1975-07-10

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday an interesting point of order was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order. I do not wish to appear impolite toward the Chair, but there has been a change of business and Bill C-66 will not come under discussion, at least in the earlier part of the day. I have consulted with the government House leader and others, and I respectfully suggest that it would make a more coherent record if Your Honour would defer your ruling until the time we begin the debate on Bill C-66. I would ask Your Honour to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not have the slightest hesitation in agreeing with the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West. The reason I had prepared the ruling and was prepared to deliver it this morning was that I did not want to delay the House from the consideration of Bill C-66 any further, because it was our understanding that that was to be the order of business at eleven o'clock. If there is a change, perhaps the Chair could be advised now, and I would be happy to defer the ruling until the House resumes consideration of that measure.


Mr. Baldwin:: Unless the ruling will prohibit the bill from being debated?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there had been some discussions amongst the House leaders-at least amongst some of them-and it had been agreed that we would call Bill C-50, which is one of the bills on the list of items I announced earlier. We had hoped that we might have reached this the other day, but we did not, and there is agreement that perhaps we would conclude third reading before one o'clock.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this switch, although it just so happens that I was not informed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most important agricultural issues, much more important than most hon. members appreciate. I am most anxious to take part in this third reading debate, especially in view of the fact that during the report stage I had just barely begun my remarks when the adjournment hour was reached. The next time the bill was considered at report stage was during the week in which the committee was holding hearings in western Canada on the other stabilization bill brought in by another member of the cabinet. I must say that I was deeply disturbed that an agricultural debate of such importance would be proceeded with when 25 members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, who are all from agricultural ridings, were away hearing representations on the other bill. In all truthfulness I must say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) must be desperate indeed to have his legislation passed if he has to resort to this doubtful technique.


An hon. Member:: Well said.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: To go back briefly to my remarks at the second reading stage of this bill, I had concerned myself with two aspects. One dealt with that topic which was marginally noted as "other powers", and the reference there was to the possibility of supply-management. The other one was the new feature, the top-loading feature. Most of my remarks will relate to the top-loading feature, but first I think it is important that I make the comment that I regret very sincerely that wool was not included as one of the named commodities in Bill C-50.1 think that the sheep and wool industry is the forgotten agricultural industry in Canada, and it has been for some time.


Mr. Stevens:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: It has been ever since World War II. I suggest it was a sad day for the sheep and wool industry of Canada when this government, under the previous minister of agriculture, wiped out the wool deficiency program. It was the last straw for an already struggling commodity group. The reasons advanced by the present minister and his former deputy minister for dropping the wool deficiency program were unrealistic and inappropriate to say the least. They suggested it had to be dropped because it was not accomplishing the original objective. How could it, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
July 10, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Speaker? It was not given a chance. That was the final blow which further depressed our sheep and wool industry. It was more noticeable to sheep producers in western Canada along the United States border because it was in such sharp contrast to the subsidized sheep and wool industry in the northwest United States, such as in Montana and Wyoming.
[DOT] (mo)
The omission of wool is a serious aspect of this bill. There never was a more appropriate time or urgent occasion to provide national incentives and support to Canada's sheep and wool commodity group than right now, especially in view of the new sheep and lamb processing plant which just opened last month at Innisfail, Alberta. This new industry needs encouragement and this is one way it could be done.
I want to turn now to the aspect of the bill that most concerns me, Mr. Speaker, and that is the top-loading feature. The British Columbia Cattlemen's Association held a two day annual convention which began on May 22 in Kamloops, British Columbia. I was very pleased to receive an invitation and I attended as an observer. The meeting held a special four hour debate on the issue of income assurance. The atmosphere was emotional and tense, but the standard of debate was high. I was reminded of a similar meeting of the Alberta cattlemen in Calgary in 1952 or 1953 when the topic was compulsory marketing boards for cattle. At that time there was a two day debate in the same tense emotional atmosphere.
