed in the automotive parts industry are now without jobs, can the minister inform the House whether at the meeting which took place in Ottawa last Friday between Canadian and U.S. officials some decisions were reached which will lead to an improvement in the situation for Canada.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report any specific progress, although I think that when officials of two governments are speaking, that is progress. I think it should be clear that the auto pact is not up for renegotiation at present.



AUTO PARTS-GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO IMPROVE SITUATION OF MANUFACTURERS

John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the specific proposals the minister brought forward in the last few days to deal with the lamentable situation in the parts industry pertained to only about 5 per cent of that industry, to a part not covered by the Canadian-U.S. pact, and as the major problem in the parts industry is associated with Canada-U.S. trade in auto parts, has the government any policy changes to suggest which would improve the situation for Canadian auto parts producers.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the auto parts industry, like other parts of the automobile industry, will recover its sales as soon as the United States market recovers. Clearly, that is the major market for auto part sales. We are trying to assist the auto parts industry to find new markets outside Canada. The particular measure the hon. member referred to is aimed at providing incentives for foreign automobile manufacturers to purchase Canadian-made auto parts.


An hon. Member:: You have got to be kidding!



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO AGREEMENT-SUGGESTION CANADA BE GUARANTEED RIGHT TO PRODUCE EQUIVALENT IN DOLLAR VALUE OF CONSUMPTION

John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the difficulties which, from the Canadian point of view, have arisen from the current practices engaged in under the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, can the minister tell the House whether the Canadian government is proposing certain specific changes in that agreement; more particularly, would the government favour a proposal that would guarantee to Canadians the right to produce in dollar value, averaged over a two or three-year period, that level which we actually consume in automotive cars and parts.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, when the automobile market in the United States is good, Canadian automobile parts manufacturers participate. Nevertheless, when the market turns down, they have to take their lumps along with everybody else.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minsiter of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's responsibility for the status of women in our society-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: -what action-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, what action does the minister intend to take in response to the heavily sexist and distastefully antifeminist advertisement appearing in today's Globe and Mail?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would have to give me the page.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Watch out, Marc. Here it comes.


An hon. Member:: Serve him!


Ursula Appolloni: I hear the hon. member. The minister will be served.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. What action does the minister plan to take, in view of the racist overtones of this same advertisement.
April 24, 1975


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this advertisement was
drawn to my attention this morning. The main subject matter has to do with immigration. It is put out by an organization called Zero Population Growth, an organization with which I am not familiar and of which I have no knowledge.


An hon. Member:: Talk to Otto Lang about it.


Robert Knight Andras: I can only say that I will consult my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who may want to enter the act as well and determine the ethics of this advertisement. Beyond that I have no further comment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. McKenzie:: A supplementary-



INQUIRY WHETHER SAME AGENCY HANDLED ADVERTISING FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S YEAR AND ORGANIZATION CALLED ZERO POPULATION GROWTH

Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister in charge of International Women's Year if the agency which is handling the "Why not" and all the rest of the International Women's Year chauvinist publicity is the ad agency which handled the advertisement just referred to. If not, can he find out which agency handled this advertisement.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but praise for the agency which handled the International Women's Year publicity program, especially as the account executive in charge of the program is a very able woman working in the field of publicity and advertising. As far as the particular advertisement mentioned is concerned, the sponsor is a private organization. Therefore the advertisement has nothing to do with the government. Obviously I cannot answer the question asked by the hon. member.


Simma Holt: The minister did not answer my question.


An hon. Member:: Now, you know how we feel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. At the External Affairs committee meeting this morning, CIDA officials revealed that millions of dollars of CIDA project funds are deposited in non-interest paying deposit accounts around the world. Will the Acting Prime Minis-
Oral Questions
ter investigate this, have these funds transferred to interest paying accounts and have the interest returned to Canada where it belongs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the suggestion under consideration. I assume this matter was discussed in committee and answers were given by the organization that is responsible.



ALLEGATION CIDA EMPLOYEES INSTRUCTED NOT TO COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS ABOUT PROJECT DIFFICULTIES

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the answers given this morning were not satisfactory. I have a supplementary question. Will the Acting Prime Minister also investigate whether CIDA officials are instructing CIDA employees in Kenya not to contact members of parliament with regard to project problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will investigate this.



NATURAL GAS-EFFECT OF DECISION TO CHANGE TIMING OF INCREASE IN EXPORT PRICE ON HYDROCARBON EXPORT POLICY

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the minister's decision to reconsider the timing and price in respect of the export of natural gas to the United States represent any change in the government's hydrocarbon export policy other than extending the time at which the price increases will be phased in?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there was no final decision by the government on this matter. There will likely be a further exchange with the United States. I hope a decision will be made within the week. If the hon. member is thinking ahead on the question of supply, this will have no impact from a supply standpoint.



NATURAL GAS-POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE TO CANADA IN CHANGING DATE OF INCREASE IN EXPORT PRICE-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW DATE

James McPhail Gillies: From the viewpoint of the government, what particular advantages have accrued to Canada by changing or extending the time at which the proposed price increases will come into effect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is a question I ask myself.


James McPhail Gillies: I hope the minister gets an answer to that question from himself. Has August 1, the previously scheduled date for the phasing in of these increases, been

April 24, 1975
Oral Questions
changed and, if so, when will the minister announce what the new date will be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in that. As I say, there has been no final decision yet.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS FOR RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL PANCREAS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question regarding the funding of the artificial pancreas, now technically operative and able to do the work of a failing diabetic pancreas on demand. Apparently all that remains to be done is to reduce the artificial pancreas to a micro-sized implantable one, the same as we have done with the pacemaker. I believe this particular project needs special consideration both historically and scientifically. Insulin was discovered 50 years ago in Toronto, Ontario. It was world startling and brought hope to millions of people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask this question.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I wanted to place this in context because of the importance of the situation. In view of all the tradition and interesting scientific possibilities, will the minister use his good offices to approach the Medical Research Council and ask them to have another look at those priorities?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I am advised by the Medical Research Council that discussions are continuing between the investigators concerned and the Medical Research Council. We expect another proposal to be put forward before long. The MRC does not consider the matter as closed.
* . * *



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Is the minister aware of Dr. Shulman's most recent allegation that he has RCMP files on political and union leaders in Canada? Did the minister instruct the RCMP to investigate what happened and just what is the political division of the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, every time I hear this story, it is a little bit different. However, the RCMP did investigate all the allegations that Dr. Shulman made. They have questioned him on several occasions. As far as I know, there is no truth

whatsoever with respect to what Dr. Shulman is reported to have said.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Labour.
Is he aware of a telegram from the union members of the Canadian National protesting against the decision of the president to reduce its labour force by 10 per cent and does the minister intend to order an inquiry as to whether such layoffs are justified?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, at this moment I am not aware of the telegram. I will check my office to see if it arrived in the last hour or so. If a telegram of that nature should arrive, I agree with the hon. member that it is a very serious matter indeed and I will look into it.



MANPOWER


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact this is International Women's Year and in view of the Prime Minister's statement of January 22 about Canada's program of support, which includes federal funding of groups and organizations, I wish to ask the minister why the Ottawa Women's Career Counselling Centre, an innovative and creative project funded under his department's Outreach program, has not been offered renewal of the full 12 month contract it sought and which is essential if the project is to survive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it is reasonable to expect the minister to have that kind of information at his fingertips.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Some time ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, speaking to the House stated, and I quote, "I think most people have gained the expectation that all we have to do to solve everything is to produce some sort of all-purpose grandiose government game plan called 'an industrial strategy for Canada'". However, last week to a
April 24, 1975

Liberal fund raising dinner, the Prime Minister stated and I quote, "we are creating a national industrial strategy." In light of this commitment, when will the minister be announcing this, to use his words, "all-purpose grandiose government game plan called an industrial strategy for Canada"?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear on a number of occasions that one strategy is not going to be sufficient for Canada. We have various industrial sectors. We are currently working on 19 separate industrial strategies for Canada for 19 specific sectors.


Harvie Andre: Is the minister confirming to the House that the Prime Minister's statement that we are creating a national industrial strategy is inaccurate or at least incomplete?



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the minister's statement outside the House yesterday outlining a $50 million federal program to assist the fishing industry and his recommendation that there should be no increase in the number of vessels fishing groundfish stocks, will he tell the House if this means the government has given up all hope of securing agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference on Canada's proposal to manage the resources on our continental shelf, since this area would require increased rather than decreased fishing effort. Also, will any funds be made available for assisting shipbuilding this year?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, in no way does this decision indicate that we have given up hope of securing agreement on our proposal to manage resources on our continental shelf. I will check into the exact wording, but what I meant to say was, in the area where the species are already heavily exploited, we should not extend that type of fishery. With regard to the other part of the hon. member's question as to boat building subsidies, I hope to be in a position to announce something within the next 15 days.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Since the minister's statement really signals to the world that we have no intention of increasing our fishing activity at this time, thereby placing in serious doubt our delicate bargaining position at the Law of the Sea Conference, why was the minister's statement covering the freezing of our fishing fleet not delayed until the results of the Law of the Sea Conference were made known on May 10; and in light of the minister's statement
Oral Questions
will we be taking unilateral action to protect our resources in this area?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in no way was I signalling to the rest of the world that we would be giving up anything. I was signalling to the rest of the world that the state of the fishery off our coast now is creating a situation so far as stocks are concerned in which we have to intervene with rather heavy financial commitments. It is important to tell the world community our priorities respecting our own coastline. This effort on our part to support the groundfish fishery is a good way to make the point.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and bears on the Law of the Sea and it is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the mineral exploration question as distinct from the fisheries question. Has the government reconsidered its position on total economic control of our continental shelf beyond the 200 mile economic zone, and is the government now ready to offer revenue sharing from mineral exploration and exploitation, so that this acceptance of international authority can lead to a package agreement promoting the common heritage of the seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not given up in any way its assertion of control. The question of revenue sharing is one upon which we have some flexibility, but it would not in any way, in our opinion, impinge upon the question of control. We do assert that mineral exploration is an area over which we have control.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to have a point clarified. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the government that Canada, which already occupies 7.3 per cent of the land surface of the world, should have total economic control of our continental margin beyond the 200 mile economic zone, and how does this reflect the Prime Minister's recent speech in London to the effect that "we must aim for nothing less than an acceptable distribution of the world's wealth"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is confusing two issues. We have had recognized our right to exploit the minerals out to the margin or the slope-I am not sure which is correct-beyond the 200 miles. The question that has arisen at the Law of the Sea Conference is quite a different one, and it is whether we would be prepared to share the revenues that might be derived from our exploitation. On that matter, we have some flexibility at the present time.

Oral Questions IMMIGRATION



INQUIRY WHETHER VIETNAMESE GIVEN REFUGEE STATUS

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Yesterday in the House I asked him a question specifically referring to Canada's role in the acceptance of South Vietnamese refugees. As reported at page 5108 the minister said:
-indeed one of my officials will be in New York tomorrow talking with him on that subject.
He was referring to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Has the minister anything further to report on those discussions, and has any decision been made by the department respecting Vietnamese refugees?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it was yesterday, but in any event my official is in New York today and he will be seeing the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees either this afternoon or tomorrow, I am not sure which. Obviously, I do not have any further report flowing from that meeting. I can only confirm what I told the hon. member the other day as to the answers we have had from the UN high commissioner's office so far, which are to the effect that there has been no declaration of a mass refugee movement. We have indicated our willingness to assist in and support any such activity based on any international action that he might recommend.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister explain to the House whether or not Microsystems International paid a fine or penalty to the federal government for illegally or improperly transferring or exporting equipment to its subsidiary in Malaysia, the equipment at the time being the subject of security for a federal government loan authorized by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any illegal act on the part of Microsystems International or any kind of penalty, but I will be pleased to make inquiries.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime

Minister. Why has the government of Canada closed down completely its operations and its representation in Saigon, knowing that there may well be Vietnamese who are not Canadians who may want to get out of the country and who may get permission to come out? Why has the government at this time closed down its whole operation there and not even left anybody on the ground at all who could provide quite possibly a humanitarian service, and who could be taken out in the future if need be by the Canadian Armed Forces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we hesitated for some time before taking this decision. We consulted with the governments of other countries that were in a similar position to ourselves, and our action was accompanied by similar action on the part of most of the friendly countries. It was not followed by the French who have taken quite a different attitude, but I do understand it was followed by the British, for example.
It is a common action that one takes in order to protect the lives of those whom we have asked to serve in Saigon. The point arrived when it was believed that they would soon come under fire, and we felt that in their interests-I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree-it was prudent that we should take this action.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General a question about the RCMP renting office space in Ottawa which will not be ready until November 1, yet they are paying rent in the amount of between $600,000 and $700,000 commencing February 1. In view of the fact that three months have elapsed and we have paid about $200,000 in rent, and in view of the fact that I inspected the premises today and every floor is empty, that there is not one partition on any of the floors, would the minister look into the matter and stop the wasteful spending of government moneys-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: -and set an example of government restraint?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member asked his question yesterday I asked the RCMP for a full answer and they will have it for me tonight when I appear before the justice committee on my estimates. I would expect the hon. member to be there tonight to put his question to me and members of the force will be there to answer it.
April 24, 1975



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it concerns his responsibility for unemployment insurance. Is the minister's decision not to proceed with amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act before July, 1975 based partly on the fact that this country will experience no growth and resulting high unemployment?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the government promised in its throne speech after the election of 1972, and made substantially the same promise after the election of 1974, that amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act would be brought in, would the minister advise whether there is or is not any urgency with respect to the matter, or in other words that the minister finds that the Unemployment Insurance Act is now working as it should?


Robert Knight Andras: Amendments will be brought in, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, in both official languages- Mr. Ethier.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader about the business for the rest of this week and for the first two or three days of next week, so we can prepare for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect to the point of order that has been raised, I might indicate that in accordance with the direction I gave yesterday, the reprint of Bill C-44 ought to be available tomorrow. It has come to my hands within the last few moments, and if after inspection it is in accordance with the direction, it ought to be filed tomorrow. I say that in case it might be a consideration in calling the business for next week.
National Parks Act


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to proceed today with the committee of the whole stage of Bill C-32. I would hope that we could continue with it tomorrow: I have had some consultation, and if that does not prove convenient we will revert to discussion of the bill in respect of ocean dumping and perhaps one of the bills standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He has one bill in respect of the Statistics Act and one in respect of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I am hopeful that Bill C-32 will be out of the committee by Monday. If it is not, we will certainly continue with it. If it is out of the committee by then, I would like to call the bill on citizenship: the minister is not well, and this depends partly on his health; but that would be my intention.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is Bill C-20?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is Bill C-20. Then on Tuesday I hope we can go back to the report stage of Bill C-44.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On the
same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader about the undertaking of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs on several recent occasions to refer the capital spending budget of the CMHC to the committee. Is the government House leader now prepared to proceed with the necessary referral motion in order to honour that minister's commitment?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing the matter with my colleague. I am not sure how firm his commitment was, but I hope it was not too firm.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It was
very firm.


NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-388, to amend the National Parks Act (free access for senior citizens).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide free access to the national parks for persons over 65 years of age, which is similar to the current policy in Ontario in respect of provincial parks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
5160
[Stage Direction]
April 24, 1975
Order Paper Questions

[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: 1,748, 1,854, 1,869, 2,081, 2,115, 2,169 and 2,190.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,846 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,792?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What was the exact amount of the mortgage loan to Davenport Homes for Youth in Toronto?
2.	On what date did Davenport Homes for Youth receive such monies?
3.	What was the interest rate of the loan to Davenport Homes for Youth?
4.	What portion of the mortgage is "forgiveable"?
5.	Is it the policy of CMHC to advance monies without proof that the use of the property is not in violation of municipal ordinances?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. A loan in the amount of $92,505 was approved on July 31, 1974, under Section 15.1 of the National Housing Act, to Davenport Homes for Youth Inc., Toronto.
2.	It is not the policy of CMHC to disclose details of transactions between borrower and lender.
3.	The interest rate of this loans is 8 per cent.
4.	The loan includes a contribution of $9,082.
5.	No. Monies are advanced to CMHC's solicitor in trust, who ensures that the property is properly zoned before releasing the funds to the borrower.


Mr. Coates: 1.	During the general election campaign of July 8, 1974, from the date the election was called to July 6, 1974, what was the breakdown of time allotted to each of the party leaders of the four national political parties on the National News programme of the CBC television in both English and French newscasts?
2.	During the same period, what was the breakdown of news time allotted to the four political party leaders on the CBC English network news programme "The World at Six" and on the equivalent programme on the CBC French radio network?


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy answer to question No. 1,792 I wonder with your permission if it could be tabled and included in Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer be tabled and taken as read?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable if there is a valid reason, for instance if it is quite lengthy and detailed. Now that the oral question period has been arranged so that written questions are dealt with each day we should consider each question individually.
There is a specific purpose, of course, for putting starred questions on the order paper. If the parliamentary secretary indicates that the length and the detail of the answer is such as to require the procedure he suggests we would agree, otherwise we would have to consider it further.


Gustave Blouin: There is no specific reason, Mr. Speaker, except it would save the time of the House if it was taken as read. It is only two pages in length and I could go ahead and read it.


Gerald William Baldwin: If it is two pages, then as interesting as it is in respect of the CBC and time spent by political leaders, we would rather read about it than hear about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer be tabled and printed in Hansard as though it had been read?


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the statement made in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister before commencing his present trip to Europe to the effect that he would bring back to Canada any gifts received from heads of government or other persons without paying duty to Canada Customs (a) what is a complete list of any gifts received while on this trip along with the value and the name of the giver in each case (b) what is a complete list of all gifts given by the Prime Minister to any persons while outside the country along with the value and the name of the recipient in each case?
2.	Will the Prime Minister personally keep any gifts received while on this trip or on any other occasion and (a) if so, will he reconsider his decision not to pay custom duties applicable to all other Canadians returning from abroad with purchases for personal use (b) if not, will such gifts become the property of the Government of Canada?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. (a)
Artifacts, objects d'art, books, etc, etc. International protocol and ordinary good manners dictate that it would be in bad taste to disclose value of gifts received, or to invite invidious comparisons by divulging donors' names and the nature of their gift to others than the Canada Customs authorities. The hon. member is no doubt aware that customs declarations once filled by visitors and returning Canadians are confidential, (b) Answer to (a) above applies mutatis mutandis.
2.	(a) Yes. An Order in Council was passed on April 22 under S. 17 of the Financial Administration Act remitting the customs duty, sales tax and excise tax on the above mentioned gifts inter alia. It will be published as provided by law. (b) See answer to question no. 1,296.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	When was application first made for funding of the Calgary Convention Centre under Urban Renewal?
2.	(a) What was the amount originally requested for construction of the Centre (b) what were the terms of this funding?
3.	What was the final amount expended on the Centre and on what date?
4.	What funding is applicable to the adjacent hotel?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. In September 1970, the City of Calgary requested funding under Sections 24 and 26 of the National Housing Act, for the purpose of acquiring and clearing a one block area in Churchill Park. The Calgary Convention Centre has been built on this land.
2.	(a) Financing under the NHA, through CMHC, was not requested, nor has it been used for the construction of the Centre; (b) not applicable.
3.	NHA funds or loans were not provided.
4.	NHA loans or funds were not applicable to the adjacent hotel.


Mr. Marshall: With respect to the agreement between CMHC and the Province of Newfoundland under Section 40 of the National Housing Act, which
Order Paper Questions
terminates March 31, 1975 (a) have any discussions taken place concerning the possibility of increasing the loan amount beyond $19,000 (b) does the provincial government intend to seek an extension of the agreement (c) how many of the projected 700 units were completed (d) how many applications were approved in each federal electoral district in Newfoundland?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a) Formal discussions with the Province of Newfoundland have not taken place, with respect to increasing the loan level for home ownership housing financed under Section 40 of the National Housing Act. Loan levels would be a matter of provincial policy, provided they do not exceed those premitted under the CMHC Assisted Home Ownership Program, (b) The Provincial government has sought an extension to the program, and a draft agreement is now with the province for execution, (c) Of the projected 700 units, 130 are completed and 425 are under construction, (d) Data on activities under the National Housing Act are not compiled on the basis of federal electoral districts. A total of 612 applications were approved.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How many quarantine cases have been reported in Canada in the last decade?


Marc Lalonde: One case of notifiable major quarantinable disease, subject to the provisions of the Quarantine Act, was reported.


Mr. Leggatt: Who were the eight members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who attended the Hudson Institute seminars in New York between 1970 and 1974 (a) what was the purpose of the seminars (b) for what reason did they attend (c) in what locations are the eight members presently stationed?


William Warren Allmand: The eight members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were: M. J. Spooner, D. K. Colwell, O. A. Davey, H. W. Brandes, G. H. Powell, J. G. Long, K. D. Green, V. E. Gooch, (a) To make the results of Hudson Institute studies and the points of view on policy issues developed by Hudson Institute staff available to business and professional leaders. (b) To broaden their horizons and gain insight into future trends, (c) Ottawa-Spooner, Colwell, Powell, Long, Green and Gooch. Washington, D.C.-Brandes. No longer in Force-Davey.