My interest in this meeting, and my remarks today, relate strictly to the impact of a top-loading plan such as is proposed here for cattle, on international trade, especially with the United States. At the Kamloops meeting there were approximately 400 people, 300 of them voting delegates. I should like to read some excerpts from the detailed work sheets which were handed out at the meeting on the income assurance program developed by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture in conjunction with the British Columbia department of agriculture. The following points are made:
If approved by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the plan will be implemented as outlined herein beginning April 1, 1974 and terminating December 31, 1978.
It should be noted that this proposal is retroactive. There is also reference in the statement to the fact that the 1974 benchmark cost of production for calves is 77 cents per pound; producer premium rates will be eight cents per pound on calves and six cents per pound on yearlings and these rates will be reduced when plan deficits are retired. For 1976 and subsequent years, cost of production benchmarks will be negotiated using data appropriate to those years; that is, after the preliminary of 77 cents per pound for calves. The indemnity suggested for calves for 1974 will be 35.1 cents per pound. That is the payout that British Columbia cattlemen will receive under the program for last year. The benchmark cost of production for 1974 on yearlings is 63.2 cents per pound. Appendices are attached to the report showing how they arrived at the cost of production. The 1974 indemnity on yearlings will be 18.98 cents per pound. Producers must have a minimum of 20 cows or produce and market annually a minimum of

8,075 pounds of qualifying beef in order to participate in this plan.
It is pointed out that the maximum annual production qualifying for participation in this plan in British Columbia shall be limited to 121,125 pounds applicable first to calves which cannot exceed .85 of the number of qualifying cows multiplied by the weight of the calves up to 400 pounds. This total weight refers to approximately 300 cows and it is the upper limit for cattlemen who can participate.
To be eligible for participation in the plan, a producer must maintain membership in good standing in the B.C. Cattlemen's Association. Indemnities and premiums are applicable only to the pounds produced in British Columbia. Animals must be owned by the producer for a minimum of 120 days to qualify for the plan. All eligible calves produced after January 1, 1974 shall be eligible for indemnities and premiums.
One final point from this worksheet is important, Mr. Speaker. In an effort to gain the confidence of lifetime cattlemen in British Columbia it was stated:
The provincial government agrees that participation in this program is completely voluntary and further agrees not to institute marketing controls on beef during the life of this contract, unless requested to do so by the B.C. Cattlemen's Association.
Those were some highlights from the worksheets and I think it is important that the House recognize what is behind the income assurance program in British Columbia. Essentially, I think this plan proposes to guarantee British Columbia cattlemen all their costs of production, including a management fee and a specific profit.
Basically, I believe it is evident that a provincial income assurance plan with respect to cattle, such as the B.C. proposal, will not resolve the current cattle crisis today in Canada, for two fundamental reasons. First, any such plan will not create the necessary climate for inducing cattlemen to bring our Canadian cattle numbers, especially cows, back to a reasonable balance with respect to supply and demand. Second, any such plan does not take into account the short-term and long-term importance of the North American market concept and our trading relations with the United States. I am referring to relations in the field of cattle and beef. I suggest this because of our obligations under GATT which relate to United States-Canada trade matters. These obligations involve more than cattle. They involve other agricultural commodities. Possibly the United States will take a much harder line when renewing or renegotiating border agreements on August 11 next.
Something took place last week which could intensify this United States hard line to our trade in cattle and hogs. The Minister of Agriculture announced egg import quotas, in conjunction with provincial CEMA agreements. Significantly, Alberta was the last province to sign the agreement, but at what price? Mr. Marvin Moore, Alberta's minister of agriculture, signed, obviously under pressure exerted by the federal Minister of Agriculture.