Mr. Neil: Did Canada Council make a grant to assist in the production of either of the films "Ten Lost Years" or "Head Guts and Sound Bone Dance" aired on CBC television and, if so (a) what was the amount of such grant in each case (b) to whom was the grant paid?
29557-5 lVz

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: No.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Neil: 1.	With respect to permits issued by the Department of Agriculture in 1974 for import of exotic breeds of cattle, how many (a) individuals (b) partnerships (c) cooperatives or corporations received permits to import more than one animal?
2.	What are (a) the names and addresses of the (i) individuals (ii) partnerships (iii) cooperatives or corporations who received permits (b) the number of permits in each instance?
3.	With respect to Part 2, how many permits did each receive in the previous years 1970-73 inclusive?
Return tabled.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On numerous occasions I have inquired about questions on the order paper in my name concerning CIDA. They have to do with the criteria used in awarding contracts. They are very simple questions, and there must be files in respect of each contract. There should not be any difficulty in producing those files and providing me with answers. Surely this government had nothing to hide.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister has been out of the country for a week and until he is back we cannot produce the answers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 17, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Thursday, April 17, clauses 5 and 12 had been allowed to stand and the committee had started its consideration of clause 16.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the minister was going to give some thought to clause 12 in respect of a proposed amendment and the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. We may be standing additional clauses and I wonder if the minister is now

prepared to deal with this amendment. If he is not, we could perhaps move ahead.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as I recall it, the point was made by the hon. member for Peace River that the type of scrutiny involved in this situation is already covered by the statutory instruments legislation. From our standpoint there is no difficulty at all in making a reference to the public accounts. I indicated that I would propose an amendment to that effect, but I wonder if this is not already covered under the existing law and therefore it is not necessary to add anything at this point.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, but I do not know about the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I put everything together and found there was a reasonable assumption that we had adequate protection.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: would suggest that we go ahead and deal with clause 12.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could put the amendment and then put clause 12 as amended, if the amendment carries.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The Chair is in some difficulty. We cannot find a copy of the amendment which has been presented to the committee, and it would be difficult for the Chair to put it until we find it.
On clause 16-Records and books.


Gerald William Baldwin: While we are waiting, Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two I should like to ask the minister in respect of clause 16. I do not know whether it has been carried; I hope not. This is the clause which provides for the keeping of records and books. I shall not read it. The Clause is far reaching and some of us on this side are concerned about its contents.
I should like to ask the minister if there will be a requirement that provincial governments, agencies of provincial governments or Crown corporations shall keep books and records and make them available from time to time, as this clause appears to call for in so far as individuals and corporations are concerned. The minister might have some ideas on that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it would be the intention, just as in other taxing statutes, to stipulate that this requirement would apply generally so that the taxing authority would be in possession of all this information.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. Is the committee ready to make a decision on clause 16 while we are still searching for the amendment? Shall clause 16 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Appeal.
April 24, 1975
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say that this clause is adopted from the Excise Tax Act and the provision already in that act which gives authority to the Tariff Board in respect of questions of fact, or of law and fact. If, of course, as indicated in the statute, a question of law should be raised as a result of these inquiries, access would be available from there to the Federal Court.


Gerald William Baldwin: While I do not have any great objection, it is a matter of curiosity to me why the Tariff Board, particularly, was designated. I understand the practice, but in the opinion of the minister does the Tariff Board have the necessary expertise and specialized knowledge, and does he think it would be the closest approach to the type of tribunal that would be adequately equipped to handle this particular issue?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is certainly the feeling that the Tariff Board is the body which is best equipped in the economic area with developed procedures and expertise in dealing with this type of problem. It would appear to be the most suitable tribunal to carry out this particular function of appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18-Regulations.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it would be desirable that I point out that there is a technical amendment to clause 18 to change the definition of "oil" so as to indicate that oil products which are normally derived from crude oil are also derived from natural gasoline and condensates which generally are produced in conjunction with natural gas and which are used in some Canadian refineries as feedstock. I seem momentarily to be without a colleague to move an amendment. Perhaps the Solicitor General would move into his place; he has a particular interest in this amendment to clause 18. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out paragraph (a) of clause 18 on pages 8 and 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"(a) designate any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons resulting from the processing or refining of hydrocarbons described in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition 'oil' in section 2 as an oil products; and"
I see the Solicitor General rising to present this amendment to the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister say whether it applies to skating rinks?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I support everything the minister does, and I would move the amendment which he has read.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment carry?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of questions I should like to ask the minister in this regard. First, I wonder whether the minister could enlighten the committee concerning the substantive differences between clause 18(a) as originally written in the bill compared to the amendment proposed by the Solicitor General.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The substantial difference is that the amendment as originally proposed would
Oil and Petroleum
include oil products derived from crude oil, which by narrow definition would not also mean derived from natural gasoline. This is a redrafting, shall we say, to make certain that it covers products derived from natural gas and condensates as well as from crude oil.


Harvie Andre: Is the minister, then, indicating that products such as ammonia, plastics, paints, food additives, protein products-if we should develop that process in Canada-and the whole range of products which start from hydrocarbons in one form or another, whether oil or gas, would in fact be subject to the control of the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the products are defined in clause 6(1) and 6(3).


Harvie Andre: In reading those clauses which define products, and the amendment to clause 18(a), I am left with the impression that the minister could exercise price controls on the full range of products starting from simple hydrocarbons. Certainly, with the exception of potash and natural fertilizer all our other fertilizer production in Canada starts from natural gas, all our plastics, paints and clothes; and I submit that you could extend that definition to nylon stockings.


Mr. Woolliams:: Pantyhose.


Harvie Andre: I submit that if this bill does grant authority to the government to control the price of pantyhose, then it goes too far.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the
hon. member that clause 6(1) refers to "gasoline type fuels" and clause 6(3) refers to "middle distillate and heavy fuel oil." Trying to fit pantyhose under that would be difficult.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Allmand) agreed to.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before clause 18 as amended carries, may I point out that I do not think the minister's amendment deals with paragraph (b) as it was originally.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is correct.


Gerald William Baldwin: Clause 18(b) reads:
(b) provide for such other matters or things as may be necessary to
carry out the provisions of this part.
I know that we have had these kinds of all-embracing regulatory sections which vest in the governor in council powers to do almost everything, and I must say, as a member of the statutory instruments committee, we have had occasion to examine some of them and have found that it is not a very desirable practice. I know there are certain circumstances when it might be necessary. However, perhaps the minister could give his attention to this subclause which seems to me to extend to the governor in council legislative powers which I believe go far beyond the powers which should be granted to the government.

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
We have had occasion in the House and in committees to study the impact of clauses of this kind and I feel, as a matter of practice and of caution, that this should not be done. This applies not only to members of the opposition but to private members on the government side. I spoke to some of my colleagues who sit with me on the joint statutory instruments committee who have seen at firsthand precisely what certain officials do. I am not referring to elected branches of government, although I will have something to say about them from time to time. I am referring here to members of the bureaucracy and the civil service who, probably with the best intentions in the world, twist, torture and pursue clauses such as this one to ends which were never designed by the legislation to be dealt with.
I believe that when we are giving to the government a great deal of power which it in turn will be delegating to a number of people and a number of boards, the minister should put on record the government's and his views. In this case he should state his views on what is contemplated under clause 18(b). It is simply one of these suspender-belt, safety-pin kind of clauses where the government says, "I may have missed something here and therefore I will put in a clause to cover it"? If that is the case, I do not like it and I am prepared to object to it. If the minister has a valid reason for putting it in, perhaps he would give it to us.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As is the case under our legislative practice, we do not attempt to set out in advance all the possible circumstances under which a modification might be necessary by the administration in the application of a particular statute. We recognize that it is difficult to predict all the circumstances which might arise, particularly in a commercial statute which is sought to apply to the infinitely various combinations of fact which arise in a particular community. Therefore, as much for the benefit of a particular taxpayer as for the benefit of the administration, it is wise to have residual power, which this one indeed is, so as to make certain that if a situation arises that is not covered by the exact terminology here, the governor in council may act by way of regulation for the purpose of setting that situation right.
I take it that that was inherent in the decision of the House in earlier years to set up the statutory instruments procedure. The basic assumption is made that in order to have flexibility in administration, powers of a more general kind will be required, but that the desirable arrangement we have made within the confines of the House is to have a statutory instruments committee which may study not only the formulation of these instruments from time to time but may go into some detail on the manner in which they are carried out. Recognizing that the administration will need this much flexibility from time to time, we also recognize that those using it should be under the potential scrutiny of the committee so that any excess of power or misapplication of this authority would then be subject to examination and possibly, in due course, criticism in the House.
To strike out this part of the clause may indeed make it difficult for the government to administer this part of the act. Also, it may be doing an injustice to an individual or a firm in the case of an export which will be impossible to

correct, for legal reasons, without coming back here for legislation. It is desirable to have this kind of residual power if close scrutiny is applied to the manner in which it is exercised.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to say that the minister and I have progressed to the stage where I can say frankly that I do not doubt his bona fides in making that statement. In so far as he personally is concerned, he probably feels that; but he will not be in the same portfolio forever. In fact, I have a feeling that in a year or so he will not be there. Perhaps this is a pious hope, but the fact is that another person may be in his position. The minister's good intentions and his bona fides now will not necessarily be binding upon his successor.
I would like to give an illustration of the dangers of a clause of this kind, and when I have finished I will ask the minister to give us certain assurances in this regard. I am glad to see the Solicitor General here because this is something which he probably does not know and it affects his department. I am using this illustration as an analogy to show the dangers of this clause. There is regulatory power under the Penitentiary Act that under certain circumstances punitive action and sanctions may be taken against people who are serving sentences in penitentiaries, and by way of punishment the statutory right to limitation of the time they are serving can be denied them.
It happened, as a matter of fact, through something brought to our attention this morning, that despite the fact that the statute provides that this shall only be done by way of a trial in the penitentiary under the authority of the Penitentiary Service people, it has been done time and time again without the protection which the statute provides. In other words, there have been obvious abuses of the regulatory power which has been granted. That is one aspect of which many members of the House are well aware. Another aspect is that it is now possible, despite the Statutory Instruments Act, to so define the orders in council which may be passed that they need not be published. I notice that the words "governor in council may, by regulation" appear. If in fact the government takes that regulation under the Statutory Instruments Act, then as a regulation it must be published. But we have the same problem that I spoke of just a few minutes ago. We found there were a number of administrative directives issued which had all the effect and force of an order in council in many respects, as they affect the liberties of a great many people, but because they were called directives they were not published. They did not have to be published. No one knows what they contain. The committee cannot find out what they contain, and I think this is a danger we always face.
If the minister thinks, I have made an adequate case, and that when the word "regulation" is used here it is being used under the terms of the Statutory Instruments Act and regulations passed under this clause would be brought to the attention of the people involved, then I will be a great deal more relieved than I am now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the regulation as used here, I am advised-and it seems to be well
April 24, 1975

founded-is a regulation in the technical sense which will in due course appear in the Canada Gazette and will be made public by that means. A slightly more difficult question is bringing something to the attention of those who may be affected by it: the Canada Gazette purports to be this kind of legal notice.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not the best reading in the country!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is not the best reading in the world, I agree: even insomniacs would despair of the Canada Gazette. But in effect this is a regulation where the term is technically understood to be a minor law-making instrument and one which would be made public in accordance with what used to be known as the regulations act and which is now the Statutory Instruments Act.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, in my earlier question to the minister I asked just how far this clause could go in including other products which might be subject to control by regulation, and the minister accused me of extrapolating beyond what is stated in the legislation. That is simply not true and the committee should be made aware of it. Clause 18, as amended by the minister, reads:
The governor in council may, be regulation,
(a) designate any hydrocarbon or mixture of hydrocarbons resulting
from the processing or refining of hydrocarbons described in paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition "oil" in section 2 as an oil product;
An oil product is defined in clause 2 as follows:
-any product designated as an oil product by regulations under section 18.
In fact, the minister is free to designate any commodity or product which has as its root feedstock hydrocarbons. Planning is advanced to the stage of near construction of a substantial ethylene plant in the province of Alberta. A number of methanol plants have recently been built; others are planned for construction in the province of Alberta. There is the Petrosar plant in Sarnia, as well as several other types of closely related petrochemical plants in various stages of planning.
As I read the legislation, the minister through order in council can, unilaterally, control the price of the entire product line from any of these plants and any future plants coming on stream. Thus, if the output of the Petrosar plant is used for the manufacture of polystyrene for such things as coffee cups and insulation, the minister could conceivably control the price by regulation. As my erudite friend from Peace River has just indicated, we are not suggesting this will happen the day after this bill receives royal assent; indeed, we are not suggesting that anyone on the treasury benches or in the civil service has any such intention.


Mr. Bawden:: There is no guarantee.


Harvie Andre: That is right; assumptions are always risky. Nonetheless, the possibility exists. It is simply bad legislation. We are abdicating our responsibilities as members of parliament by providing the civil service with authority to make such decisions. The minister has indicated that that is not quite true; that it has to come by regulation of the governor in council. But this in itself is not sufficient control.
Oil and Petroleum
It is wrong to extend the provisions of the bill far beyond the point which was intended in the former bill, Bill C-18, introduced in the last parliament. The intent was to give a legislative basis to substantiate an agreement reached by the first ministers at a luncheon held at 24 Sussex Drive. The government was interested in seeing the bill introduced as quickly as possible. We were prepared to co-operate to the fullest possible extent. The government threw in a twister in terms of the veto clauses of the bill which gave us some concern, and we had some discussion in committee.
Considering clause 18, there is the potential of going far beyond the agreement of March 27 or any agreement based on discussions held between the first ministers or anyone else. I reiterate that we are not suggesting this will happen immediately, but there exists the possibility of interprovincial tensions arising and a political situation in Canada developing where it may be opportune for some minister to use the authority granted under this legislation to put pressure on a certain province in order to force it to adhere to a policy decision he would like to see adopted. I therefore sincerely ask the minister to reconsider this question and to ask his officials to come up with alternative wording which will afford him the latitude he needs.
W-e recognize that the minister needs to provide for a uniform price across the country for crude oil and natural gas. We will discuss natural gas later, but in the meantime we recognize his need to implement the agreement of all the premiers and the agreement of the House of Commons that Canada should have one uniform price. But this does not mean that he should take unto himself, or a successor should take unto himself, authority to control virtually every product which has as its feedstock crude oil or natural gas. It is hard to imagine a consumer product on the market today that does not include, in one way or another, some element which is a byproduct of crude oil or natural gas.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the terminology used here is precisely the same as that used in the National Energy Board Act and has been in use for many years. It is desirable to have this taxing statute in exactly the same form as the existing statute under which the board now regulates exports from Canada. The board has not in fact extended its power to the commodities to which the hon. member has referred. It has, rather, confined itself to the addition of crude oil and natural gas, the specific products I referred to in my earlier answer.
It would be preferable to keep the flexibility of the governor in council, in this regard, to act by way of regulation. It clearly has not been necessary to extend it to manufactured products, as the hon. member suggested. The best legislative solution, in my opinion, is to leave the power here. Of course, it could be a matter of political debate subsequently if there is any attempt to extend it.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 18 as amended carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Clause as amended agreed to.

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee wish to revert to clause 12?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 12-Exemption or reduction.


Gérald Laniel: Although the record indicates that the amendment was moved by the President of the Privy Council, Hansard does not indicate that is has been put to the committee. I will put the amendment so that it will be clear in the record.
It is moved by Mr. Sharp:
That Bill C-32 be amended by striking out line 7 on page 6 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"12(1) Where it is shown to the Governor"; and by adding immediately after line 22 on page 6 thereof the following:
"(2) A statement of each exemption or reduction of $1,000 or more
ordered pursuant to this section shall be reported to the House of
Commons in the public accounts.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 12 as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain raised some questions about the figures for taxes, and copies were circulated to the interested parties in the House. I wonder if it would be possible to go back and pass the earlier clause as well.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that we revert to clause 5 which has been stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 5-Charge in April and May.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what figures he is referring to?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was my understanding that they had been handed to the messenger and distributed. They were the figures on returns from the various stages of export tax and then charged at the various stages set out under clause 5. The question was raised generally, rather than just with regard to clause 5.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is in Quebec City in connection with the visit of the interparliamentary group from the United States. We would not want to hold up all other clauses of the bill. I believe the hon. member will be back before report stage is completed, and I wonder if the minister would object to continuing to stand this clause. I think I can give an undertaking that if by Friday we have completed committee of the whole study of all clauses but this one, we would not hold up the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
[The Chairman.]
Clause stands.
On clause 20-Application.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 20 carry?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman I have some questions. The wording of this particular clause gives me some concern. It
reads:
This part applies to crude oil that enters into international or interprovincial trade or that is mixed or blended with crude oil that has been acquired for movement out of its province of production.
It seems to me that clause could be interpreted to include considerable portions, if not all, of the crude oil which is designated for use within the producing province and supposedly, therefore, outside the authority of the federal government. Even the government appreciates that intraprovincial consumption cannot be controlled constitutionally. In a tank battery collection system among a number of producing wells it is often the situation that when oil flows from producing wells into a central collection point, some of the oil belongs to companies whose markets are totally outside the province. Therefore, the oil might be intended for shipment totally outside the province, and according to the government it would fall within the ambit of this bill. Other oil might be produced entirely for consumption within the producing province, so cannot be controlled by the federal government, according to the constitution. This clause provides that because they have been mixed or blended, the federal government would have the authority to control the price of any crude oil within the province; that is, any crude oil that was mixed or blended and was intended for extraprovincial consumption could come under their control, according to this clause.
If the legal experts can convince a chemical engineer that the clause does not imply that, I would abide by their judgment. To a layman, however, it implies that crude oil produced for consumption within a province, which at some time might have been mixed with crude oil produced for the purpose of extraprovincial consumption, could be subjected to control under the provisions of this bill. If that is the case, it is unconstitutional and we should look for better wording for this clause.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the legal problem of fungible goods, that is to say, where goods not identifiable as those of a particular owner are mixed together. A similarity is the treatment of grains under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. From a practical standpoint, it is desirable to have these two separated and the effect of the clause would be that. I have asked for confirmation in this respect: my recollection is that this is parallel to the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which establishes that where there are fungible goods of this kind mixed together in an elevator under a particular system, it has been held that those are indeed goods involved in this legal phrase. I think it is a marketing scheme for interprovincial and international trade and on that basis is within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I can come to grips with this problem, Mr. Chairman. If this clause were worded to apply only to crude oil or blended crude oil that had
April 24, 1975

already left the producing province, I would be satisfied. It would seem to me, however, to apply to all crude oil the moment it is moved out of the well to a storage collection system or a storage tank. But how can we differentiate? Perhaps 90 per cent of that oil will be used in the producing province and 10 per cent outside.
I think what we are trying to do here is get a foot in the door to set the price of crude petroleum in the province where it is produced. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre that such action would be unconstitutional, and I think hon. members from provinces producing other commodities would be concerned about this. Surely it should only apply to crude petroleum when it has left the producing province. Say it is produced in Alberta: when it reaches Saskatchewan or British Columbia, then it has gone to another province or the international market. But how are we going to differentiate? It does not apply to all crude oil, blended or not blended, the moment it is taken out of the ground.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At least the hon. member agrees on the nature of the problem, that it is difficult to separate crude oil of various kinds. The bill proposes to deal with crude oil which either moves in interprovincial trade or, by agreement of the parties, is produced and sold for movement outside the province. In these circumstances, it is clearly a transaction coming under interprovincial or international trade and in that sense falls within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, the fallacy of the minister's interpretation is to be found in clause 36. The federal government can set the price of this oil. I ask, who will determine whether a barrel of oil is to be sent to another province? Who knows what will happen to the oil once it is in the collection system? It may be used in the province or it may not; but the federal government is to set the price of the oil. Further, who will determine if this oil is to be traded interprovincially or internationally? If this were a matter for the producing province, there would be no difficulty. As it is, the bill is ambiguous.
Frankly, I think the government is trying to put its foot further in the door of provincial jurisdiction. In the absence of an agreement, the federal government can say that the oil in the collection system can be treated as oil being interprovincially or internationally traded and coming, therefore, under federal control. That is what is wrong with this clause. Surely it can be clarified. If the minister is sincere in what he says, he will clarify this provision. I know as well as the minister that the interpretation of a provision in parliament is not necessarily the interpretation of the courts. I remember Judy LaMarsh saying that the Canada Pension Plan would never apply to members of parliament. Yet once parliament passed the bill, the civil servants held that it applied to members of parliament as well. I am not necessarily satisfied when the minister tells me that A plus B equals C. I think this provision ought to be clarified further.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, judging from the hon. member's dogmatic attitude, I doubt if we shall ever satisfy him. I point out that the licensee will
Oil and Petroleum
determine in a particular case how a shipment of oil is to be dealt with. The provision relates to contracts of sale for export either to the United States or for removal to other parts of Canada. This is a matter involving a contract between the parties themselves who must determine the manner of disposal of the oil. The whole scheme is not to be defeated by someone saying at any particular time, "This oil is to be used here, in the province, and that oil is to be used outside."
As I indicated when citing authorities the other day, it is entirely competent, in a national marketing scheme of the kind involved here, for the federal government to take this action and, for the purposes of an integral part of the national marketing system, in this way deal with a commodity which otherwise, I agree, would be under the jurisdiction of the province.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to labour the point, although we think it is germane to our basic objection to certain aspects of this legislation. We cannot evade our responsibilities. I know, judging from the minister's remarks, that the bill will pass in due course with this clause which we find repugnant still in it. In my argument, let me use the minister's analogy. He talked about the Wheat Board. But there is this to be said for the production of grain: a farmer of any province of western Canada or eastern Canada, but more particularly of western Canada as the Canadian Wheat Board Act applies particularly to that area, can produce feed grain and dispose of it to his neighbour. It can be determined that the grain has been disposed of to someone within the province; therefore, one can say that a clearly identifiable commodity has been produced, sold, dealt with and consumed in a province. The Canadian Wheat Board Act does not eliminate that prospect.
Let us examine the case of oil. I am not an expert on energy, petroleum and natural gas: I am learning as I go along, just as the minister is. Some of us learned the lesson some time ago. As I apprehend the picture, it is not possible for one to say, as oil flows up and is produced at the wellhead, that this particular barrel of oil, or that, is to be consumed within the province. Surely it is impossible to say that. One could only say it if certain conditions existed and I know of no case in which this holds true. For example, one could say it if, adjacent to one or two small wells, a small refinery, refining the oil coming from those wells and producing petroleum products, sold the products from those wells only within the province. In such a case one might be able to determine where the oil is to be consumed. However, those who are expert and knowledgeable in this field-the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands is knowledgeable-say that the situation does not apply anywhere. I know of no particular situation where this applies.
If this is so, what is to happen with regard to the process which the minister outlined? In theory his argument sounds good. He suggests that he is complying with the letter of the constitution by saying that any oil which flows up and is consumed and dealt with in a province is outside the ambit of this bill. But I say to the members of this committee that it is utterly impossible to find this out, to know how oil is to be dealt with. As my friend from Calgary Centre indicated, of the oil which leaves the
5168

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
wellhead, 15 per cent is used within the province and probably 85 per cent outside. How can one identify which part of the barrel will stay in the province and which part will go out of the province?
If you consider clause 20 in conjunction with clause 36 and other pertinent clauses, it becomes abundantly plain that the effect of this bill is to attach the jurisdiction of the federal government to every barrel of oil produced in the province of Saskatchewan, the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia as it leaves the wellhead unless the producer can discharge the onus or proof which this legislation will place on him and produce records to show that the oil will be consumed in the province. That, I suggest, cannot be done. Despite what may be the genuine good intentions of the government, and growing mellow with the years I am inclined to impute good intentions to them.


An hon. Member:: Not me; I'm skeptical.


Gerald William Baldwin: Despite the skepticism of some of my colleagues who have not yet attained my years, I suggest that once this bill is passed every barrel of oil produced will be oil in respect of which the Government of Canada can fix the price the moment it leaves the wellhead. As I read the bill, that will happen.
Where will this stop? We see year after year that government after government has, stage by stage, altered the basis of confederation. The rights of the provinces are being scuttled by the great monolith, the central government which is being pushed by the colossal civil service. The government is hungry for more power and introduces legislation of this kind. Perhaps it is what the people of Canada want; I don't know. Maybe they want it and perhaps they will say so. But I strongly object to this being done by the back door method as in the present case.
What about lumber in the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec? What is to prevent the federal government from doing precisely the same thing with regard to lumber-unless you have a small sawmill that will make the complete product which can be identified as being consumed entirely within the province? Practically all lumber produced in the three largest lumber producing provinces is used partly within the province and partly outside. As the lumber leaves the sawmill, in most cases it is not capable of being identified. Under the same type of legislation that we have here, there is nothing to stop the federal government moving into the province of Quebec and saying, after the trees have been felled and sawed, "The finished products or part of it will enter the channels of international or interprovincial trade and as such it is our responsibility, if we see fit to exercise it, to fix a price for it at the sawmill." That is an identical situation.
I do not think the people who drafted our constitution or those who now live under it want this to happen. If they do, there is a better way of finding out than through legislation of this kind. That is our objective and we intend to repeat it, not ad nauseam but to make our point. If in the final analysis we are defeated, we will at least have done our duty.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there is an argument often repeated by members of the official opposition, namely, that provisions like this will be applied to other commodities. They always choose either the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec for the purpose of this kind of control: in legal terms, there is no reason why this should not happen. The argument is put back to back with the question, why does it just apply to oil and natural gas? I could put the argument back to the right hon. member for Prince Albert when he returns. It was he who chose to segregate these two commodities from a great number of other commodities exchanged in Canada. He set up a special regime for oil and natural gas in Canada, for a very sound reason; they are of unique importance in the whole operation of the national economy.
For these commodities, national policies were adopted so as to exclude foreign imports, to the benefit of Canadian producers. National transportation systems were constructed to carry them. Since 1959 or 1960, and perhaps even before that, when oil and gas came under other provisions of the law they were treated as special commodities and dealt with in this way. It could indeed be conceivable at some future time that it would be equally advisable to apply the same regime to other commodities. However, the fact is it has not been applied. It has not been found necessary. They do not have the same dominant characteristics in our economy as energy commodities.
Dealing with the particular provisions of clause 20, I will restate the argument. We are dealing with a group of fungible goods. Oil may well be mixed for the purpose of ultimate use in the province or outside the province. Therefore, it is a fungible good to which the clause applies. The next step is, how does the part apply. At that point you go to clause 24. You have a specific dealing, a specific part of those fungible goods which the buyer and the seller have chosen to move outside the province. At that point the legal impositions of this part do apply. A buyer and seller, having chosen to deal by moving it within the province, are left free of the touch of this particular part. However, that which the buyer and the seller have chosen by contract to sell for the purpose of moving outside the province will be dealt with by the effective provisions of this part.
Clause 20 does not prevent in any sense a particular commodity being sold and delivered between a buyer and seller inside the province of Alberta, for example. Clauses 24 and 25 are the effective clauses for the purpose of controlling those parts of this total move of fungible goods described in clause 20. I would only say that the final judgment of the draftsman is that this is, from a standpoint of a national marketing scheme, an appropriate exercise of the authority and dealing with transactions to be effective outside the province, transactions of the kind of fungible goods declared under clause 20.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I apprehend the minister's position. I think it is the only position he can take. However, the minister cannot neglect the provisions of clause 42 which has to be read in conjunction with clauses 20, 22, 36 and 51. Clause 42 reads:

April 24, 1975

No person other than a licensee shall sell any crude oil in an exporting province except when the crude oil is being sold within that province for consumption therein.
Anybody can say that when the producer acquires oil at the wellhead he knows that to some extent at least it will go out of the province. This question has to be considered in conjunction with the prohibition contained in a combination of clauses 20 and 36. I again read clause 42:
No person other than a licensee shall sell any crude oil in an exporting province except when the crude oil is being sold within that province for consumption therein.
How in the name of heaven can a producer say that the oil he is selling within the province to some person for storage, for ultimate refining or for other disposition, will be consumed in the province? He knows that part of it will go out of the province. When you put all these things together, the legislation is definitely repugnant to the constitution.
I go back to the point made by the minister. I did not intend to pick out Ontario and Quebec in particular; I included the province of British Columbia. In his response, however, the minister made it quite clear that our fears are not unfounded. He said that under certain circumstances which may arise, the same can be done with regard to other commodities. According to what the minister is saying, the federal government has the right to move into any province and fix a price for any natural product or natural resource unless it is possible to establish that the particular commodity will be consumed within the four corners of the province.
With regard to the minister's comments about the right hon. member for Prince Albert, it is true that he and his government did bring in the National Energy Board Act. However, when the right hon. member was in power, he and his ministers were most careful to keep the extent of their intrusion well within the federal responsibility. It is only since the minister started the series of legal steps of the various legislative processes that there has been this movement into a province for purposes which may well be valid. However, in our opinion, until there is a declaration of an emergency which entitles the federal government to exercise additional powers, what the government is doing is wrong. It is not only wrong in fact but it is wrong in law. I do not think the minister can escape by saying that the former Conservative government brought in the National Energy Board Act: it brought in a legal act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suppose hon. members have pretty firmly taken their position and will not depart from it, which is their prerogative. We are dealing with transactions involving fungible goods rather than specific quantities of oil. Transactions under clauses 41 and 42 are confined to oil bought and sold within the province. If a buyer and a seller get together and conclude a transaction within the province, the legislation does not attempt to restrict that. I can only repeat that individual quantities of oil are not indentifiable, but the transactions clearly are.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then does the minister mean this, that there does not have to be a contract between a buyer and a seller? Take the case of a well that is producing 100,000
Oil and Petroleum
barrels of crude petroleum a day, and this amount of oil is stored in a collection system for three or four years and there is no contract or designation made as to whether it will be used in the province of Alberta or some other province of Canada: does the minister mean to say that the mechanism for setting the price does not apply for that length of time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the buyer and seller are not contracting to remove that particular commodity from the province, then obviously the statute does not apply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One more thought. This is no longer the ' case, but at one time oil was sent from Alberta to be refined in Moose Jaw and it was then brought back again into Alberta as gasoline. What would happen in that situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Obviously, this is
petroleum moving outside the province so there is a contract for removal outside the province and the statute would apply.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then right there the minister is contradicting the very purpose of this bill. It is really a bill to set the price of oil that is used outside a producing province. If oil is sent to be processed and refined from Calgary, say, to Moose Jaw, and then it is brought back to Calgary to be used as gasoline, this provision should not apply because the crude petroleum was produced in Alberta and the gasoline is being burned in Alberta.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the provision does not say "used"; it says "enters interprovincial or international trade".


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I feel that it is economically desirable, and we think constitutionally permissible, to fix the price of petroleum products that move into interprovincial and international trade. However, we think it is desirable that we have clearly in our minds at what point the price becomes applicable.
I am not sure that the minister's analogy of the Canadian Wheat Board is on all fours with this situation. It is a long time since I looked at the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but my recollection is that it derives its authority from the fact that all grain elevators have been declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada. That applies even to wheat sold in the province when it goes into commercial channels. It is only exempt if it is sold by one farmer to another. So the two situations are not really analagous.
What I hope the minister can clear up for those of us in the committee who are novices, and I am certainly one, is this whole question of at what particular point the price becomes applicable. It has been said it becomes applicable at the wellhead. I cannot agree with that because the oil is not sold at the wellhead. In the province of Alberta, as I understand it-and members from Alberta know the situation much better than I do-the oil is sold to the Alberta marketing board.
Let us assume that producer A intends to sell 50 per cent of a given quantity of his oil to a local refinery and 50 per
29557-52 Vz

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
cent to a refinery outside the province of Alberta. I assume he markets it through the Alberta marketing board; it is largely a paper transaction. Is it at the time that he designates through the Alberta marketing board where the oil is to go that the price we are now talking about becomes applicable? Is that the situation, or is the situation somewhat different? It would be useful if the minister would clarify that point for us.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the events in regard to which the statute is intended to operate are set out in clauses 24 and 25. In other words, the provisions ' relate to oil sold for consumption outside the province of production; oil purchased for consumption outside the province of production, which is the reverse side of the same transaction; the acquisition of crude oil for consumption outside the province of production, really acquiring the title to the particular property that is not a purchase or sale transaction. Then clause 25 refers to acts of transporting, carrying, conveying or moving crude oil out of its province of production. In other words, it requires a conscious act as between buyer and seller for this part of the statute to become applicable; a conscious act to move a particular quantity of oil outside the province of production for consumption elsewhere.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
other words, destined for a place outside the province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Outside the province of production. In this sense it is either the purchase or sale transaction, or the transaction of conveyance, or the transaction of transfer which identifies at that point the particular transaction as being one to which the statute applies, and at that point the statutory provisions with regard to price apply.
To deal again with the point made by the hon. member for Calgary North, a transaction between producer A and the Alberta marketing board at that point would be a sale within the province of Alberta between two entities within the particular province and it would not be identified in any sense as an export transaction. It is only when the particular quantity is put up by contract for sale outside the province that the provisions of this part of the statute would apply.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the minister and I agree that that is the intent, or should be the intent, of those provisions. But that is not what the clause says; that is our whole point. Very simply, what happens in terms of crude oil production in Alberta, and I guess most other places, is this. Let me take as an example the Pembina field west of Edmonton, which is a major producer in the province. Oil is produced by a number of wells in this field; there are sub-collection stations among groups of wells, together with tank batteries. From there the oil moves into a bigger collection system owned, I think, by the Pembina Pipeline Company, and it is transported to Edmonton. At Edmonton a portion of the oil is diverted to, among others, the Imperial Oil refinery at Edmonton, I imagine to Gulf and also to McColl-Frontenac's refinery. Some of the oil would be diverted from this pipeline to the Interprovincial Pipe Line system east of Edmonton, and from there piped to markets outside the province. I think

there are markets in every province east of Alberta as far as Sarnia.
The fact of the matter is that the oil that is consumed within the province of Alberta is refined at the Edmonton refinery and from there is transported by product pipeline to Calgary, Lethbridge, Peace River and other places in the province for consumption. This oil would have been mixed in the Pembina pipeline, mixed farther back in the collection system, mixed at the tank batteries, indeed mixed as it comes out of the wells, with crude oil intended for export. Clause 20 applies to crude oil that is mixed or blended with crude oil that has been acquired for movement out of the province of production, and therefore it applies to all of the oil from the Pembina field. Exactly the same story can be told in regard to Leduc, Redwater, Fox Creek, Swan Hills-you name it. So in fact clause 20 means that the statute applies to all of the production within the producing province that is intended for consumption within the producing province.
My colleague the hon. member for Peace River alluded to clauses 41 and 42 which state, in essence, that the Alberta marketing commission must be a licensee. I do not anticipate a problem there, but clause 43 provides:
No licensee shall purchase any crude oil originating in an exporting province except at a price that does not exceed the prescribed price therefor at the time the purchase is made or the contract to purchase is entered into.
That means the Alberta government cannot, as an instrument of its policy under this act, indicate that in respect of oil consumed totally in Alberta it would like to pay $6.75 a barrel. In other words, it cannot pay a little more for the crude oil consumed totally within the province of Alberta, even though we recognize the importance of increasing the cash flow in order to help make this producing industry viable in Alberta, an industry which employs so many people. This might be very good policy and totally within the authority of the Alberta government according to the constitution, yet this clause says the provincial government cannot do that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which clause says that?


Harvie Andre: Clause 20, combined with clauses 41, 42 and 43. This is very clear to me in that clause 43 reads:
No licensee shall purchase any crude oil originating in an exporting province except at a price that does not exceed the prescribed price therefor at the time the purchase is made-
The Alberta marketing commission will be a licensee. If the minister had said that this part applies only to oil entering the international or interprovincial trade, then he would be right. I really do not understand why there is such difficulty, but in clause 20 the minister has gone ahead and included not only the crude oil that enters international or interprovincial trade but also crude oil that is mixed or blended with crude oil that has been acquired for movement to another province.
I would be willing to bet that this means essentially all oil, because all the oil consumed within the province of Alberta is in fact mixed or blended at one time or another with the oil acquired for consumption primarily outside the province of Alberta. I suggest this is wrong and uncon-
April 24, 1975

stitutional. On that basis, I should like to move an amendment and I cannot see any reason why there should be any objection to it. I should like to move:
That lines 26, 27 and 28 of clause 20 be deleted and replaced with the word "trade".
I do not think that violates in any way, shape or form the intention of the minister as he has indicated it this afternoon, yet it would prevent governments, this one or any future one, from unfairly interfering with the legislative prerogatives of the province of Alberta.


Gérald Laniel: The committee has heard the proposed amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I am trying not to be obstinate about this, but why, for goodness sake, will the minister not accept this? Does this involve just a matter of obstinacy? Is what is involved a matter of the government saying that this is the way it is, and it is going to be this way or no way at all? The scenario I have portrayed is realistic; it is a possibility. For goodness sake, the minister should at least have the decency to explain. I find it incredible that the minister would sit there saying the government has a majority and it will force this bill through whether we like it or not.
It is incredible that the minister would indicate he does not care about the logic or the facts, this is the way things are going to be. If that is the situation, it is a deplorable attitude. If that is the situation, perhaps we are all wasting our time here and maybe we should just be around every four years for an election and skip the rest. Some very logical arguments have been raised and I think the minister responsible has a duty to explain or least to attempt to refute the logic we have advanced before forcing a vote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers, I wonder if I could pour a little oil on troubled waters. Would the minister agree to an amendment which would clarify this, putting it in the terms he says he intends by the clause? Would he agree to an amendment which would make sure that this only applies to crude oil which moves out of the province to another province or to international trade, or crude oil blended or mixed with another commodity? Surely that would be very easy to spell out and there would be no problem. I am only attempting to pour a little oil on troubled waters.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not see the difficulty at all. The legislative scheme is as I have set it out. The fungible goods to which this applies are covered by a clause with no legal consequence: it is the other clauses which are involved in that way. I have given an explanation to the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I do not really expect him to accept it, but I do not think he can fairly say I have not explained this to the committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the minister said in response to a question by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that this measure does not apply to crude oil at the wellhead. Would he give an earnest indica-
Oil and Petroleum
tion of his good intentions by including a proviso to that effect at the appropriate place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not have to do that, because it is provided by the other clauses.


Gerald William Baldwin: How does the minister get around clauses 41 and 43 which make it quite plain that a sale at the wellhead is covered within the purview of these clauses? The minister may not intend this, but certainly within the four corners of clauses 40, 41 and 42 there is a definite implication that the price at the wellhead is fixed and prescribed. Perhaps the minister does not intend it, but if that is the case it is possible to use this measure in that way. It may well be that he says this does not apply, but it is applicable or can be made applicable by a combination of clause 20 and the other three clauses.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat again what I said several minutes ago, that clauses 24 and 25 deal with the prescribed price and create the circumstances in which the prescription applies; otherwise it does not.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not explained this adequately, because the Alberta marketing commission would be a licensee and under clause 43(1), in conjunction with clause 20, would not be permitted to pay the producer more than the prescribed price even in respect of oil that would be used totally within the province of Alberta, and the commission should have that authority.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the
hon. gentleman, for the fifth time, that this prescription applies to clause 24 and not clause 41.


Harvie Andre: Perhaps the minister would like to take me through this slowly. Does clause 43 not say that no licensee shall purchase any crude oil originating in an exporting province except at a price that does not exceed the prescribed price therefor at the time the purchase is made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The over-all pattern is really a general licensing one. Under clause 39 one can be a licensee for one transaction and not for another. We could come back to the matter of licences as set out in clauses 24 and 25.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to clause 39 which says that where an order has been made under section 38 in respect of an exporting province, the board may, in accordance with any regulations under this division, and subject to such terms and conditions as are prescribed by the board, issue a licence to any person engaged in selling any crude oil for consumption outside the exporting province.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and myself, the Alberta energy board, as licensee purchasing at the wellhead, purchases crude oil which in part will be consumed in the province and in part will be exported from the province. At the particular moment when that transaction is made, clause 43 combined with clause 20 applies and the Alberta energy board is obliged,

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
if the government prescribes the price at that time, to pay that price.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No; the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission indeed will have to be licensed as a seller for extraprovincial sale, not provincial sale. The clause does not attempt to deal with intraprovincial sale.