Writing in the Globe and Mail on July 4, 1975, James Rusk said:
July 10, 1975

Marvin Moore, Alberta's Minister of Agriculture, has indicated that the Alberta government will sign the agreement but he also has given formal notice of withdrawal from the agency. One year's notice of withdrawal is required ... Mr. Whelan had sought unanimous approval from provincial governments and provincial egg marketing boards before agreeing to CEMA's request that the government impose egg marketing controls-
Heavy retaliation would not be inconsistent with recent U.S. performance. The controls that were imposed by the United States after Canada set up its beef import quotas were regarded by Canadian officials and cattlemen as punitive and, indeed, spilled over to an agricultural sector that the Canadians had not touched-hogs.
In a statement Mr. Moore said that Mr. Whelan has agreed to reopen immediately negotiations with the United States on the lifting of the border controls on livestock trade. He added that he would sign the agreement some time next week, with 'great reluctance.'
On July 5 of this year Mr. James Rusk wrote more on this subject in the Globe and Mail. He said:
-Alberta . .. decided to sign after Mr. Whelan applied extraordinary pressure, including a threat to allow imports into it but not other provinces and a withdrawal of the right of its egg board to impose levies.
None of this was mentioned in Mr. Whelan's statement. The minister referred to the revised CEMA agreement and said the government now is in a position to impose import controls.
Mr. James Rusk, author of the article entitled, "Food prices board critical of Ottawa for egg price rise" in this morning's Globe and Mail, mentions some questions the Food Prices Review Board asked the government. His article, in part, reads as follows:
-'Was the government aware of and did it concur with the Minister of Agriculture's use of coercion in threatening two provincial governments-Alberta and New Brunswick'-with a number of actions if they did not sign the agreement? The board made public a Telex message from Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan to provincial ministers of agriculture that made four threats against the two provinces if they did not go along.
These included possible flooding of Alberta and New Brunswick egg markets with eggs from other provinces, a discriminatory import policy that would allow U.S. eggs to enter only Alberta and New Brunswick, removal of the power for indirect taxation by the two provinces' egg boards and restriction of interprovincial trade, according to the board contrary to the British North America Act, by controlling trade from Alberta and New Brunswick to other provinces.
Those articles, particularly the last I quoted, show the real possibility of United States retaliation affecting our agricultural trade.
I want to talk about a current development which may intensify the United States hard line in trade. Of course, I am referring to last week's announcement on the CEMA import control program. The Alberta minister is not the only one concerned. Others see the danger to Canadian cattle and hog industries. Quite properly, Mrs. Plumptre, head of the Food Prices Review Board, drew attention to the serious possibility of United States retaliation affecting our agricultural trade. Several of my colleagues, including the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) raised this matter last Tuesday during the question period, but I feel the minister did not respond adequately.
At the Kamloops meeting, the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, by resolution, voted two to one in favour of the income assurance program to which I earlier referred. British Columbia costs for the program have been estimated at between $20 million and $27 million, but
Agricultural Stabilization Act
bear in mind that the British Columbia beef cattle population is relatively small. It was estimated at that meeting that a similar program in Alberta and Saskatchewan would cost about $400 million, because of the larger beef cattle populations of those provinces. The Saskatchewan minister of agriculture estimated that the program would cost his province $186 million.
In another resolution at the Kamloops meeting, the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association was instructed to "make the strongest possible representations on both provincial and federal levels to have a beef program initiated under Bill C-50 that will establish federal financial participation in beef farm income assurance". I reported to the convention when debating this resolution, that Bill C-50 had just cleared our standing committee, and that it was probably too late for anyone to appear as a witness. I suggested that the British Columbia cattlemen should communicate immediately with the federal government on the matter covered by the resolution. I understand they did this.
Surely, the Minister of Agriculture realizes that the B.C. assurance proposal involves top-loading at its worst, or best, depending on your point of view. Surely, he knows that federal financial participation greater than the 90 per cent of the five-year average, together with cost of production indexing, cannot be permitted under amended clause 6, as that would give B.C. cattle producers a financial advantage over other producers in Canada, and there would be an incentive to overproduce this commodity, which is the last thing the Canadian cattle industry needs today.