Harvie Andre: For goodness sake, that is not what it says. It says that a licence must be obtained by any person engaged in selling any crude oil for consumption outside the exporting province. The Alberta marketing commission will be doing that; therefore, it is a licensee and according to clause 43 it cannot pay more than the prescribed price for crude oil that is to be consumed within the producing province. This legislation could be made to apply to oil totally produced and consumed within the province of Alberta, and that is unconstitutional. What violation in respect of the bill, other than the pride of the draftsmen, would there be by the acceptance of the proposed amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not know how many times I must repeat this, but this does not apply to oil consumed in the province.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Andre) negatived on division: Yeas, 5; nays, 29.
Shall clause 20 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 21-Purpose.
Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, this clause is important not so much for what it contains but for what it omits. It states that the purpose is-
(a)	to achieve a uniform price, exclusive of transportation costs, for crude oil used in Canada outside its province of production-
Of course, the previous clause already violates that particular purpose. The next purpose is-
(b)	to achieve a balance in Canada between the interests of consumers and producers in Canada; and
(c)	to protect consumers in Canada from instability of prices for petroleum in the international markets.
Again, we in this party certainly do not quarrel with the intent of those purposes. Indeed, that has been a feature of our energy policy since November, 1973. However, there is one more important feature of our energy policy which I believe should be the energy policy of a responsible government concerned about Canada's economic welfare, and it should be included as a purpose of this legislation. In a moment I shall move an amendment to clause 21 to cover this matter. The amendment primarily deals with the question of Canada's self-sufficiency or long-term security of supply. If we do not have that as a fundamental purpose of the government's administering this legislation and setting prices for crude oil and natural gas in Canada, then

not only future generations but we who are alive and well now could in a few years face a precarious situation.
Unless there is some improvement in the matter of self-sufficiency, it will be impossible to protect consumers in Canada from instability of prices for petroleum in international markets in a very few years. At the present time we in Canada are net importers of crude oil, although not to a very great degree at the moment because the difference between our exports and imports is relatively small. However, our exports are dropping dramatically. Our ability to produce from proved fields is dropping dramatically and our demands are increasing substantially. A consequence in the not too distant future is that we will become, more and more, net importers or we will rely more and more on imported crude oil from other areas in the world. This has been shown in the past to bring instability in political and economic terms.
Unless we attempt to achieve self-sufficiency and security of supply through government fiscal and tax policies, and otherwise do what we can to encourage exploration and development, the purposes of this bill will be meaningless. A year from now people will be wondering why it was necessary to raise the price of crude oil at this time and why the Prime Minister indicated at the first ministers' conference that the price of oil would have to go up. Was it because he was responsive to the desires of the western provinces? Hardly, Madam Chairman.
The reason is very simple. We cannot afford subsidy programs unless we have exports to balance imports. Those exports raise cash with which to pay subsidies. If we were to attempt to maintain a price regime closely approximating what we have now, the drain on the treasury would be horrendous. The Minister of Finance should ask himself whether we should subsidize the gasoline used by big V-8 motors or whether we should use taxpayers' money for a more socially viable project such as pensions and assistance to those in our society who are in desperate need of it.
I think that a rational government has made a rational decision that they cannot go on subsidizing gasoline for V-8 engines out of taxpayers' money. They do not have sufficient funds from the export tax with which to subsidize crude oil. The only alternative is to raise the price.
There is another alternative over the longer run which would make sense in terms of national policy; that is, proper administration of the responsibilities of this government in terms of land use regulations in the far north. Income taxes, as they apply not only to corporations but to individuals, would include incentives to invest in oil and gas exploration in this country. If these things were to pass, our declining recoverable reserves would stop declining and start increasing. We could then consider a larger pipeline to Montreal than the 2,000 barrel a day pipeline which is planned. In fact, we could consider the possibility of supplying the whole Montreal market with Canadian produced crude oil, possibly extending it out to the farthest reaches of the eastern parts of this country.
Perhaps it would make more economic sense to make exports to the United States so that we would have the export tax with which to subsidize oil which would be
April 24, 1975

imported into the maritime provinces for their use and which would be at the same price as that paid by other Canadians. It would not put them at the competitive disadvantage of having higher priced energy sources. All those things are possible with a sound and rational energy policy. We in this party feel that the matter of security of supply, of Canada's long-term self-sufficiency, is fundamental.
How will we benefit from a situation that might develop where as a result of political decision taken now we will not be able to obtain oil at any price because of some political development in the Middle East? Although one is always optimistic that the situation in the Middle East will resolve itself without a holocaust, without a renewed war which could interrupt supplies to the west, we are also hopeful that the OPEC nations will in fact be a little more reasonable in terms of their future imposition of higher prices for crude oil. We hope there will be tremendous discoveries in other parts of the world which will help to improve the supply situation. Although we hope for all those things, it is neither prudent nor sound for us to plan for them. It is reasonable for us to plan to be self-sufficient. For that reason, I would like to move an amendment to clause 21 of the bill on page 10. My motion reads:
That clause 21 of the bill on page 10 be amended by deleting line 39 and substituting therefor the following:
"producers in Canada;
(c)	to protect consumers in Canada from instability of prices for petroleum in the international markets; and
(d)	to ensure the discovery, development and production of a supply of crude oil adequate to the self-sufficiency of Canada.
I think the future objective of trying to ensure Canada's self-sufficiency-and we have the geological potential for that-should be part of the purposes of this legislation, part of the decision-making as to what is an appropriate price for Canadians to pay for crude oil and natural gas. It should not be made on the sole basis of the interests of governments or short-term interests of consumers or producers, but in fact on the basis of the interests of Canadians. As can be seen, this amendment simply adds a section to ensure Canada's self-sufficiency. If it is appropriate, I move the amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Madam Chairman, I have no objection to the purpose of the amendment. Of course, one of the factors to be taken into account in price determination from time to time is the very relevant question of setting the price at such a level that it will bring additional supplies to the country. I wonder, however, if because of the uncertainty that is always involved in exploring for hydrocarbons, the word "ensure" is the most felicitous word in the circumstances. It seems to indicate that by the mere setting of price you would not have dry holes. I have sometimes been accused of being a Pollyanna in these things, but this word perhaps implies more hope than circumstances permit.


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the word "encourage"?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: "Encourage" would be a much better word, and we would be glad to accept the amendment with that amendment.
Oil and Petroleum


Harvie Andre: I do not know what the appropriate procedure is, but it would be satisfactory to me to move that subamendment.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please, The subamendment is moved with the unanimous consent of the committee; is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: In the amendment the word "encourage" will replace the word "ensure". We "encourage" you, Madam Chairman, to make that change.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed to amend the amendment in paragraph (d) to replace the words "to ensure" with the words "to encourage"?
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Andre) agreed to.


B. Keith Penner: Shall the amendment as amended carry?
Amendment (Mr. Andre) agreed to.


James McPhail Gillies: Madam Chairman, we would like to propose a further amendment to clause 21 as follows:
That clause 21 on page 10 be amended by deleting line 42 and substituting therefor the following:
"international markets, in co-operation at all times with the provinces of production which, in the interests and for the protection of consumers in other provinces, have forgone to the degree necessary to this purpose their constitutional autonomy over crude oil as a natural resource and are therefore entitled, so far as compensation may answer, to be restored to a position of equality with other provinces with respect to the administration and control of one of their natural resources."
The purpose of this amendment should be quite clear. We in this party have argued very strongly that the pricing of an important natural resource such as petroleum should certainly be done in co-operation with the provinces. We have at all times argued that control over this resource lies in the hands of the provinces and that any action on the part of the federal government with respect to the pricing of resources, the ownership of which constitutionally lies in the hands of the provinces, should be a matter for provincial concern alone.
We have taken the position that in order to achieve some of the things we think are important with respect to energy policy, namely, one price across the country, it is appropriate that the federal government should engage in discussion with the provinces with respect to the achievement of this objective. We have never agreed, and do not believe the federal government has or should have the single authority to establish prices of these products.


An hon. Member:: Why?


James McPhail Gillies: Because we believe that constitutionally the resources belong to the provinces. The constitution makes this very clear. We do not believe that special consideration or dispensation should be given in respect of petroleum products. We do not believe the federal government has the right or the propriety, except under conditions of extreme emergency or declared national emergency, unilaterally to establish the price for any resource,

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
whether it be nickel from Ontario, pulp from British Columbia or oil and gas from any of the producing provinces. We have argued that in the past, and we will argue it again.
We believe the amendment I have put forward is appropriate. Since the federal government has moved in on the unilateral pricing approach, great consternation in the nation has been created. It has caused confrontation between provinces, and between provinces and the federal government. A situation has developed in which good federal-provincial relations are being eroded to a greater degree than ever before in our history. Surely it should be possible to work out a method, through consultation, by which this operation can be handled in an effective and appropriate fashion.
If the federal government believes that it alone should have the power to set prices, then it should approach the matter in a totally different way. It should be approached through an amendment to the constitution, constitutional reform or constitutional adjustment. This whole question arises primarily from a series of events taking place outside Canada and over which Canada has no control. We in this party believe that the federal government through this legislation has not found the appropriate way to proceed.
This amendment is based on the proposition that under our constitution resources and their control belong to the provinces, and that the federal government has absolutely no constitutional right to move unilaterally into the pricing and sale of these resources. As we argued at the second reading stage, we hope the government will be willing to accept the amendment. There is nothing to be gained, in terms of the development and unity of this nation, by the federal government attempting to move unilaterally in the pricing of resources in this way.
I speak as a member of parliament from the non-producing province of Ontario, but I speak fervently for the country as a whole. I would not like to see the federal government move in on the pricing of resources in the province of Ontario or in other provinces. These things can be done on the basis of consultation and co-operation. There are many arguments which could be made to the effect that if we can obtain the necessary supply, pricing is not the problem at all. Most of the problems created in this country have been created by our tax regime rather than by our pricing policies.
May I call it five o'clock, Madam Chairman?


Gerald William Baldwin: Before we call it five o'clock, because of the fact that the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary Centre was accepted there may be some need to adjust the precise wording on a number of lines because there has now been some change. We are not used to the minister accepting amendments. Occasionally he is very yielding. We did not expect this and we were not prepared for it. We should make the amendment conform to the change.
Progress reported.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate have passed without amendment Bill C-59, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring, checking, cargo repairing and related operations at certain ports in the Province of Quebec.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:
Ottawa, April 24,1975
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 24th day of April, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant.
Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-National Defence-Proposal for escalation of pensions of retired personnel before age sixty-Request for report; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-External Affairs-Alleged difference between statements by ministers on interest rate on loan to Cuba; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-for Canadian Pacific Railway- Increases in commuter fares-Request for government action to prevent.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on

today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions (papers).


Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Madam Speaker, I believe the parties have agreed to discuss Motion No. 28, under the name of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence with CBC pertaining to the program "Baptizing", presented on the CBC national TV network on Sunday evening, January 19, 1975.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the refusal of CBC officials to respond to motion No. 28 that I placed on the order paper for the tabling of letters arising from the program "Baptizing". This is the first time in the years I have been in parliament that a refusal of this kind has come out of an agency such as the CBC. I know from time to time the explanation given for refusal to table documents requested by members of parliament is to the effect that the tabling of such documents would not be in the public interest. By no manner of means could the refusal to table letters pro and con some of the recent programming of the CBC be denied on the basis of the explanation that it would not be in the public interest.
I firmly believe that some of the matters I am going to refer to this afternoon have to be dealt with in the public domain, and the wide exposure that can be given to the subject, both positive and negative, is in the greatest interest of the Canadian public. As I begin my remarks this afternoon, I hope there will be a vote on this matter and that many members from both sides of the House who have indicated their concern will vote in a positive way on the subject of the motion so that members can have an opportunity to view the dialogue and debate on this important subject through the channels of communication and correspondence.
I have had to do some research on my own, not having access to the letters. I have had to dig up some of these documents myself. I think it is a sad commentary on the CBC, which is the organ of public broadcasting funded by the taxpayers of Canada, that the elected representatives of the people of Canada are denied access to information of this kind. It goes back to other periods when the CBC has tended to be secretive to the extent that parliamentary committees have had to delve deeply into the subject. If this is the current trend of the CBC, we might have to resort to that sort of procedure if hon. members are to have an opportunity to hold the public broadcasting organ, the CBC, to public accountability.
CBC Programming
I have raised the issue because I wrote to the president of the CBC immediately the program was aired. I am going to restrict my remarks pretty well to the program "Baptizing" so that we may keep the subject in focus. I wrote in the following terms and had the letters made public. I am sure this information would have come up in the public domain.
Dear Mr. Picard:
Re: The Program "Baptizing"
I had the occasion to view the above program which appeared on the CBC affiliate CKX, Brandon. It was such a distortion of real life that I feel that I must launch a formal protest. My mail has indicated a similar response from many of my concerned constituents.
The program was based on the primitive Freudian psychology interpretation of life that the ID-the raw sexual urge is the sole motivating force in human behaviour.
I may interpolate here that I am an old sociologist and psychologist. Freud went out the window years ago but still comes in the back door in a lot of the stuff we find in the news media at the present time. The letter continues: While this is a premise that saturates much of our interpretation of human nature and destiny today, it is hardly appropriate that the CBC should be using the powerful public media of TV to communicate this distortion of the essential nature of human behaviour.
A little further on, the other major point I made on page 2 of the letter was as follows:
Not only was it a subtle sell of the Freudian psychology, but the program also included a monstrous caricature of evangelical Christianity.
I received a reply from the president of the CBC, Mr. Picard-and it is too bad we have to go at it in this piecemeal way-in which he said in part:
I'm sorry you were so offended by the play, but I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that CBC should not have carried it. "Baptizing" was a dramatization of a chapter in a book by Alice Munro, a respected Canadian author and the winner of the Governor General's award for her first book. This, I feel, is an important responsibility for the CBC- to reflect contemporary Canadian writing in all its forms, even though some of our viewers may disagree with the ideas expressed.
We've had a number of letters from viewers who agreed with your comments, but we've also had some from people who liked the play. Newspaper columnists were almost unanimous in their praise, calling it "sensitive and sympathetic", gentle, poignant and sometimes funny", "beautifully done", and "deeply warming".
That is as far as I shall quote from that letter. That response and the letters which flowed in persuaded me to go the only road which members can tread in dealing with an impersonal, faceless corporation of this kind: I asked for the documents to be tabled and, inexplicably and unwisely, this request was refused by officials of the CBC, as was explained by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Blouin), on page 4506 of Hansard. He said:
-I am advised by the CBC as follows: The correspondence in question is confidential as between the correspondents and the CBC. The CBC welcomes reactions to programs and the effect of publication of the correspondence would be to create a reluctance on the part of interested parties to comment in writing to the CBC about its programs.
The next entry in Hansard reads, "


An hon. Member:: Nonsense." I am sure most hon. members support the interjection by that anonymous member as recorded in Hansard.

April 24, 1975
CBC Programming
It had occurred to me that the Baptist Church might be disturbed by the caricature of one of its religious services. True enough, I was able to discover that there was a spontaneous response from the general secretary of the Baptist Federation of Canada, Fred Bullen. His letter to the president of the CBC reads:
-As general secretary of the Baptist Federation of Canada, I wish to express the deep concern which many of our members across Canada have regarding many of the programs shown on CBC television. On Sunday evening, January 19, over channel 5, Toronto, a program entitled "Baptizing" was a caricature of the Baptist churches and was extremely offensive. We are aware that literary and visual art often depict some of the less desirable characteristics which are common to mankind, but we do not believe that it is a function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to deliberately choose material that is offensive.
The letter continues in that vein. It is a good letter. I think it should be available to all members who are concerned about this matter, because it also makes positive observations about the work of the CBC. The letter-writing activities increased. Obviously, the CBC was disturbed, because the head of TV drama, Mr. John Hirsch, entered the letter-writing business. He wrote to the major newspapers in Canada, which shows the heat must have been on in the offices of the CBC bureaucracy. His letter, as it appears in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, March 13, under the heading "CBC Holds Mirror up to the Viewer", reads in part:
As reported in the Globe, an intensive survey of viewer reaction was commissioned by CBC about "Baptizing," the show that drew the greatest number of protests, a drama concerning the sexual awakening of an adolescent girl.
Over two and a half million people watched "Baptizing"-
I interpolate: the influence is more insidious than I thought.
-one of the largest audiences for a drama to date, and about 300,000 over average. Of these more than 84 per cent watched the show through to the end. The enjoyment index for the program was 70 per cent.
The survey also indicated that about 50 per cent of the public found the play particularly enjoyable, while about 20 per cent was very much against it. The polarization of the audience was clear and extreme. Thus public opinion actually forces decision-making back on the corporation.
The CBC has had to decide whether to go with the minority that objects or with the majority which seems ready to accept a greater latitude of subject matter and language, given, of course, that both subject and language are artistically justified and thoroughly motivated.
The letter continues, but the sentence I want particularly to pick out from the letter is the following:
Obviously programming must not go more than a few steps beyond what viewers are accustomed to.
I, too, started writing letters. I released a letter to the press which, unfortunately, was not given the exposure that Mr. Hirsch's letter was given. In my letter I referred to the interesting and important speech the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had made when he received the freedom of the city of London. My letter was entitled "A sick society." I am sure all of us were able to read the text of the Prime Minister's letter in which he talked about changing values in society. In that speech the Prime Minister said, when dealing with the issues of a sick society, that we require institutions and regimes of immense dimensions and novel attributes. Our basic institutions are breaking down and new ones are required. That was the essential message. I said in my letter:
This disintegration of basic institutions such as the family, the church, the school, and politics is readily discernible today. It is ironical that the mass media is reinforcing this disintegration. The CBC, for example, has been experimenting recently with programs that depict the sick side of Canadian life. In defending the CBC against public criticism and the growing criticism from members of parliament, John Hirsch, head of CBC TV drama released a letter to the editor which included the following phrase:
I then quoted in my letter part of the letter sent by Mr. Hirsch to Canadian newspapers as follows:
The CBC has had to decide whether to go with the minority that objects or with the majority which seems ready to accept a greater latitude of subject matter and language, given, of course, that both subject and language are artistically justified and thoroughly motivated ... Obviously it is not up to CBC to go wildly off into avant garde styles and far-out situations and language, but rather to remain just a few steps ahead of the whole viewing public in such matters.
My letter then went on to say:
These excerpts from Mr. Hirsch's letter contain many ambiguities, and even contradictions. He is saying that the majority of Canadians like the way-out dramas such as "Baptizing", "Ten Lost Years", "You're Going to be All Right", "Jamie Boy"-
Incidentally, the family name in the last named production was Dinsdale. I do not know whether malice aforethought was involved, but let me say that any resemblance to any Dinsdale family I know was purely coincidental. I continue quoting from my letter:
Therefore, CBC is only catering to prevailing tastes. He goes one step further, however, when he says that CBC has to remain a few steps ahead of the whole viewing public in such matters. In other words, CBC is not only catering to public demand but is also stimulating public demand for programs that include blasphemy, obscenities, violence and situations that are at odds with the traditional values of Canadian society.
At a fund-raising dinner held recently in Toronto, the Prime Minister made some interesting observations about what is happening. According to a news report in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, April 19, 1975, the Prime Minister said:
We are no longer convinced that a higher salary is more important than family life, that human beings can live comfortably in isolation from each other, or that a new factory is necessarily more important than the productive land which it will sterilize.
According to the report-
Mr. Trudeau said it no longer is surprising to see young married couples leave large cities in favour of life in smaller communities-
Perhaps they want to get away from CBC programs. I continue quoting:
-or to hear employees turn down transfers to large cities even at the cost of financial gain and career advancement.
That seems to contradict Mr. Hirsch's viewpoint. Others entered the letter-writing game. One letter which ought to be on the record is from the hon. member for Kenora-Rai-ny River (Mr. Reid), who is deputy House leader. In writing his letter to the editor, he said:
We feel that because we are totally dependent on CBC-TV there ought to be greater attention paid to our needs and requirements. Even some of the CBC officials understand this point. But of course it is rejected by the "artsy" CBC production people whose main purpose in life is to work out their own private fantasies and frustrations on a captive audience.


My constituents complain this year that CBC programming has deteriorated in quality, that when they see a "Canadian content" program they automatically cringe. Instead of using art to make their points, "Canadian content" productions use dirty words, vulgar expressions, scenes of sexual congress.
That is from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I now quote from a recent letter from the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has had a long interest in this matter:
The United States Surgeon-General, in a recent report to Congress, has concluded, after two years of research, that there is a "causal relationship between television violence and anti-social behavior to warrant proper and immediate remedial action"-
I am satisfied that there is a causal relationship between the increase in crimes of violence in Canada and violence shown on television. There is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence to warrant immediate action.
The hon. member for St. John East then refers to his bill to amend the Broadcasting Act with respect to the portrayal of sex and violence. His final statement reads as follows:
In my opinion, social control for the protection of children is unrelated to censorship and interference with the civil liberties of adults. History clearly shows that regulations to protect children be they with regard to child labor, food, drink, arms, sex, publications, etc., have never played any role in the abridgement of political or civil liberties for adults. Where freedom has fallen, it has come about in a totally different way.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The hon. member can only continue with unanimous consent. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Not only have I been denied access to the letters so that we might properly understand the problem, but not once have I received an invitation to appear on any CBC program to discuss matters of this kind. I can only conclude this is a form of censorship by exclusion because this is a subject the CBC is not even willing to discuss over its own broadcasting facilities. It is for this reason I trust hon. members will support me so that we can bring this chartered libertine under control and have the CBC accept its responsibility as the chosen organ for public broadcasting in this country.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate this afternoon, because the contents of the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) are almost similar to those of the motion put before the House some 15 days ago. At that time, the motion called for production of correspondence between the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) about the subsidy applied for by a group of Canadian women.
Today's motion calls for production of the correspondence the CBC is said to have received following broadcasting of a play entitled Baptizing.
I followed the speech of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris very closely, and throughout I wondered what his purpose is in requesting the House to force the Crown
CBC Programming
company to produce those documents. He himself mentioned, in the course of his remarks, that over 2,500,000 Canadians had seen the play, which is the highest rating ever registered for that type of broadcast. He also mentioned that the viewers' approval index reached over 70 per cent, and that more than 50 per cent of the viewers-


An hon. Member:: That is the CBC viewpoint.


Serge Joyal: The hon. member should allow me to proceed with my statement, for I listened carefully to his. If he wants to ask questions, Madam Speaker, I shall be pleased to answer them.
He stated that over 50 per cent of viewers had said they were satisfied. I do not think anyway that the aim of this debate is to question the CBC's statistics. We know quite well that when companies, whether public or private, comment on the opinion of the Canadian public on their own services, the public is sufficiently mature to analyse those statistics and put them back in their proper context.
During this debate I also became aware of comments in various Canadian newspapers, and of course I realize that it was just as easy to quote favourable letters as to quote hostile ones, expressing criticisms of the program. During the hon. member's speech, I could not help remembering a program which, Madam Speaker, you may have seen on the CBC network, around 1956 or 1958 I think, after the canonization or beatification of Marguerite de La Jem-merais, when the CBC featured a drama relating the main events in the life of that Canadian woman which probably had a similar audience as the program we are discussing today, and raised such a general outcry from the Canadian people.
But to revert to the heart of the matter, I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member did not even mention that the very subject of his motion is the tabling of documents. That question, as I said at the beginning of my statement, has been frequently raised in this House since the beginning of this session, and that motion is indirectly supported by Bill C-225, introduced by a colleague of the hon. member, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), which is presently being discussed by the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
In fact, that committee had the opportunity to hear the hon. member for Peace River deal with government guidelines respecting the confidentiality of some documents or the ohjection the government might have to tabling some documents.
I too have tried to check the reasons why the CBC will not allow this correspondence to be published.
Criteria to be applied for exemption from production of government papers include the following, and I quote:
7. Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare.
I believe this criterion, among others, may have a bearing on the present instance.
There is also criterion no. 15, which reads as follows:
15. Internal departmental memoranda.
This also might receive application in this instance. And finally we come to the following heading:
Minister's correspondence

CBC Programming
... that is, exchanges of documents between a minister and a Crown corporation whose minister is answerable to the House, or exchange of papers between ministers on the implementation of various government programs.
Clearly, if the CBC were to be required to produce correspondence received or exchanged with the minister or the public, on any of its programs that might lead to comments or protests from Canadians, it would require a much larger budget, because such requests would be so numerous every time there is objections among viewers, that the situation would be far beyond control.
Surely, if the CBC's way of discharging its responsibility to prepare programs is to be questioned, I believe today's debate is not the best forum.
During hearings of the standing committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, when the CBC's representatives appeared, I believe it was three weeks ago-the chairman himself appeared-members had an opportunity to question the latter on program contents. During these hearings they were able to voice their views.
I do not believe that adding correspondence will allow us to truly determine criteria as to the way in which the CBC fulfills its responsibility to prepare adequate programming. Evidently the corporation, when dealing with the whole Canadian public, must meet certain requirements for general adequacy. It is clearly not within the term of reference of the CBC to spearhead the evolution of mores within the Canadian society, and it is not within its term of reference to slow it down either.
I feel that the CBC's first responsibility is to reflect the Canadian society as it is now, although one may of course wonder when one considers the statistics which the hon. member quoted a while ago and which I quoted myself bearing witness to the fact that Canadians are extremely sensitive to this program, notwithstanding the qualified reaction they have had.
When the CBC however must define its responsibility as to programming, it must do so while taking into account the state of the evolution of mores within the Canadian society.
It is very easy to criticize the CBC, for it is the corporation which lays itself more open to criticism. Why? Because it is almost free from government control. There are two elements which I should like to mention and which emphasize my point.
About two years ago, a program was broadcast at 8 o'clock, therefore at prime time for families during which some scenes dealt with homosexuality. A month or a week later, the programs were suspended and the series was discontinued for the remainder of the season.
I think that no motion was then introduced in the House asking the minister responsible for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to file the correspondence exchanged about the program. Under the circumstances the CBC was probably questioning the same kind of morality as in the program Baptizing; it did show such maturity that I think its deserves our confidence.
Other judgments could be passed about the CBC and the way the government is discharging its responsibility

towards that Crown corporation. I would like to mention to the hon. member a thesis submitted to La Sorbonne in February and for which that university has awarded a doctorate to Miss Denise Bombardier who was a Canadian student in Paris. Its specifically dealt with a study on the control of the CBC status, as a Crown corporation in relation with other European television networks. And the main conclusions of her thesis were that the CBC was one of the freest television systems in the world. Of course, if the doors are thrown wide open, schedules and broadcasts may contain programs that are shocking, likely to call for blame and particularly likely to force CBC officials to withdraw those programs from the schedule.
I think it was done in the past, and I also think they are likely to retain the confidence already expressed on several occasions by Parliament vis-a-vis the CBC. I do not mean that the CBC must be absolved of all the mistakes and errors it may have been guilty of in the past, and particularly those that will happen in the future. Because, you see, Madam Speaker, when you rely on an institution run by men, errors are always possible. There have been some, there will be others. Our responsibility is to set the main criteria delimiting the operation of the Crown corporation. It is not necessarily by trying to arouse the passions of Canadians for or against such and such a type of program that we will fulfill our mandate. Our mandate is to ensure that the Crown corporation best serves the interests of Canadian morals as they exist now because there are Canadians who are behind average morals, and others who are ahead. This is an ever changing situation that the Corporation must reflect. Of course, it makes mistakes but I do not think that our role is to brandish the stick or the machine gun every time there is that kind of outbursts. On the contrary, I believe that on the long term, the record of the CBC is still favourable. And if we can attract comments like those which I mentioned and which have been approved by a university outside Canada, I believe that the CBC still deserves our confidence. But if these criteria which I mentioned a while ago had to be applied and if the attitude of the government in this matter had to be reviewed, we should refer this to the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, review this list of criteria and proceed so that the bill introduced by the hon. member for Peace River can be debated and so that this bill may include elements which will prevent a Crown corporation from having a tendency or an orientation toward secrecy which stops Parliament from assuming its own responsibility, which is to control its operations.
Of course, Madam Speaker, when we talk about cultural issues, taste and morality, the interpretation is exceedingly flexible. We can give to the same painting, the same literary hour, a series of definitions and values which can be as valid for various people who are considering them. I am thinking, for instance, about the difficulties that the Canadian courts had in applying the criminal laws concerning morality. What is obscene and what is not? What, by its nature, can shock public morality and what is acceptable? All these limits are extremely flexible. They change with the events and I am certain that the morality of today's society in 1975 is not the same as the one to which I was referring when I mentioned this program of
April 24, 1975

1958. If the same drama were broadcast today, it would probably pass unnoticed.
The same applies to this program. Maybe in five years from now, no one will even pay any attention. Naturally, the role of a Crown corporation is not to aggravate the opinion of Canadians. And were I personally convinced that the CBC was not conscious of such a role, I would be the first to intervene in the House, and when the CBC appeared before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, I would have joined my colleagues and expressed my opposition as well to the way in which the CBC has so far carried out its mandate.
Finally, I feel that guidelines such as those being now applied for the production of documents seem valid to me. The government has defined in very precise and explicit fashion its notice of motion on the production of documents, which should now open the doors wider to publicity on all decisions and information likely to help the government take its own decisions. On the whole, I feel that if we are to amend its guidelines, that ought to be done by the committee, and not simply by asking for the production of letters on a program which, all things considered, remains of very slight importance amidst all that is heard and published in Canada.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that although I graduated from McGill and know Patrick Watson very well I have not been invited to "Some Honourable Members" either, so he is probably in very good company. I would also draw attention to the fact that on such a problem of social conscience I notice no member from the NDP has seen fit to attend at this hour, so I imagine they are not interested in the topic.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are out watching the CBC.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I would like to stress the fact that I do not believe that it would be a sensible matter to table, or even request the tabling of, letters from the general public. I think we all realize that correspondence received from the public has its own benefit and its own nature of truth in it, and since, like the programs, it would be "in the eye of the beholder", we would only be making our own judgments of those letters.
I will have something to say about the program a little later on, but I think that the "eye of the beholder" has to be looked at pretty closely. I wonder what we would think if we looked down through the list of films some of us have seen. For example, I do not know whether any hon. members have seen the Scottish film called "The Brothers". If so, they would have seen the two brothers go out to the island, swim across the loch, and on the island one of the brothers catches his hand in a crevice, and then in the scene in the film he takes a knife and cuts his hand off and the blood rolls into the water. Nobody seemed to think that this was undue violence; it was part of the story and was accepted as such.
I wonder what we would think of "Volpone" when it was on the stage of Her Majesty's, as it was called, in Montreal, perhaps re-presented at O'Keefe's, with Donald
CBC Programming
Wolfit playing in it, and we see the scene where he comes across the stage, much like a wolf moving toward the fair maiden he is about to rape. I wonder whether we would say that this should not be seen by all those wealthy people who could buy tickets, and by the few students who could sneak in.
What would we really think if we took a look at some of Shakespeare's writings, and when he writes of Gloucester "Put out his eyes, out of their bloody sockets!". I wonder just how horrible this is.
I wonder what we would think of it all when we think of sex and remember that there she lay, the fair Lucretia, two alabaster castles in white, where the breath came and went and the currents moved slowly. Is this terribly sexual, or is this beautiful writing? It is in "the eye of the beholder" to a great extent.
If we want to come back to our young people, and I caution you about being certain when you talk about young people that you have some experiences with them, we should not always see them as adults. One Sunday in Ottawa if you happen to be attending a speaking engagement here and not in your riding, you should go out and see what the young people, the little people do. They are at Kung Fu or they are at a Sunday afternoon movie.
What is this Kung Fu? I really do not like Kung Fu films. I was probably fairly agile in my day. I think I can still do a pretty good Russian dance and throw a few pretty good drop kicks, but I am not really too interested in that. But you had better go and see these things. What do you see there? Do you see them performing these actions which people say are just exhibits of violence? Suddenly do you find all the children very, very silent, and then suddenly the bad guy does something and they say "boo", just like we did for Ken Maynard, when we shouted "hurrah" for Tom Mix, and booed the bad guy? There is no difference. These are great morality plays. We should take a look at that aspect of it and see what is actually happening.
I know I used to have fights on Fifth Avenue in Verdun and I never used to win. The other guy was Tom Mix and I used to play Ken Maynard, and the one guy wore black, and the one guy wore white. This is ridiculous. I do not think it is fair for us to presume that all this evil is happening, and everything we see on TV and all the violence are affecting young people in this way.
I remember sitting up at night at 11 o'clock when I was seven years old, turning on the radio, and "Here comes the Shadow; who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men?" My mother said I was going to have dreams. It was a good experience. It was exciting drama. I do not see any reason why we should be too concerned about the wonderful generation that is following. I do not think they will be easily hoodwinked. They will not be hoodwinked any more because of the fact that many of them are now interested enough, and the records show it, in returning to their churches. They have not been frightened by all of the hypocrisy that existed. They have gone back to their churches, and some of them have brought better music and ideas into the services of churches of all denominations.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Agreed, but let us have the-

April 24, 1975
CBC Programming


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Incidentally, these young people are very polite. They do not interrupt. They just usually wait until I stop talking and then ask me about the salary raises. They are very honest.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Are you Irish?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: No, I am actually a Canadian who is proud of his Scottish heritage. In fact I am going after multiculturalism for assistance to buy bagpipes for Hamilton Mountain. I think this is a good idea.
I would like to say that I do not accept any undue exploitation. I am the last person who would believe in any form of censorship of any undue sensationalism. If you think honestly of the kind of letters you receive as a member of parliament you will know the kind of issues that are referred to in them. These are letters you receive from people who are very concerned about a specific issue.
Sometimes the people who do not write are sort of in agreement with what is occurring, or do not have any real comment to make. If you took your letters on a particular issue and threw them on the table-and you know that they would go right through the whole social gambit, right through from the bill on oil to the letters you get from Alberta as against those from Ontario-you would not get a fair sampling of the criticism of a program. I suggest you would have received a real bombardment and a real playing up of the very things on the program we are saying should not be exploited by the CBC. I think it is very dangerous to just ask for the presentation of documents which are indeed letters from people who are complaining.
I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris. I am sure he is making a point here. I think many of us are going to take a good look at the CBC. I have other questions to ask which do not concern this subject. I know that we will take heed of some of the things he has mentioned, but I really do not believe in the production of the documents.
I want to say that it is very important, and I hope I say this loud and clear so it is printed in many places, that we know that the young people who watch Kung Fu, and some of the things that some of us suggest are the violent things, do see in some of those things a bit of a morality play, the same as when playing "the King of the Castle," with the hope that the good guy wins. It is not a bad thing for them to have imagination and the desire to end up in good places. There is enough tragedy as you move through life without clouding it there.
The moment of enjoyment for these young people is not the moment where they grab flies and tear their legs off, as the people told us in the old days. I think we have to respect that. I would like to say on the other hand that the CBC in drama, in some of its presentations and earlier documentaries, as well as the new ones coming up, is not excelled in the world, and when we are talking about something we should not destroy the thing itself by trying to get at some of the appendages on the outside which we think should not be thrown at us.
The CBC does not need to throw at our generation, the young and the older people, some of the smut that is being shown today. There is no need to use rough language in the non-poetic way to make no points but just to use rough
language. I agree with the hon. member completely in that regard.
By the same token I think a sensitive treatment of anything such as sexual relations of a man, a woman, people on this earth can be treated in the most beautiful of fashions. There are many, many ways in which this can be treated in an artistic way to bring home the fact that after all God's people do love, do experience, and that it is physical without being evil. The CBC does not need to do to us some of the things it is doing, and that is just trying to make something into a purely flesh experience for excitement, and to grab the attention of people who are less interested in the true artistic process of seeing the realism of theatre.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I trust that members will forgive me if I take a big gulp of air as I have just rushed back from a committee meeting in the west block. I would like to follow up some of the comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane). I also have a great deal of trouble when I look at some of these motions for the production of papers, particularly in respect of a matter like this.
The first question that really comes to my mind is: having produced all these other letters, if they were to be produced, of what real value or benefit would that be? I think hon. members must realize that there are people in this country who are sincerely concerned about the programming we find on our national network. I think that is a valid concern. When they spend their evenings watching a few hours of television they want to be adequately and properly entertained, and not bothered by what they see.
It strikes me that each and every one of us in this country has the first and primary solution to this problem in respect of the content of television programming right within our grasp. If you do not like the program, or you do not like what you see, you can reach out with your fingers and turn the knob to the off position. You are then no longer bothered by what is there. I sometimes wonder whether this whole issue raised by some people does not involve their own attitudes which drive them to antagonize themselves by continuing to listen and watch programs they do not enjoy. This is particularly true when the opportunity is available in the first place for them to turn the set off rather than continue to watch, thus allowing the program to bother them. That is the easiest solution.
I think one must also remember that before considering the problem of turning the knob on or off it is necessary to buy the television set or radio in order to receive the program. I might again comment on what I said first gave me the most difficulty in this regard. I wonder what it is we should do with the letters and documents which are raising such a great issue. As a member of the broadcasting committee which interviewed Mr. Picard and his officials some two or three weeks ago I know that this situation, or problem if you like, was quite clearly aired before the committee. I do not recall that the hon. member who moved the motion attended those two committee meetings and raised any questions.

April 24, 1975


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the hon. member aware that there are 20 other committees which also had meetings?


Roger Carl Young: Yes, but certainly I would suggest that having prepared a motion of this importance to the hon. member, he himself might have attended the committee meetings at that time. We often switch around from committee to committee when there is a matter of some interest to us being discussed by a certain committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-59, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of longshoring, checking, cargo repairing and related operations at certain ports in the Province of Quebec.-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Law Reform Commission Act.- Chapter No. 40.
Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Railway Act.-Chapter No. 41.
Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act.- Chapter No. 42.
Bill S-9, An Act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act.-Chapter No. 43.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and
Oil and Petroleum
export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)-Mrs. Morin in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: It being after six o'clock, I leave the chair to resume at 8 p.m.
At 6.05 p.m. the Committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
On clause 21-Purpose.
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I was speaking to the amendment we are proposing to clause 21. I had almost completed my remarks. I wish to reiterate strongly that the setting of prices of natural resources should not be a unilateral decision on the part of the federal government. The purpose of my amendment is to make it mandatory that the government, in setting prices, consult with the provinces, which constitutionally and, we believe, without question, own the resources.
It was not until the unique and strange experience in the Middle East that this fundamental principle came into question. We do not believe that the constitution should be rewritten through legislation of this kind in response to a particular phenomenon which developed far from Canadian shores. For these reasons I hope the minister will accept the amendment we have proposed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with the amendment itself. We have taken the opportunity to consider this, having had a copy of it from the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain since late 1974.
It could be described as adding an editorial opinion to the legislation. It certainly has no effect in law with regard to the arrangement involved here. The hon. member for Don Valley said that he and his party were in favour of a procedure for consultation and that he hoped to achieve it by the adoption of his amendment. He overlooks the fact that in clause 22 and following clauses there are expressly stipulated in the bill provisions for just such consultation between the federal and provincial governments in an effort to reach agreement on an appropriate price. That is the whole context of division one of this particular part, namely, that there should be discussions between the two levels of government in an effort to reach agreement.
I am leaping ahead of myself, but clause 21 applies to both divisions of this part. The question is: what happens if agreement is not possible? If the Province of Alberta, for example, says that it should receive $1.30 or $1.35 for natural gas and a higher price for a barrel of oil, and the federal government says that because of the state of the economy and because of the impact this will have on other parts of the community it is far too high, and we simply cannot agree with that, the position the hon. gentleman would have us take is that-since the word veto has been used-if there is to be a veto in this regard, the veto should reside with the producing provinces. He would say that the provinces should be entitled to say to the rest of

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
Canada, which over time has come to use the oil, that they do not care what Canadians think is a fair price, the provinces will set their prices at their own level.
The hon. member for Don Valley may feel that way. I think it is fair to say, though, that the Premier of Ontario does not feel that way. The hon. member for Don Valley made reference, by way of analogy, to the impact on the province of Ontario in regard to other commodities. I take it that the Premier of Ontario has considered this question, and he has arrived at a similar conclusion to that of the federal government, namely, that ultimately if a price is to be set the price should be set by a national government which is responsible to a national electorate, and which has to take into account the interests of the nation as a whole as opposed to that of any single province or region. I believe that this is the point of disagreement between the official opposition and the government.
The opposition takes the view that a particular province should be entitled to exercise a final veto in these questions. We do not agree. We feel that on the question of interprovincial and international trade it is clear under the constitution that the provinces do not have this right and that the federal government does, and from time to time should exercise it.
Let us consider the terms of the amendment. If there is an agreement between the federal and provincial governments as provided by division one of Part II of the bill, then the provinces are not forgoing anything. In effect they are entering into an agreement, which they have the authority to do, with the federal government to arrive at a particular conclusion.
Just as we presume that the province agreed last year that it was in its own interest to arrive at an agreement with nine other premiers and the Prime Minister, so in this case, in the event of an agreement, there is no jurisdiction being forsaken. There is nothing being given up by the provinces. They will take the decision in their own best interests. Then, if there is no agreement, I think it is also fair to say that the province is still not forgoing anything, as the Crown is exercising the jurisdiction given to it under the constitution to create a marketing scheme, a plan for the national marketing of this product, on an interprovincial or international basis.
On that basis I think it is fair to observe that the amendment does not add anything to the law, or anything in a practical sense to the determination of the issues involved. We therefore feel it is not an effective amendment. As the hon. member will agree, the rhetoric in the amendment represents a statement on the constitution of Canada, which we regard as a misstatement. For that reason I will counsel my colleagues, when the time comes, to vote against this amendment.