I want to remind the House of the provisions of the minister's two amendments on this top-loading feature. They are most important. I quote from clause 6:
"10.1 (1)... the Governor in Council may authorize the Board to enter into an agreement with those provinces or producers or provinces and producers as the case may be, to provide for such greater prescribed price, unless he is of the opinion that such an agreement
(a)	would give a financial advantage in the production or marketing of the commodity not enjoyed by other producers of the commodity in Canada; or
(b)	would be an incentive to the producers of the commodity who are to be parties to the agreement or for whose benefit the agreement would be entered into, to over-produce the commodity."
Those are the two amendments which the minister introduced. I sincerely suggest that the top-loading feature of the British Columbia program violates those two provisions on top-loading. In sharp contrast to the British Columbia Cattlemen's Association convention, the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, which represents far more cattlemen than the British Columbia association, at their annual meeting several weeks ago passed two significant resolutions. This association has a membership of about 6,000. The first was a resolution in opposition to a cattle income assurance program similar to the B.C. plan. The second was a resolution restating their continued opposition to the supply-management concept for their cattle industry.
During our committee hearings on Bill C-50, one of the better presentations was made by the Ontario minister of agriculture, the Hon. William A. Stewart. I want to quick-

July 10, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
ly review Mr. Stewart's concerns about Bill C-50. I quote from the outline he presented to the committee:
Under 10(1) (1.1) of Bill C-50 our interpretation of the wording "may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the governor in council for that purpose" to mean the possibility of production controls or supply-management.
Our concerns are that an effective income stabilization program must avoid the problems of incentive pricing leading to an oversupply and perhaps the consequent necessity for supply-management on many commodities.
Incentive pricing must be prohibited in order to avoid the need for supply-management. In this regard, we feel Section 10(1) (1.1) must be more clearly defined in the act itself-
As outlined in 8.2(1) we are concerned about the undisclosed flexibility for adjusting the base price and the estimated cost of production ... at other times the level of support might in fact become an incentive price.
That is quite true. I must say that I share Mr. Stewart's concern about the use of the word "reflect" in this clause. It has to be much more specific. Mr. Stewart then points out rather succinctly:
The marketplace must be allowed to play its normal role.
He further states in his presentation:
We maintain top-loading above the prescribed federal support level in a single province should only be allowed if there is unanimity between the federal government, the ten provinces and the producers of the commodity in question concerning the level of top-loading within a particular province. Indiscriminate top-loading by provincial governments ultimately would lead to competition and balkanization between provinces.
The present Minister of Agriculture has indicated he would withdraw support of the federal government's 90 per cent base price and the "cost index" if and where a province was indiscriminately top-loading a commodity. This is not good enough; ministers of agriculture, governments and civil servants come and go but legislation remains. The withdrawal of federal support where top-loading is a transgression of the spirit of Bill C-50 must be clearly spelled out in the act and not in the regulations. A farmer or a provincial government should be able to pick up a copy of the act and clearly understand the consequences of top-loading.
That is the end of the quotation from Mr. Stewart's presentation to our committee. I share the concerns of Mr. Stewart, especially those with regard to "other powers". Surely, such an arrangement between cabinet and the board is not nearly enough protection for me as a cattle producer against the possibility of any minister of agriculture instituting supply-management in the Canadian cattle industry. I share the well-founded concern of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). This concern, of course, is one of the reasons I sit in this House of Commons representing the constituency of Medicine Hat.
There has been a recent sequel to the Ontario government's intentions with regard to provincial stabilization. On June 3 in Guelph, before Mr. Stewart's current illness, he stated that some form of cow-calf stabilization program may be considered. He suggested it would be for the cow-calf sector as opposed to the beef sector. He implied that the cow-calf item was not properly covered under Bill C-50. Since that speech was made in Guelph, the Ontario Beef-Calf Income Stabilization policy has come into force.