James McPhail Gillies: What position does the government take with respect to the fundamental constitutional position that resources are the property of the provinces and therefore come within their jurisdiction in connection with pricing? I do not think one can dispute inter-commerce or interprovincial trade, but on the fundamental issue of ownership, what position does the government take?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have been on this debate for a long time, pre-dating the days when the hon.

member undertook his present responsibilities. But I think it is useful to repeat that there is no contest at the federal level. For example, we have no hesitation in saying that with regard to the development of the oil sands, this is a resource totally within the Province of Alberta, and that if the province chooses not to develop those resources-to use a Biblical parable; if it chooses to leave that talent in the ground-then I think the hon. member will recognize that it is the decision of the province in that regard.
However, when a resource is developed and commodities are produced which the private sector or a provincial marketing commission then wishes to sell, either interpro-vincially or internationally, at that point it is no longer a question of ownership by the province; it comes into a broader market than that of the province alone. On that basis account has to be taken of the constitution which provides for this aspect of economic policy.
If the province chooses to misallocate its resources the federal government cannot do much about it; or if the province chooses to develop a resource in a certain way or not develop it at all, that is a reality which the federal government, in our system, must live with. But if at the point they are developed and the products involved in that development become the subject of interprovincial or international commerce, then the federal jurisdiction applies. I cited to the House earlier the judgment of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in Attorney General of Canada versus Attorney General of B.C., in which the point was made by Lord Tomlin that, no matter what may be the regional jurisdiction over the pricing of a product, when that product becomes the subject of trade in a broader market, at that point the jurisdiction of the federal government seizes and takes effect.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address myself to a remark of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who dismissed the amendment proposed by my colleague from Don Valley as mere rhetoric. Let me read that amendment again. It proposes:
That clause 21 on page 10 be amended by deleting line 42 and substituting therefor the following:
"international markets, in co-operation at all times with the provinces of production which, in the interests and for the protection of consumers in other provinces, have foregone to the degree necessary to this purpose their constitutional autonomy over crude oil as a natural resource and are therefore entitled, so far as compensation may answer, to be restored to a position of equality with other provinces with respect to the administration and control of one of their natural resources."
The minister dismisses that as rhetoric. He might be interested in knowing that that language came from the 1930 amendment to the British North America Act, sometimes known as the Mineral Transfer Act, which says in part, and I quote:
And whereas it is desirable that the province should be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of Confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources as from its entrance into Confederation in 1905:
I will not quote any more. In other words, this amendment seeks to confirm that the government still holds the constitution of the country, the British North America Act as amended in 1930, as being valid in law. In find it
April 24, 1975

somewhat disturbing that the minister should dismiss as mere rhetoric the wording of an amendment to the British North America Act, as contained in the Mineral Transfer Act if 1930. That amendment came about as a result of 25 years of political agitation by the people of western Canada, who asked to be treated as equals in confederation and not as colonials living in colonies of central Canada. After 25 years of agitation, under a Conservative government they were able to bring about that amendment to the British North America Act which made Saskatchewan and Alberta the equals of the other provinces in Confederation. I don't think that was any act of great benevolence but, certainly, it was an act of justice.
Now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources seeks to turn the calendar back to before 1930 and to dismiss as rhetoric the very language of the law. Surely, if any doubt the minister's motives, what the minister has said should put their minds at rest.
Of course the minister went beyond the scope of this clause in his discussion and talked about the necessity of a veto clause. It is argued that under that veto clause, in the absence of agreement the federal government could, or would, in considering its national responsibilities impose an agreement. In his argument he conveniently dismissed two relevant facts. Perhaps we can discuss those when the appropriate clauses are discussed. Let me remind the minister that, for some 18 months, we have been under a price control regime in this country through which the federal government, at its own initiative and without discussion, has controlled the price of crude oil in this country. It has done this without the benefit of this veto clause, without the benefit of this legislation, and without legislative muscle.


Mr. Caccia:: What do you mean by saying it was done without discussion?


Harvie Andre: This regime was imposed on September 4,
1973.


Charles L. Caccia: But it was done after consultation, and you know it.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member opposite is playing fast and loose with history. He knows that this decision was arrived at after a certain cabinet meeting, after which the cabinet felt compelled to make a statement about inflation because of the noise the previous leader of the NDP had been making that summer throughout the country. The fact remains that a price control regime has been in place for one and a half years. Certainly it has been in place with the co-operation of producing provinces, even though they were aghast, alarmed, and angered by the federal government's taking such unilateral action without the slightest consultation. Nonetheless they co-operated, and co-operate to this day.
No province has given the slightest indication that it will not co-operate. On the contrary the minister has indicated already that his government is prepared to take unilateral action without consultation. No province has yet said it will not go along with the government. They have said, "We will go along." The minister, however, says he must have this veto clause in case agreement cannot be reached. What kind of agreement can you reach in the face
Oil and Petroleum
of that veto clause? How can you negotiate staring down the barrel of a gun? What sort of negotiations will go on? The argument is completely ridiculous. Armed with this legislation the government can go to any meeting and say, "We suggest this." If any province dares to disagree, the government could claim there is no agreement. This is how it will be.
My friends of the NDP would never accept that sort of situation in labour-management negotiations. They would never agree to one side having that sort of veto clause. I mean, how can there be consultation and negotiation when one side has that sort of authority? Mr. Chairman, it is patently absurd. The existence of that veto clause would mean that the federal government could unilaterally decide on the price of crude oil and natural gas in Canada. The rest of the bill might as well not be there. The government might as well say, "We are going to control the price of natural gas and crude oil in this country, period." The law gives the provinces no assurance that there will be meaningful negotiation and consultation. After all, consider the assurances the government gave the provinces in the past.
I said a few moments ago that on September 4, 1973, the federal government, unilaterally and without consultation, introduced a price freeze. It was imposed two months after the publication of a document by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources called "An Energy Policy for Canada-Phase I". On page 9 the document asserts that no national policy can be contemplated without the fullest intergovernmental consultation and consensus. On page 58 these words are to be found:
That there can be no effective set of national energy policies developed without the participation of the provincial governments is readily apparent... Obviously, policies developed in isolation in Ottawa hold scant hope for success.
We were assured there would be the fullest consultation, that the government understood the constitution of this country, that it recognized the provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources, and that it intended to consult the provinces before taking action. Then, two months later, without the slightest consultation, the minister unilaterally imposed the price freeze and the export tax. We know the whole sorry history after that. Now he says he needs this veto clause, because there might not be agreement. Balderdash!
The existence of this veto clause will guarantee that there will not be discussions, that there will not be negotiation, and that the minister will decide unilaterally, for political reasons rather than for reasons of national security, what the price shall be. That is just plain unacceptable.
In the hope of improving this bill somewhat, we would like added to the bill a short paragraph that might at least remind future ministers and bureaucrats that at all times there must be co-operation with the provinces of production. Under the British North America Act 1930, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were guaranteed equality with the other provinces of Canada with regard to the administration and control of their natural resources. We would like to see that incorporated in this bill.

Oil and Petroleum
I do not think it is acceptable advice to those on the opposite side, who are thinking about their vote and not just reacting in an automatic manner to the minister's directions to reconsider, that they should vote against this amendment on the basis of it being mere rhetoric. It is not rhetoric. It is the constitution of Canada, the British North America Act 1930.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, one of the predictable things about the hon. member for Calgary Centre is that as he rants on, he defeats his own argument.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I do not think the amendment has been put to the committee. Maybe I should put it before the minister speaks. It is moved by Mr. Gillies:
That clause 21 on page 10 be amended by deleting line 42 and substituting therefor the following:
"international markets, in co-operation at all times with the provinces of production which, in the interests and for the protection of consumers in other provinces, have foregone to the degree necessary to this purpose their constitutional autonomy over crude oil as a natural resource and are therefore entitled, so far as compensation may answer, to be restored to a position of equality with other provinces with respect to the administration and control of one of their natural resources."


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, one of the things about the hon. member for Calgary Centre is that if you give him enough rope, he will defeat himself in his particular proposal. In his final few words he really answered the main thrust of his argument.
The federal statute, which was the Alberta Natural Resources Act of 1930, and the other federal statutes in that regard do not purport to give to the province of Alberta and the other provinces any higher right in confederation than have the other provinces under Section 109 of the British North America Act. They of course gained responsibility for developing the natural resources in their provinces. Ontario and Quebec, and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick came into confederation subject to the overall responsibility of the federal government for trade and commerce. Therefore Alberta is on exactly the same basis. The observation is as relevant with regard to Alberta as it is with regard to the rest of the provinces.
The fact is that the province can decide to develop the resource it wishes. However, when it seeks to introduce the products of that development into interprovincial or international trade, it becomes subject to federal jurisdiction. I refer only to the wording here. It adds nothing to the constitution, it subtracts nothing and it adds nothing to this particular bill. It in no way detracts from the 1930 statute. The province has its right, but if it seeks to market its products outside its own boundaries it is subject to this particular jurisdiction. That is just not my viewpoint or the viewpoint of the federal government.
The hon. member indicated it was not a higher claim he was making for Alberta than Ontario. Premier of Ontario insisted to this government that to look after the broader interests of the country as a whole we should indeed have these powers. This was put before the first ministers at their last conference. Indeed it was put before the electors of Canada at the time of the last election that, in a
moment like this, when it is not possible to arrive at an agreement, the level of government that should take the ultimate responsibility is the national one. It should not be left to any provincial government to have the final say. The point has been well made.
The only point I would add is that the hon. member sought to base an argument on some higher claim than the Alberta Natural Resources Act. This is the same claim Ontario would make. Ontario clearly recognizes that in interprovincial commerce it is the federal government which should take this final responsibility.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I am deeply sorry that my friends to the left are not taking part in this interesting argument. I know they are in a difficult position. Their natural desire, indeed the urge which possesses them is to seek great chunks of power vested in the government. It is part and parcel of their philosophy. I understand that. This is indeed in conflict with their responsibility to their respective provinces.
If the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, a former premier, were still in power at this time, he would be burning the wires with his protestations against the powers which the government of Canada is seeking here. He would be most unhappy about this.
I hope the members of the NDP will come to a full realization of their responsibilities before the bill is disposed of finally. As for the minister, we have given up hope on him on this particular issue. However, there is a larger audience beyond him. We will bounce our arguments off him in the belief they will be heard by others in the country and in due course the issue will be decided as to what extent the federal government has the right to trample on the constitution. They use as the sole criterion that when there is a genuine dispute as a result of the constitution, and our constitution is particularly difficult, they can over-ride the constitution and decide-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is what the Premier of Ontario says.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not care what the Premier of Ontario says or what the Premier of Alberta says. I am here as a federal member of parliament, responsible to the people in my constituency.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Your disdain for the Premier of Ontario is noted.


Gerald William Baldwin: I take my responsibility a little more seriously than does the minister. He reminds me of a judge I appeared before as a young lawyer. I had great respect and veneration for the courts, which I still have, although it is a little dimmed over time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not the only thing that is dim.


Gerald William Baldwin: That judge made a manifestly improper decision on the law. When counsel got up and objected, the judge said "When I don't like the law, I jump over the law." The minister has become a great jumper. He jumps over the law a great deal. He is certainly taking a very high jump at this time.

April 24, 1975

I know this is difficult. We have a situation with regard to energy, that exists in Canada as well as in many other parts of the world. If all consultation fails it may be desirable to have some supreme authority. If we do not have any divine providence to fix the price, the government, having the attitude that they are the agents for the Lord, are going to fix it themselves. This would be all very well if we were a unitary state, but we are not. We have a constitution that provides for these divisions of powers. Difficult though it may be, and hard though it may be, I say that we should all thank the Lord that that is the case. I am sure a lot of members from the province of Quebec have genuine reason to bless the constitution for the powers it gives that province, and I am amazed that they sit idly by, merely because the minister is a member of their own party, and watch him mutilate and virtually destroy part of the constitution in this way.
I say it is not good enough for this minister or any other minister to say that the government is trying to get agreement on a multilateral basis, but that if it cannot do so it will get agreement on a bilateral basis, and that if it cannot even get that it will fix the price and to hell with the constitution. Certainly that is the attitude the minister is taking. If some hon. members opposite are offended by my language, then they should take a serious look at what is involved here.
The minister said earlier that he contemplates that the effect of this legislation, if it passes the House unchanged with all these repugnant clauses in it, would be that the provincial Crown agency for any of the producing provinces would be able to purchase oil at the wellhead as a transaction within the province and not be subject to the prescribed price. If I am wrong in my interpretation of what the minister said, would he correct me?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the law really speaks for itself. If it is a transaction to export from a province, then the bill applies. If it is not such a transaction, then there is no such application of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: I hate to go around the old merry-go-round again but I have pointed out to the minister-I am sure his officials have filled him in on the facts of life in this regard-that crude oil coming out of the wellhead is automatically a mixture. This is a fact of life, so that when oil leaves the wellhead part of it will be consumed in the province and part will be exported outside the province, and it is impossible to identify these parts.
I did make that point previously, but the minister said, if I understood his response to a question from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands correctly, that irrespective of that a purchase made at that time is considered to be a transaction entirely within the province. Therefore the minister said that situation is not covered by the legislation.
If I am wrong, then the minister can deal with the matter later. However, if that is the case, then let us say that the province of Alberta, or for that matter the province of Saskatchewan or the province of British Columbia, fixes the price at $8.75. This bill has been passed, and the federal government fixes the prescribed price at, say, $8.25.
Oil and Petroleum
If the provincial Crown agency, for the purposes of the intraprovincial transaction, has purchased at the price of $8.75 and that transaction has not been challenged by this legislation, then I ask the minister to consider what would be the result. Does it mean that, as a matter of practical economics, the people involved in the next leg of the transaction, namely, those who purchase from the provincial Crown agency, must pay only $8.25? What is the position of the provincial Crown agency? Must it be compelled to sell at $8.25, despite the fact that it paid $8.75 at the wellhead? These are the practical problems that I am sure the minister must contemplate.
We have been talking about crude oil and have already been through the definition of crude oil. The minister made it plain that a great many commodities of a commercial nature that are derivatives, that have crude oil as their feed stock, can be covered by this particular legislation. My hon. friend from Calgary Centre went so far as to say that panty hose was covered. There may be other items, but certainly that is one. Hundreds of items may be covered by the bill. What is the situation with regard to these derivatives which are based on crude oil as the feed stock?
It is all very well for the minister to say that he has no intention of making the bill apply to such items. But we are not concerned with his intentions; we are concerned with the powers given by this legislation. If there is an industry in the province of Alberta, or the provinces of Saskatchewan or British Columbia, that produces a commodity based on crude oil, and which is defined as crude oil within the interpretation that the minister has fastened upon us by the amendments that have been brought in, then how does the prescribed price apply? Does the minister reserve the right, if there is a sale of the commodity, to fix the price at the factory? Is the minister saying that if this commodity is sold to a wholesaler who takes delivery at the factory, the wholesaler must pay the prescribed price even though it is a transaction that takes place entirely within the province?
I suggest that these are not fanciful ideas but are difficult and intricate problems that are created when government, without regard to what is the law not only as laid down in the constitution but as fixed by judicial decision, decides to enact legislation of this kind. Certainly these are problems we will have to deal with if this bill is passed. Perhaps the minister has answers now, perhaps not, but I should like to hear him in any event.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the only question the hon. member has posed that has not been dealt with already is with regard to action that the marketing commission may take. The prescribed price on an export contract will be the prescribed price set out in the statute. Therefore whatever the marketing commission may have chosen to pay within the province, on any export transaction it will be bound by that price.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River seems to be somewhat upset that I have not taken part in the debate on his amendment. It is certainly not from any natural modesty or any reluctance to pontificate, which a politician can generally do at the drop of a hat. I learned a long time ago that if you have two small men in the ring with

Oil and Petroleum
one big fellow, it is a waste of time for both small men to punch away at each other; they should punch the big man. So whenever I think I can be of assistance to the hon. member for Peace River I try, and offer what assistance I can.
I must confess that any intervention by me with regard to this particular amendment is certainly not helpful. We have been over the ground a number of times and I have expressed my point of view. However, I do take exception to the fact that the hon. member is suggesting that the reason we are not supporting the idea of the provincial right to set prices, and the reason we are not vehement about the fact that the federal government is seeking to set the price of petroleum products that enter inter-provincial and international trade, is that we are anxious to see big government, big controls and centralization. As a matter of fact that comes strangely from a political party which campaigned up and down, and over the length and breadth of Canada last year advocating wage and price controls. Except for 10 per cent of the labour force which comes under federal labour law, 90 per cent of the wages and a very large part of industry in this country comes under provincial jurisdiction.
At no time did I hear my Conservative friends telling the people of Canada how they proposed to fix either wages or prices. Constitutionally the only way they could have done so would have been to ask each province to pass enabling legislation delegating to some federal agency or tribunal the power to set prices and wages.
This party has not been inconsistent. One of the first things we did when the last parliament was elected in 1972 was to introduce a motion calling for a two-price system for petroleum products. If my memory is correct, on January 25,1973, I, on behalf of this party, moved a motion on an opposition day calling for a two-price system in Canada, and in October, 1973, I moved a further motion on an opposition day calling for the kind of system we felt would protect Canadians against the exorbitant prices that were being charged by OPEC countries on the international market, and to cushion the Canadian people against these unprecedented and unjustified increases in the price of oil.
When the government moved belatedly, I think it was on December 13, 1973, we supported it. Our position has not altered in any way, shape or form. We believe that in Canada there has to be some control by the federal and provincial governments in concert, if possible, on a commodity like this which on world markets has quadrupled in price. If the federal and provincial governments cannot agree, someone must have the authority to prevent the Canadian price from going to the world price.
There is no reason why the Canadian people should pay $12 or $15 a barrel for their own oil which only two years ago was worth $2.75 a barrel. The Canadian people have no right to be ripped off because of some constitutional argument that the federal government has not the power to establish the price. Very clearly it does have the power. It had the power in the matter of wheat.

When the price of some classes of wheat and rapeseed went up to $8 a bushel on the Chicago market the government imposed a two-price system through the Wheat Board and kept the price down to the Canadian consumer, the livestock producers and feed purchasers in eastern Canada. This was done so they would not have to pay unjustified prices to western grain producers just because the world market had temporarily gone insane. When copper prices went out of line only a few short years ago the government stepped in and fixed a domestic price for copper as compared to the international price. There is nothing unusual about that.
I want to say in all kindness in respect of the amendment proposed that one of the reasons I did not get up and talk about it is that to me it is simply an expression of opinion that really does not relate to the clause at all and has no legal power whatsoever. I am not a lawyer, but I have rubbed shoulders enough with lawyers for a number of years so that I know even less about law now than before I began to rub shoulders with them, but I would invite anyone to explain to me how adding these words in the amendment to Clause 21(c) would have any legal effect whatsoever.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre said this was taken from the legislation having to do with the resource transfer legislation and the British North America Act. Of course it did, and it made sense in respect of that legislation. Under the British North America Act the original provinces that went into confederation in 1867, and those in 1871, had control of their resources. When Saskatchewan and Alberta became provinces in 1905 they were not given control of their resources. The hon. member was quite right when he said that was a very sore point with the people of the prairie provinces for a long time.
When the Bennett government brought in the legislation which gave the resources back to those provinces that did what this clause suggests. It restored to the position of equality with other provinces those provinces in respect of administration and control of one of their natural resources. Of course that was done.
As an aside, in addition to restoring that right to them the government was supposed to pay those provinces for having control of those resources all that prior time. I do not know how Alberta fared on that, but we never did get paid in Saskatchewan. The government under Mackenzie King agreed to cancel some old relief debts that it was never going to collect anyway to offset the $55 million the government owed Saskatchewan for the resources that had been used up from 1905 to 1931.
The words used by the hon. member for Don Valley have some relevance in the meaning of the resource transfer legislation, but I suggest they have no meaning added here, and that is why I did not intervene in the debate. I really think they would add nothing, except perhaps an editorial comment which is hardly of value in a piece of legislation like this.
May I say one further thing before I sit down. I think all of us recognize that, if it were at all possible, the best way to agree upon the price which should be charged the Canadian consumers for petroleum products is to reach an agreement between the producing provinces and the Gov-
April 24, 1975

ernment of Canada which has the responsibility for the national economy. We all hope that will still be done.
I must say also to the minister, and I do not say it to him as an individual but as a member of the government, that the possibility of reaching such an agreement was sadly reduced last year when the federal government, after getting an agreement with the provinces which cost those provinces $5 a barrel, in that they got that amount less than they would have received from the international price, turned around and said all resource companies had to pay income tax on royalties paid to the provincial governments. For the first time to my knowledge that expenditure by the resource industry has been treated as income and not deductible for income tax purposes. That is a good part of the reason why it is so difficult now to reach any agreement between the federal and provincial governments.


Harvie Andre: You can't trust them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My
friend says that we cannot trust them. I suggest for very good reason; once bitten, twice shy.


James McPhail Gillies: You are speaking better now, Tommy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My
friends in the Conservative Party only like me when I am giving the Grits hell. My job is to point out when they are both wrong.


An hon. Member:: You are good at it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He has a two-edged sword.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: think a good deal of the resentment and hostility present today in the relations between the federal government and the oil producing provinces could have been resolved, and could still be resolved if the federal government were prepared to drop its unjustified and unwarranted intervention into the management of the resources of the provinces through a tax measure which I think was a scandalous intervention by the Minister of Finance in his budgets both of May 6 and November 18 last. At the beginning of the discussion I made a suggestion in respect of the bill. The minister, I am sure, would not want to accept it although he may as time goes on give some thought to it.
I think this legislation could pass much more quickly if the federal government were prepared to take out of the legislation the mandatory clauses, particularly clause 36 having to do with oil, and I believe clause 52 having to do with natural gas, the two clauses which give the federal government the power to set the price once it happens that an agreement cannot be reached with the provinces. But I do not stop there. I do not agree with my friends that this is satisfactory because, if the federal government does not have the final power to intervene, this would mean that the provinces would be able to set the price.


An hon. Member:: Not necessarily.
Oil and Petroleum


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
provinces could set the price in their interest rather than in the national interest. If the provinces are not prepared to enter into a joint agreement with the federal government then I am prepared to support the idea of the federal government having power to set the price. If the minister and his colleagues cannot reach a compromise with the provincial governments they can always introduce in the first, second or third week in June, an amendment to this legislation to include the mandatory provisions.
So far as this party is concerned we would support those mandatory provisions because otherwise we cannot have two-price systems in our country. In the final analysis the government must have the authority to fix the price after the temporary voluntary agreement ends on June 30.