The 1975 calf support level, and this is not retroactive to last year, for Ontario produced calves has been set at 50 cents a pound up to a maximum weight of 450 pounds. The premium is $5 per cow that produced a calf. The plan is voluntary. What I am not sure of is whether Ontario

intends to ask for federal participation in the financing of its new plan. However, because of Mr. Stewart's presentation to the standing committee on top-loading, I have to assume that his government will not be making such a presentation. In a telephone call to Mr. Stewart's office about an hour ago, it was confirmed that it is their own plan with which they were proceeding.
These various comments and reports must clearly indicate the dangers inherent in Bill C-50 if the minister allows financing of the top-loading features as suggested by the B.C. plan, that will lead to a balkanization of our Canadian cattle industry. Surely, past CEMA experience bears this out. What will happen now that the import controls have been instituted for the Canadian egg industry remains to be seen. They have a tough role ahead of them. It is most unfortunate that the B.C. cattlemen in this instance were more concerned about putting out a fire at home than in the long-term effect their decisions may have on the Canadian cattle industry.
In conclusion, with regard to the top-loading of this bill,
I say to the minister-and I regret he is not in the House at the moment-that either this top-loading feature must be deleted or provision must be written into the act to guarantee uniform application across Canada for our cattle industry to ensure that it remains a stop-loss type of legislation. The minister should be obliged during third reading to make a positive statement explaining how the two top-loading amendments will apply specifically to the British Columbia income assurance policy for beef cattle. If he fails to make such a statement, I am sure commodity groups, especially cattlemen, will have every reason to be suspicious of the decisions to be made by cabinet, with details to be established by the usual regulations. I refer particularly to the "other powers" provision.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, a new bill or an amendment to an old bill does not necessarily of itself create a situation which is healthy to that aspect of our society to which the bill pertains. So it is with Bill C-50. This measure will do nothing for agriculture unless it leads the way to a constructive policy in the fields concerned.
The legislation itself is, I suppose, not that good and not that bad. But the total lack of an expression of policy to go with it, a total lack of a commitment to a positive structure in the world of agriculture, is a condemning feature. It deviates from the ordinary course of agriculture policy to the extent that it suggests decisions will now be made on an interdepartmental basis and I condemn the bill totally from this point of view. I submit that, though the Department of Agriculture does not tell the doctor how to operate, it should have some control, total control for that matter, over those aspects of our society which pertain to agriculture and crop production. The introduction of departmental consideration with respect to price stabilization represents a deviation from policy and from practice which is not satisfactory to the farmer.
I am concerned about this bill because of the lack of commitment. During the time in which it has been under study, phrase by phrase and clause by clause, we have been given no commitment to a specific position with
July 10, 1975

respect to what will be done and under what conditions payment will be triggered. While this bill was under consideration, for instance, the sheep people presented their position in Canadian agriculture. Production of sheep in this country has notably diminished in the past ten to 15 years. The sheep operation has declined by 15 per cent. Those presently engaged in the industry are unable to make a living unless they are operating in a specialized breeding field. Yet there has been no inclination on the part of the Department of Agriculture to fill the gap.
I suggested at one time during these discussions that it would be feasible for government to apply a tax of some sort amounting to between 2 and 5 cents a pound on wool imported into Canada. This would generate enough money to make the wool industry profitable. Moreover, it would not make a new suit or a new coat cost an extra quarter to the consumer. The effect of such a tax would be this: it would establish a solid basis upon which the sheep industry could recover at least the position it held some ten years ago. This is important to us. We should not allow any industry to deteriorate in the field of agriculture to the extent to which the sheep industry has declined. I cite this only as an example.