James McPhail Gillies: Why not a federal-provincial commission?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: would not worry about a federal-provincial commission because the federal government, operating under the constitution, is given the power to set the price within provinces and across provincial boundaries and it ought to exercise that authority. My criticism is not of the federal government exercising the power that the constitution gives it but that it has taken too long to use that power, and now that it is using it I propose to support it in doing so.


James McPhail Gillies: Do you want in or out?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: want if possible to get a voluntary agreement and, if not, I want the federal government to have the power to impose an agreement because otherwise we would not have price control in this country. My friends who supported price control ought to be jumping with joy because finally the federal government has proceeded to fix the price of one commodity. If in the next few weeks before the federal minister brings down his budget the federal government and the provinces could reach some compromise with regard to the taxation of the resource industries so that all or part of the royalties paid to a provincial government will be deductible for income tax purposes, and if they could reach some agreement concerning the price, this mandatory power may not be needed.
I believe we would get this legislation through much more quickly if this mandatory power were not there, but if there is no agreement we think this mandatory power must be given the government, and we will support the government if it brings that measure before the House.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member to my left has had something to say about the elements that might be a factor in the resolution of our current energy problems in Canada. Certainly the national press is now stirred up about this, and the Financial Post has a special section on energy this week which leads off by saying:
One of the least attractive characteristics of the federal government is its current preoccupation with talking a problem half-to-death, but doing next to nothing about resolving it. And nowhere is this clearer than in the energy sector.
Despite the recent two-day federal-provincial summit meeting here, Canada seems no closer to any kind of comprehensive energy policy than it was a year ago after the last meeting of first ministers.

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
I am afraid that if we look at the history of energy matters and negotiations in this country during the past two years it becomes evident unfortunately that all these negotiations and relations between the federal government and the provincial governments, and between the federal government and the industry itself have been in an atmosphere of distrust, principally distrust of the federal government.
There are some obvious reasons for this which have been raised on numerous occasions in the past. I shall not go into them at the present time. I wish to deal with the three elements which might have brought the energy problem to a conclusion and which might have resolved this important matter for Canadians when the premiers met here in Ottawa with the Prime Minister. I cannot understand why at that time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Prime Minister and the government did not come forward with a proposal to the provinces which might have resolved this matter without the need to return at a future time, probably in June, to try all over again. I say that had a resolution been possible we would not be here at the present time debating Bill C-32. We might look at what the various parties to these agreements want.
In the first place the provinces, including the province of Saskatchewan, are very interested in having provincial royalties, or the amounts paid by way of provincial royalties deductible for federal income tax purposes. This is one of the things the federal negotiators should have recognized as a carrot to hold out to the provinces.
In the second place one of the inhibiting factors in the development of future reserves in this country-and surely to goodness the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources have had enough to say about their concern for future resources of oil and gas-is the non-deductibility of the provincial royalties for income tax purposes, which is an important factor in the present disincentive program provided for explorers in this country. This is prohibitive when combined with the disincentives added by provincial royalties in the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
The third element in the total mixture is price. If the federal government had really wanted to resolve the question of energy once and for all it should have made a proposal at the first ministers' meeting-I for one was very surprised it did not-which put forward a price for crude oil that was acceptable to the federal government but which was conditional on a reduction at least to a certain level of provincial royalties, and in turn the federal government could have provided as a further incentive, as the key incentive, to the provinces the deductibility of the provincial royalties for federal income tax purposes. Had this been the case, the deductibility of royalties would have provided the incentive for industry to get on with the job.
In the provinces of British Columbia and Saskatchewan where the present most severe factor is the high rate of provincial royalty, a reduction to an acceptable level which might have been proposed in the package by the

federal government would have removed the other important element in the disincentives and in the current rules that are inhibiting exploration in those provinces. An increase in the price of crude could have compensated the provinces for their losses.
The Minister of Finance, in response to a question that I put to him on the cost of deductibility up to 25 per cent of provincial royalties, pointed out to me that the cost to the federal treasury was in the order of $300 million a year. This is a very modest and small amount to kick back into the mix to provide the provinces and the oil and gas industries with the incentives which they need. I might say that it is a paltry amount as compared with the $500 million of capital in the total proposed expenditures of some $1.5 billion in Petro-Can, proposed by the minister to achieve the goal of self-sufficiency in energy in this country in the future.
The other fact as it relates to Bill C-32 is that if the government had resolved the question of price at the first ministers' conference along with the other elements in an energy policy, we would have had the principal ingredients for the budget proposed by the Minister of Finance. But since the Minister of Finance says that he will bring down a budget before the end of May-that is, if he returns in time-one wonders how he will resolve the price of crude oil by that time. The Premier of Alberta has made it clear that there would be no agreement, so far as he is concerned, on the price of crude oil until he knows what is in the budget, simply because last year the government pulled the rug out from under the premiers in its May budget after an agreement had been reached on price at the first ministers' conference in March.
Now there is a high degree of urgency on the part of the government to pass Bill C-32 so that it can choose in advance all the key elements in the price of oil and gas for purposes of preparing its budget. The government will have prepared and delivered the budget with all the key elements chosen internally as a result of the fact that Bill C-32 will give the federal government the power to impose the very prices which it selected for the purpose of preparing its budget.
What is the reason for bringing the premiers back in June to discuss and finalize the whole matter of oil and gas prices? I believe that the meeting of the first ministers here earlier this month and the call to these first ministers to come to the capital were undertaken with the full intention on the part of the government that this meeting should be a failure. Thus we are launched into the passing of Bill C-32, which would not have been necessary if genuine and honest efforts had been made by the government to present to the premiers positive suggestions and recommendations that included the key elements of provincial royalties, and deductibility of provincial royalties for tax purposes, and combined with the price of oil and gas.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before we leave this exciting issue, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Although he was a little unkind, I think he acted as a catalyst. Although he said he is not a lawyer, he has rubbed shoulders with quite a few, and a lot has worn off on him. I think he has consciously gone to
April 24, 1975

the root of the issue. He has said, I believe, that in this particular situation and with this particular commodity the federal government should, all else failing, have the right to fix the price. He said that because there is a very unique and difficult situation. I think he has almost come to our point.
If the hon. member remembers, when we were dealing with the energy allocation supply bill, under clause 11 the government, with a little more understanding of the law than it has now, said that only when there is an emergency, or what is described as a national emergency-and it gave an indication of what kind of national emergency it had in mind-could it immediately invoke the provisions of the act and the right to allocate.
I think that is the situation here. The government will probably admit that it does not have the right to move in and fix prices unless the situation is so serious as to warrant it, or else following federal provincial arrangements, discussions, delegation of powers, and so on. But the situation with regard to crude oil derivatives is so difficult and unique at this stage in the economic history of this country and of the world that it would only require a little push to send it over into the area of being an emergency.
An emergency is contemplated in only two situations where that section of the BNA Act has been invoked successfully, that is, in the two world wars. As I tried to point out earlier, we have changed, because of the economic practice which prevails, and it will not take as much as a war, it would take something much less than a war or apprehension of a war or a revolution, although we did have an apprehended riot in Quebec, if I remember correctly. It takes much less than that to trigger off the peace, order and good government clause in terms of which the government would have the right to invoke this provision. In actual fact the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and I are really pretty well on the same wavelength. I just want to get him up a little bit further with me on this issue.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Gillies) negatived: Yeas, 10; nays, 30.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 21, as amended, carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to on division.
On clause 22-Provincial agreement on prices.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the following amendment to clause 22:
That clause 22 on page 11 be amended by adding thereto, next after line 17, the following:
"(3) Inasmuch as it is desirable that a producer-province should be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of Confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources, an agreement entered into pursuant to subsection (1) or any regulation made under section 36 shall be subject to the proviso that the amount, if any, remaining when the amount of import
Oil and Petroleum
compensation paid pursuant to Part IV is deducted from the amount collected by charges imposed under Part I shall be paid to the producer-provinces in the respective proportions that the number of barrels of oil from any producer-province on which the charge is collected is of the number of barrels of oil from all the producer-provinces on which the charge is collected."
I believe that the minister is familiar with this amendment. Its purpose is to be certain that after payments are made to equalize the price across the country, if any funds are left over from a tax which is charged, these funds should be returned to the producer provinces in the ratio of the contribution of each producer province to the amount of oil upon which the original export tax was originally collected. The reasoning behind this amendment is self-evident and supports the proposition that oil is a resource of the province, and that any tax revenue earned from the sale thereof, which is not needed to fulfil the original purpose of the bill to equalize prices across the country, should not accrue to the general revenue of the federal government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish to raise for the consideration of the Chair the question of whether the amendment proposes the appropriation of part of the public revenue for a purpose which has not first been recommended to the House by the Governor in Council contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
There not having been a recommendation for this appropriation in the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Don Valley, I raise the question as to whether the amendment should be received by the House at this time.


Gérald Laniel: I am grateful to the minister for raising the question. The Chair did not put the amendment when the hon. member for Don Valley took his seat because I wanted to have time to consider the amendment.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Chairman, I venture into an area in which I am admittedly lacking in expertise. However, since the minister has quoted from the British North America Act in support of his point of order that the funds which might be derived from the sale of oil surplus to that which might be used by the federal government should go back to the provinces contrary to the provisions in respect of royal recommendation, I will contribute in debate reference to another section of the British North America Act (1930) which states that:
-the interest of the Crown in all Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom within the Province, and all sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties, shall, from and after the coming into force of this agreement and subject as therein otherwise provided belong to the province-
It seems to me that the British North America Act of 1930 states clearly that all sums due or payable for such lands, mines or minerals, including crude oil and natural gas, belong to the province. In a sense this amendment is merely saying they shall receive what belongs to them, in

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
keeping with the BNA Act of 1930. I submit that therefore the amendment is in order.


Gérald Laniel: The concern I have is not only related to the recommendation, but also to the notice of a ways and means motion. Of course the amendment does not seem to impose a charge as such but seems to give a direction as to the distribution of moneys or surplus moneys which will be collected by the charge imposed by the government under this bill, and which is a condition which is not really identified or related to the recommendation to the notice of ways and means. I refer hon. members to citation 246 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, at page 207, paragraph (3) which says:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment up on the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
I think the first part of that paragraph provides grounds to disallow the amendment as not procedurally acceptable, unless hon. members have other points I might have missed. This is a complicated piece of legislation. The implications of such legislation are not always easy to identify. I take into account the amendment as it is now worded, its objective, and the points raised by the Minister which are quite valid. Perhaps other hon. members have arguments which would lead me to another decision. I see the hon. member for Peace River is prepared to say a few words.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do have a brief comment to make, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be quite correct if the wording of the recommendation had been more specific, but this is one of those more sensible recommendations, both from the point of view of the government and of the opposition, which simply says that His Excellency the Administrator has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure within the terms set out following in the bill itself. It goes on to provide for:
-the administration of interprovincial, export and import trade in petroleum and petroleum products; to provide in the manner prescribed out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the payment of import compensation to eligible importers-and to provide in the manner prescribed out of moneys appropriated by parliament for petroleum supplies-
Clearly, a question of distribution is involved. If we were prohibited from making our amendment, it would follow, logically, that we should be prohibited from making almost any other type of amendment, because it could be argued that an amendment in effect goes beyond what is contained in the legislation and is therefore in conflict with the recommendation. Surely amendments are moved: to alter legislation being considered by a committee or the House.
The hon. member has proposed a certain method of distribution. We dislike the government's proposed method and want to see distribution carried on another way. If he were to attempt to add to the extent to which there could be a contribution out of revenues, or to add to the charges imposed on the taxpayers of this country, he

would be completely out of court. But he is not doing that. He is saying, "We are taking this amount, which the bill contemplates will be raised, and this is the way we want it to be distributed." Clearly, that falls within the wording of the recommendation. We say, "We do not like your method of distribution." We want the committee to be given the opportunity to change that method.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the recommendation, far from being general, is specific about the appropriation of funds. The wording of the recommendation in part is as follows:
-to provide in the manner prescribed out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the payment of import compensation to eligible importers for defined petroleum ... and to provide in the manner prescribed out of moneys appropriated by parliament for petroleum supplies transfer compensation in respect of petroleum to defined suppliers.
Surely the principle has long been established that, when a recommendation is as specific as this one and a decision has been taken by the Governor General in Council with respect to public funds, the impost to be raised, as under this statute, shall be applied in limited and specific ways.
We are up against the principle set out, for example, in citation 249(1) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which says, in part:
No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rests upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer.
This bill provides arrangements for filling the public exchequer with money paid under the export tax, and the recommendation is in most specific terms as to how this shall be applied. Of course, the hon. member's amendment goes well beyond that.


Gérald Laniel: I thank hon. members for their comments. Perhaps I should not commit myself in advance, but I have received notice of two similar or comparable amendments to be moved to clauses 23 and 36 by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The hon. member's proposed amendments would provide for the distribution of moneys in a certain way. Part of the money would be spent on research and development.
If I were to let the committee decide on the amendment because I might feel it is a borderline case, as the hon. member contends, I should be opening the door to many other possibilities involving the use of moneys. This shows, I think, that my first impression was right and the amendment, to my mind, seems to go beyond the terms of the recommendation. I do not intend to read it, as the minister and the hon. member referred to it.
The hon. member for Peace River contends that the recommendation is not a limiting one and that the amendment has to do with the distribution of moneys. One must also consider that the hon. member for Don Valley is proposing something new which is not meant to be included in the recommendation preceding this bill.
I regret to say that the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River have not succeeded in changing my previous position. I feel strongly that accepting the hon. member's amendment would be contrary to principles set out in reference books such as Beauchesne's and May. As I said, it would open the door to more extreme amendments
April 24, 1975

dealing with distribution which would go very much beyond the recommendation and the objective of this legislation. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment at this time.
Shall clause 22 carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.
Clause 22 agreed to on division.
On clause 23-Prescribing maximum.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, clause 23 seeks to give the federal government power to set the price of crude oil entering into interprovincial and international trade, once the federal government and the producing province have reached an agreement. Of course my party agrees that such a price should be set, particularly in today's chaotic situation respecting petroleum prices around the world. What concerns us, however, is what the price will be. We may agree with the government when it says that the price must be set, but I am not sure we shall agree with the government as to the price which it will eventually set. We may not even agree on the price which the federal government and the provinces may agree to set.
I find the federal government's position with respect to the price of oil difficult to understand. At the first ministers' conference the Prime Minister opened his speech by saying that the price of oil would be going up. Actually he said that the price for the year beginning in July will have to be raised higher than it is now, and how much higher is something we should discuss. That statement seemed to be specific and clear.
When we began discussing Bill C-32 in committee of the whole, the minister surprised me and many committee members by saying that he was not committed to raising the price at the end of June. I have some difficulty reconciling those two statements. The Prime Minister said that beginning in July we must have higher prices. The minister said that he is not committed to raising prices at the end of June.
When I asked if that means that if the producing provinces did not raise prices the price may stay at $6.50 a barrel, I understood him to suggest that that might be the case. It is difficult to know the government's intentions. I suspect it intends to raise the price. I suspect that the Premiers of Alberta and Ontario and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources are doing a black spider mating dance, each wondering who is going to go first, each hoping the other will go first. In spite of the fact the head of the government said the price is going up at the beginning of July, the minister does not want to commit himself to raising the price in the hope that the provinces will raise the price and, if this legislation passes, the federal government will intervene and set a lower price.
This whole thing is a rather shabby sort of exhibition, regardless of what they are going to set the price at. When the minister was speaking the other day, he said that Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan talked about an increased price of $2.50 a barrel. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said he had something else in mind. I take it he wants $2 a barrel. The producing provinces probably want to set a somewhat higher price.
Oil and Petroleum
The position of our party has been made very clear. We do not think any increase in price is justified, either on the basis of increased operating costs or on the basis of earnings of the multinational oil companies. The breakdown of the cost per barrel at $6.50 a barrel made by the Petroleum Association of Canada last September shows that the actual production costs are very minimal. Certainly on the basis of what it costs to produce a barrel of oil, there is no justification for an increase. There can certainly be no justification on the ground that the oil companies are hard up. Their profits have doubled over the past two years. The only possible justification for raising the price of oil is to get sufficient money to stimulate exploration and development.
If the federal government allows the price to rise, as the major beneficiary it will collect about 80 cents a barrel on a $2 per barrel increase in taxes. The provinces will collect some royalty. In turn their consumers will have to pay higher prices for oil products. The main beneficiaries will be the oil companies.
The federal government will be saying to the consumers of Canada that they must pay eight cents or more per gallon for their gasoline, more for their farm heating fuels, and more for their diesel fuel, not because it costs more to produce, but because it is hoped that some of this money will be used by the oil industry to find more oil.


An hon. Member:: It goes into royalties for
Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
hon. member will look at the breakdown of the Petroleum Association of Canada of last September he will see that before the new tax system that came in, out of every $6.50 a barrel they paid operating costs, taxes to the federal government, royalties to the provincial government, 40 cents a barrel for interest on money owed, and there was $1.55 a barrel for future development. Under the old tax system, they levied $1.55 a barrel on the $6.50 price. It will now be cut to $1.02 a barrel under the new tax system, unless the government changes its mind.
In spite of the exorbitant profits they have made in the past two years, oil drilling has been going down. In the past 12 months 93 drilling rigs left Canada. There is no guarantee that giving the oil industry more money will necessarily result in more exploration.


James McPhail Gillies: Why did they leave?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will tell the hon. member for Don Valley why they left. Nobody knows this better than he because he has had contacts with the business community for a good many years and is a very learned man in the field of business administration. I wish to quote from an article in the 1973 edition of the Globe and Mail. In an appearance before the National Energy Board, Mr. John Hardie of Gulf Oil Canada Limited is quoted as having said the following:
It must be remembered that the oil business is not confined to Canada. To keep the people interested in exploring for and producing oil in Canada, the investment climate and the prospect of returns on investments in Canada will have to be competitive with oil investment opportunities elsewhere in the world, he said.
5192

Oil and Petroleum


James McPhail Gillies: True.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
hon. member says good.


James McPhail Gillies: I said true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: course, in terms of the market economy, that is good. No matter what cash flow we have, no matter if we raise the price to give them more money, they will go where the investment opportunities are best. They will take the money they made in Canada through the multinational corporations and use it to drill in the Middle East, the North Sea, Africa or South America. There is no doubt they will do that. In their market economy that is naturally what they will do.
We have been saying that if the Canadian people are going to be asked to pay more for their oil products and the purpose of the increased price is to stimulate production and development, then the money which the Canadian consumer contributes to that end ought to go into a Canada resources security fund, administered by the federal and provincial governments on a 50/50 basis. The money should be used either in joint ventures with private industry or by the provincial governments on their own. It could also be used in joint ventures between the federal and provincial governments.
We have no right to allow the oil industry to put a further levy on the Canadian consumer in order to explore for oil in other places in the world. They have enough of a levy on now. We have a right to hold on to any increase in price. The producing governments and the federal governments should have the right, power and responsibility to see that any increase in price is used for exploration and development in this country. There is only one way we can do that, and that is to have that extra price, assuming it is $2 or whatever it may be, collected in the form of a charge by the Government of Canada, 50 per cent of it to into a Canadian resources security fund, 50 per cent of the fund to be controlled by the producing provinces on a pro rated basis, and 50 per cent of the fund to be controlled by the federal government. Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-32 be amended by renumbering section 23 as subsection 23 (1) and adding thereafter the following subsections:
(2)	Where the Governor in Council has established maximum prices under subsection (1), there shall be imposed, levied and collected on each barrel of crude oil to which this Part applies a charge in the amount of that part of the prescribed price which exceeds the maximum selling price for a similar quality and kind of crude oil as of the 16th day of April, 1975.
(3)	The Governor in Council shall collect such charge in accordance with regulations which may from time to time be promulgated.
(4)	Where a producer-province has established a Crown agency to undertake the exploration and development of hydrocarbons in that province, the Governor in Council shall remit to that agency one half of any monies derived from the charges levied on crude oil produced in that province.
(5)	Any monies not remitted to the producer-provinces under subsection (4) shall be used by the federal government, through the national petroleum corporation or otherwise, for the exploration and development of hydrocarbons in Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, as you may perhaps have anticipated this is a corollary to the point of order I raised on the previous clause, namely, that by his amendment the hon. member is seeking to impose a further tax in this country without the advance sanction of a ways and means resolution or recommendation of the Crown. The tax to be imposed by the hon. gentleman is not confined, as the ways and means resolution is, to petroleum to be exported from Canada, either from December 1, 1974, on, or in the previous period April 1 to December 1, 1974. It is intended to apply to all oil, whether moving in international trade, as the ways and means resolution describes, or oil moving in interprovincial trade. The ways and means resolution does not go that far but applies itself to export only.
On that basis I submit that the hon. member's amendment comes within the terms of a number of inhibitions which have been recognized in our parliamentary practice. If I can refer to citation 263(2) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
The principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of money drawn from the public revenue, applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue. No motion can therefore be made to impose a tax, save by a Minister of the Crown, unless such tax be in substitution, by way of equivalent, for taxation at that moment submitted to the consideration of Parliament; nor can the amount of tax proposed on behalf of the Crown be augmented, nor any alteration made in the area of imposition.
Equally, citation 266(1) provides as follows:
A ways and means resolution is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already payers.
I submit that the hon. gentleman's amendment creates an additional tax on a group of taxpayers, and that, not being within the terms of the ways and means resolution and not being authorized by a governor in council recommendation, it is not in order at this time.


Gérald Laniel: Order. While the minister was commenting on the acceptability of the amendment I examined the implications of the amendment and I must say I have come to about the same conclusion as the minister. As the Chair already said on the previous amendment put forward by the hon. member for Don Valley, the amendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is also unacceptable on two counts. One relates to the fact that it imposes a tax that has not been provided for in the ways and means motion; the second reason is that it goes beyond the recommendation in regard to the distribution of money in that the hon. member's amendment seems to recommend that the excess be oriented toward the exploration and development of hydrocarbons in Canada. Although this might be a very commendable and desirable proposition, it would have to be included in another piece of legislation or government measure supported by a recommendation of the Crown.
For these reasons, unless other hon. members have arguments they want to bring to the attention of the Chair in regard to some point I might have overlooked, I would have to refuse the amendment in its present form.
April 24, 1975


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I am not rising to argue with you or with any member of the committee regarding the amendment that I moved. I think the major mistake I made was to send the Chair, the minister, and the official opposition a copy of it well in advance, which gave them the chance to look up all the authorities.
Admittedly there are some difficulties about the amendment. However, I presented the amendment because I hoped that the minister, who has the power to ask for a wider royal recommendation to widen the terms of reference, would do so. I point out to the minister, and I think time will bear me out, that if there are substantial increases in the price of petroleum products which will have an inflationary effect in this country, particularly so far as farm products are concerned, and there is no justification for this other than the fact that we are going to increase the profits of the oil companies in the very shadowy hope that they will use the profits to look for oil, and it transpires that they do not look for oil and we have to come to their rescue, as we did with the Syncrude consortium, then there will be a very bad reaction in this country.
I think the minister will find that the Canadian people, who have always been fair and reasonable, will understand a government that says to them: "$6.50 is a good price for oil, the companies are doing very well on it, and we, the government, are getting a fair amount of taxation out of it; but if you want to have oil ten years from now, you will have to put some money into a fund to search for oil and to develop the oil resources of this country". I think people would understand that, providing the government can guarantee to them that it is for this the money will be used.
I think most people know that if the government does not take some steps along this line, this money will not be used, in the main, for increased exploration and development in Canada, and once again we will simply have ripped off the consumer. The government will get far better co-operation in the very difficult days that lie ahead in respect to the whole inflationary miasma in which we find ourselves if it gives the kind of leadership that is suggested in my proposed amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Clause 23 refers to an agreement, and I notice that by subclause (2) of Clause 22 the agreement need not be expressed in any formal document executed on behalf of the parties if the expression of the agreement is contained in reciprocal orders in council. Is it the view of the minister that a condition precedent to the governor in council fixing maximum prices by regulation is that there would have to be two orders in council passed, one by the province and one by the federal government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I think the correct interpretation would be that there are really two routes by which an agreement could be signified. The first is by a formal document executed on behalf of the parties; the alternative, as the hon. member suggests, is an act in council at the provincial level and an act in council at the federal level.
Oil and Petroleum


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Chairman, before clause 23 passes I think a few words should be said to make it abundantly clear that there was a great deal of error in the rationalization of my hon. friend from the NDP. First of all he said his party was not in favour of any increase whatever in the price of oil. He then went on to suggest that oil company profits are exorbitantly high now and we cannot stop some of those profits from going out of the country into world exploration. He then sort of admitted that Canada must be considered in the world oil context. He then quoted from a document which oil company officials had placed before the National Energy Board and suggested he understood what was being said in the statement he read from the Globe and Mail. He agreed with it, but he wondered how to go about making certain that this money would be reinvested in Canada.
To encourage more exploration in Canada we will have to increase the price of oil. The minister and the government owe it to the oil companies, Canadian or otherwise, to set out a formula in respect of how that price will be established under this bill, or under some other piece of legislation. These companies must know when that formula will be adopted for setting the price, if ever, in order that they can have confidence. The people involved in this industry in Canada, whether Canadians or otherwise, want a climate in which their investment can be secure. In other words, they want a climate in which they can estimate reasonably accurately what government action will be.
In recent years we have seen continuous intervention by one government or another, specifically by this government in disallowing royalities as a deductible item, by freezing prices, adjusting prices and changing the pricing system. This piece of legislation, particularly Clause 6, does not state what kind of a formula the government intends to use to bring about a climate of relative security which will encourage exploration in Canada.
There is a more secure climate in Great Britain under a socialist government for oil companies investing their money in exploration in the North Sea than there is in Canada. This is an odd situation. There is a better climate of security in the oil exploration field in countries like Indonesia than there is in Canada. This fact must weigh heavily on the shoulders of the minister, because he is the one person who has caused havoc in respect of the climate of security in the oil exploration field in Canada.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands stated that in the oil pricing allotment something like $1.50 is set aside as a depletion allowance because the cost of replacing oil today is extremely high, actually something in the neighbourhood of $4 to $6 per barrel. Surely even the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands realizes that we have more than likely found all the easy oil, and the hard to find oil is still to be found and brought to market.
The fact that the United States is having great difficulty in getting Prudhoe Bay oil to market in the United States when it desperately needs it is an example of some of the difficulties and costs that lie ahead, even after the
29557-53%

April 24, 1975
Oil and Petroleum
exploration has been carried out and the oil is found. It is ridiculous to suggest that we will encourage Canadian exploration, and Canadians generally to invest money in this country, when we know of the difficulties involved in getting some of the Arctic oil that has been found to our own market. It is ridiculous to suggest that an increase in the price of oil is not necessary even in respect of conventional oil still to be found in the Arctic, or just in that area north of the 60th parallel for that matter.
The cost of extracting oil from the tar sands is very high. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is an old politician from the province of Saskatch-wan. While he does not represent that province here he is well versed in respect of oil exploration difficulties experienced by that province, and the difficulties facing the possible development of the tar sands in the province of Saskatchewan. There is that possibility, but not if he and his party steadfastly state that no price increase is necessary.
Oil extracting from tar sands is a labour-intensive project requiring extremely heavy machinery. The oil and sand mixed is a sticky, abrasive substance and the machinery wears out very quickly. I am sure the hon. member and his party must realize that with an inflationary economy the price of oil should fluctuate, particularly that price in respect of tar sands oil.
It is not good enough to say that we suspect that oil companies and those involved in the industry will take their money and run from Canada. The government must devise a system of inducement in order to encourage oil companies to invest their money here. This can be worked out very easily through an accelerated rate of depreciation. Such rates have been worked out with regard to manufacturing plants, and the same could be done for the oil industry. When profits are being taken from Canada to be used for exploration elsewhere the government should take action through taxation to discourage that. It is not good enough for the government to say it does not know how much of an increase in price is required, and therefore no increase should be allowed. We will eventually run out of oil and become a net importer. This is much like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. May I call it ten o'clock?


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 15, 1975, as reported at page 4814 of Hansard, I put a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) in these terms:
When we were dealing in the latter part of 1974 with the estimates of the minister's department he said he would look into the matter of the unfairness created by the fact that retired armed services personnel have to wait until age 60 before their pensions are escalated. Is he now in a position to report on this matter?
The rest of the exchange, as recorded in Hansard on the page I indicated, is as follows:


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I have no further report.


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


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do so.
My reference to last fall had to do with Thursday, October 24, 1974, when we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Defence. On page 744 of Hansard for that date there is a record of my reminding the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) about what some of us regard as an unfairness in respect of the pensions of both retired armed forces personnel and retired RCMP personnel.
The pension plans affecting these two groups are similar to the Public Service Superannuation Act, but there is one difference, namely, that armed forces and RCMP personnel can retire earlier than is the case for public servants generally. Having retired early, armed forces and RCMP personnel find that the escalation of pensions which takes place annually due to the rise in the cost of living is denied them if they are under 60 years of age. In other words, if they are under 60 they have to wait until that age before the escalation begins. There could be some cases in which this might not be a hardship, but judging by my mail there are many cases where it is a hardship that National Defence retired personnel and RCMP retired personnel have to remain on fixed pension rates until age 60, especially in these times when the cost of living is escalating so rapidly.
The point is made, particularly in the case of National Defence personnel, that there is an element of discrimination in this against those of the lower ranks. This arises by virtue of the fact that one can get the escalation at an age younger than 60 if he is 55 years of age or over and has 30 full years of service. However, it is only those in the senior ranks who can put in that many years of service in the full-time armed forces. Junior ranks in most cases cannot accumulate 30 years of service and so there is a discrimination against them in this matter.
This is a subject that some of us have raised a good many times. It was a victory some years ago when we got the escalation of pensions of retired public servants, retired RCMP and retired armed forces personnel and all others who come under the aegis of the federal government, but it seems to be a shortcoming that those who
April 24, 1975

have served their country in the armed forces or in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police find that, although they retired regularly under the provisions of their contract, they have to stay on fixed pensions, even in times of rapid inflation, in some cases for a number of years.
When I raised this matter on October 24, 1974, I asked the Minister of National Defence if he would lock arms with his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), who is responsible for the RCMP, and for the two of them to have a conference with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). I recognized the fact that these plans all hang together and that there would have to be concerted action, and so I expressed the hope that the minister would consider this matter in concert with the Solicitor General and make the necessary representations to the President of the Treasury Board. My hope was that the two ministers on behalf of their respective employees would go to work for a better deal for both groups.
The minister's reply on that occasion was the same answer that I received on April 15, 1975. He said, "Yes, I will be glad to do that". I hope that by tonight there is a favourable report.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the amendments to the legislation governing escalation of annuities for retired members of the forces were approved by parliament after careful consideration of all the classes of retired persons involved, bearing in mind the cost to active members of the forces, the public service, and others, as well as the views of taxpayers, many of whom are covered under less generous pension plans. At that time there was substantial agreement that similar contributions and similar benefits should apply for retired members of the forces, the RCMP, the public service and former members of the House of Commons.
The determination of the age at which payment of annuity increases would begin for retired members of the forces and RCMP who had reached age 55 with 30 or more years of pensionable service was designed to remove the anomaly created by earlier amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act, which permitted public servants to retire on unreduced annuities after reaching age 55 with 30 or more years of pensionable service. Because under the armed forces plan an individual can retire generally between age 44 and 55 and receive an unreduced annuity, it was considered equitable to begin payment of cost of living increases to the military, the RCMP and former members of the House of Commons at the same age as the public servant can receive an unreduced annuity.
Under the provisions of the Act, serving members of the Canadian forces, the RCMP, and the public service since 1970 are required to contribute equally with the government toward the cost of the supplementary cost of living benefits available to their annuities. Although the government assumed the full cost of increases for all those who benefit from annuities who retired prior to 1970, and the cost of the escalation for those retired since 1969 which is not covered by their contributions, it is evident that the contribution rate required to provide immediate escalation on retirement for members of the forces who retire between age 44 to 55 would be so much higher to support the program as to be prohibitive.
Adjournment Debate
The legislation is subject to continuing review to determine whether further liberalization of the qualifying provisions can be made for all those concerned, bearing in mind the cost of further liberalization. I wish to assure the hon. member that it is the minister's desire to improve to the maximum possible the forces' superannuation plan, and some improvements that have been recommended are included in Bill C-52 now awaiting second reading.
While I am sympathetic to the complaints of those receiving annuities who would like immediate escalation, any change in benefits for their group must be assessed by priority in relation to the many other demands for improvements in social legislation, such as providing allowances for spouses of old age security recipients, lowering of the age at which old age security payments and Canada Pension Plan payments can be made, improving Canada Pension Plan benefits, providing a guaranteed income, assisting home ownership, and other social programs which would have a more universal application. For this reason the government is unable at this time to propose an earlier starting date for the escalation of annuities.


ALLEGED DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS ON INTEREST RATE ON LOAN TO CUBA
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my point of debate tonight arises from questions regarding the tortuous policies of CIDA and what appears to be careless and unrestricted waste of the Canadian taxpayers' money in many parts of the world, mostly in countries which the government likes to term the third world or the emerging countries of the world. My point tonight pertains to the government's $10 million loan to Communist Cuba as announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).
I brought this matter up first of all on February 20 during the CIDA debate, when I rose on a point of order. I quote from page 3408 of Hansard of that date:
-I rise on a point of order. Having listened to the minister's comments with interest and heard him speak about the Cuba loan, may I ask what is the interest rate on this loan?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I have the press release here. It contains all the details. I will be happy to send it to the hon. member.
As stated in Hansard, the minister sent me his press release revealing that the rate of interest was 3 per cent. That is now the established truth. This government is lending Communist Cuba $10 million for 30 years at the ridiculously low interest rate of 3 per cent, with no repayment required for the first seven years.
Just previous to that I had asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) during the question period how he could justify charging the Canadian taxpayers 93A per cent on a recent Canadian bond issue while lending this money to Communist Cuba at 3 per cent. The Minister's answer is to be found on page 3395 of Hansard for February 20, in which he admitted that the loan was being made, but that 3 per cent was not the rate of interest.
So, as you can see, Madam Speaker, I received two clearly different answers from two ministers. Which one

April 24, 1975
Adjournment Debate
was the Canadian public and this House to believe? Someone was misleading the House.
On February 21, 1975, the next day, at page 3439 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what the correct answer was with regard to the rate of interest on this soft loan to Communist Cuba. Although I worked hard at it, you will note, Madam Speaker, that I received no answer from the Prime Minister. His reticence arouses suspicion and builds up more doubt in the minds of the Canadian public regarding the worthiness of this giveaway program of CIDA to Communist Cuba. Why this policy of perfidy and deception? What is the affinity between Trudeau Liberal socialism and Communism?
Why is it so easy for Communist Cuba to obtain a $10 million loan from Canadian taxpayers? We have no business lending money in this way to any country, especially Cuba. As a nation in its own sphere in the Caribbean, it is probably as well off as any, and better off than most Caribbean nations. It is rolling in sugar wealth because the price of sugar is high. It is well financed by Communist Russia. Moreover, it is a totalitarian state, and when dealing with a totalitarian regime, the spirit of charity toward the people is soon cooled and extinguished by the greed and totalitarian power of their dictators.
I know there are other Canadian trade pacts with Cuba which have nothing to do with CIDA, and these trade arrangements and other temporary loans connected with them are calculated to pay off for Canada. I hope and trust that they will, but this soft loan and give-away program ought not to be allowed. I call upon the Prime Minister to put a stop to it. There are people in our own country who need help but are not getting it. Our native people are dissatisfied. A great percentage of them are destitute, distracted and poor. How the government can give Canadian tax money to Communist Cuba on such easy terms I cannot understand. I, and millions of Canadians tonight, want to know the answer.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, with reference to the alleged differences between statements by ministers on interest rates on a loan to Cuba, the statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on February 20 that Cuba was not receiving CIDA loan funds bearing interest at 3 per cent was a simple statement of fact pertaining to the situation at that time.
On February 6, 1975, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) had approved a $10 million loan by CIDA to Cuba at 3 per cent interest. This was the first time such a loan had been approved for Cuba. As of February 20, however, no funds had been disbursed against this loan.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-INCREASES IN COMMUTER FARES-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to do is to correct the Hansard version of my question last Friday to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in both English and French. In the French translation the inclusion of les mots "le chemin de fer"
avant les mots "Canadien Pacifique" is necessary in order to distinguish between my question, which dealt with commuter fares, and the problem in the minister's mind having to do with increased air fares. My original question should have read:
Is the minister aware of the outcry that has followed the announcement by Canadian Pacific Railway yesterday of major increases in commuter fares from Montreal and is he prepared to intercede immediately to stop the May I implementation date for this exorbitant public transportation fare structure?
I would underline the words "major increases in commuter fares" which, by the admission of CP Rail, are of the order of 26 per cent.
Let me make it clear at the start that I am not contesting the statement by Canadian Pacific that the costs of providing the Montreal commuter services totalled $5.6 million in 1974, that the revenues were $3 million, and that the loss was $2.6 million. Any discussion of the method of compilation of these figures is irrelevant to the main issue. The railway loses money. There are fewer trains than there were 25 years ago. The destination-to-destination time is longer; and many persons, myself included, maintain that trains are not as comfortable as they were. Few will dispute that there has been a deterioration in service.
The minister, in his response, spoke of a special appeal he was making to the airlines to exercise restraint, because some of the increases are really exaggerated and he does not believe the public can absorb those increases. We know that the airlines have been finding it hard this past year, but the problem of passenger rail traffic has been with us for many more years. The requests for increases in rail fares and the protests that follow come up with monotonous regularity.
I will now quote a paragraph from Town Train News of April, 1975. It says:
In 1970, the CTC began a comprehensive investigation into the revenues and costs of rail commuter service in Canada, to determine what assistance, if any, need be provided respecting commuter service operations. To date, the results of this investigation have not been made known.
The article goes on to say:
Montreal area commuter services have operated at a loss since shortly after World War Two.
CPR further goes on to maintain that, even with the suggested increases, the yield will be only enough to prevent an increase in 1975 of the amount of the loss sustained in 1974. According to Town Train News of April, 1975:
Losses are calculated according to the method used by the Canadian Transport Commission and thus exclude fixed costs and only allow for replacement of equipment at its original cost, rather than what it would cost today.
As CPR clearly points out:
Commuter services are not economically viable but they do provide certain social benefits beyond the value of revenues generated from the fares paid by the users themselves. There is therefore a legitimate need for financial support from public sources to ensure the viability of such services-
Urban transportation planning must examine important social and ecological aspects as well as technical and operational factors. Traffic congestion, pollution and fuel economy must form a growing part of any planning process.
(Mr. A!kenbrack.|
April 24, 1975

May I deal for a moment, Madam Speaker, with a cost comparison of rail versus automobile commuting between my home town of Hudson and Montreal. A return trip by rail under the new rates would cost $2.30. By car the cost of the return trip is between four and five times the amount of the rail fare, when insurance, depreciation and maintenance are apportioned on a mileage basis. Parking costs alone for an automobile can exceed the rail fare.
I could deal at length with the pollution problem of automobiles, but prefer to underline another aspect. The automobile uses subsidized, imported gasoline. The government contributes, through price equalization, about $10 per month to reduce the gasoline cost of each car commuting from Hudson to Montreal. There is no comparable subsidy with regard to rail fares.
In reply to a question I recently placed on the order paper, the Minister of Transport confirmed that there is no federal financial assistance to the Montreal CP rail commuter routes.
Mr. A. R. Campbell, CP Rail's general manager of passenger services said:
Urban transport systems can no longer be provided in isolation from each other. Moving people in and out of cities has become a special kind of challenge that requires the integration of different modes of travel. The kind of integrated planning necessary is a big and essential job which will help shape the kind of over-all communities we have in the next decades and in the next century.
Mr. Robert Bandeen, president of the government owned Canadian National Railways, says that nationalization of privately owned CP Rail would be disastrous for transportation. It is my firm conviction that an efficiently, economically priced transportation system is an essential service.
I am aware of the examination of public transportation presently being undertaken by the department. Please do not let it take as long as the CTC comprehensive investigation which started in 1970 and still has to be concluded. In the meantime, as a gesture of faith and interest in public transportation, will the minister stop the May 1 implementation date for the major commuter fare increases on CP Rail Montreal lines?
Adjournment Debate


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, further to the question asked in the House by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on April 18 with respect to the increase in commuter fares that has been announced by CP Rail in the Montreal area, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has contacted CP Rail to make the necessary inquiries.
As you know, the size of the increase is 26 per cent across-the-board, that is, for all types of fares such as one-way, ten trips, flash-cards, and irrespective of the distance travelled. The commuter routes involved are the following three routes: Montreal to Rigaud, Montreal to Farnham, and Montreal to Ste. Therese.
The principle behind the increase has been well explained. The rapid increases in operating costs for the railways have made it mandatory that an increase in fare be imposed. However, the principle that CP Rail has used in determining the extent of the increase appears to be quite reasonable. What, in fact, has been done is to ensure that the size of the deficit incurred in 1975 will not be greater than the one incurred in 1974. In other words, the increase in revenues provided by the increase in fares should compensate for the increase in costs for 1975. There is no attempt on the part of CP Rail to reduce the existing deficit.
It should be noted that the deficit incurred by CP Rail in 1974 was $2.6 million. It is hoped by CP that the 1975 deficit will be of the same magnitude because of the fare increase. It should be pointed out that the railway is not compensated for this loss by any government in any way.
It would be good to point out that the federal government has always considered that commuter services are a municipal and provincial responsibility. In the near future it can be expected that the federal government will be providing some help to these levels of government to meet their responsibilities in this respect.
The hon. member said he was aware of the task force study taking place at the present time. It is for that reason it is going on. The federal government is quite aware of it. Many reasons would work in favour of such an action by the federal government; improving the quality of urban environment, energy conservation, and so on.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.

Friday, April 25, 1975