Like the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) I deplore that fact that the government has even considered provincial top-loading. It allows an opportunity for provincial subsidies to interfere with the normal production of goods in the field of agriculture, very likely to the detriment of established areas of production, areas which are now our most economic. Consider the potato industry, for example. If it be the choice of provinces in Canada, other than the Atlantic provinces, to top-load in the area of potato production the result would be the dislocation of the industry as it presently exists in eastern Canada where potatoes can be more economically produced than in any other part of the country. Production in the east could be destroyed by the introduction of provincial resources beyond the control of producers in the Atlantic region.
Consider apples. These are produced in several provinces but if any province which is currently a major producer or aspires to be so chose to top-load the apple industry it could upset the industry as it exists elsewhere, for example, in British Columbia-of course, that is top-loaded now. It could upset the industry which exists in Ontario, Nova Scotia and in Quebec. Such a decision could upset the factors which normally control the production of goods in this country, namely, the conditions under which they can be best and most economically produced.
I agree there have been some amendments to the bill in this respect but I submit that their impact is dubious. The government has declined to make a firm commitment to ensure that a stabilization plan will not be top-loaded to the detriment of agriculture eslewhere in Canada. This, along with the provision for inter-departmental decision, brings me to the conclusion that the bill is certainly not satisfactory to agriculture in general.
I mentioned earlier that there has been no definite statement of policy, no specific guidelines laid down except for a complicated group of formulae which are to be administered, possibly, by Statistics Canada. These formulae do not include all the costs, particularly those
Agricultural Stabilization Act
which young farmers experience. They do not include the cost of interest on capital. They do not include the over-all picture that will allow a young farmer to carry through a difficult period in his economic progress. For this third reason, this bill does not meet the requirements of agriculture-in the horticultural field.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously-if one were to continue to debate all aspects of this bill one would certainly exceed the time required by this debate- that the government has again protected itself by the enabling structure of the bill which will allow it virtually to ignore any section of the bill. The government can embark upon a policy of its own, regardless of what other sections may say, because the enabling clauses allow it to deviate in any direction that the policy of the moment may indicate.
My fourth concern was not what was in the bill itself but what was implied in the statements made by the minister and his staff. The implication was: "If agriculture is not a good boy, we are not going to help it. If you don't accept our philosophies, if you don't submit to control of production, if you don't improve your marketing structures"-and by the way, the minister found fault with the marketing in certain areas of Canada, including my own province, which I submit was something in very poor taste, something that he should very seriously reconsider-the insinuations, innuendoes and threats implied as part of the government's policy were, as I say, that agriculture must be a good boy and do what the government wants it to do or else it will not get any help.
The point I want to make is that it has been left to the discretion of the government as to what products will be included under the bill. A few have been named in the early clauses of the bill, but the government has chosen to leave the rest to its own discretion. I should like to take the time to give half a dozen examples, but if one read the various presentations of the NFU and was aware of the telephone calls and letters from hog producers in the Atlantic area as to the neglect they experienced regarding price stabilization payments and the massive losses they suffered as feed went up and pork prices went down, as well as the total lack of consideration they received, one would realize the difficulty in this area.
Then, there is the application of the subsidy on beef. While it applies primarily to the west, may I point out that the beef subsidy was so applied that a massive number of small producers of beef in rural Canada never received a nickel of subsidy.
These are aspects of the bill regarding which we should have anticipated the bill would be more specific and would have clarified the position of the farmer, so that the farmer as a producer would have known that when he got into economic difficulty he could depend on Bill C-50, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, to help him out. But in spite of all the boastings of the government regarding what it is prepared to do for young farmers, Bill C-50 spells out nothing for them. If they have to borrow capital because they did not inherit their farm, then the bill is inadequate to help them. These are the farmers about whom I am particularly concerned.

July 10, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
This bill is not a good bill. It has not been supported by policy. Yet it is put before us as being a panacea for agriculture. The government is in a hurry to put it through, but it can do nothing under this bill that it could not do under the enabling clauses of the Act as it stood. The bill adds nothing by way of policy or legislation. It is a flop. It is one of the greatest charades one has ever seen, yet it is presented as the cure for all economic evils. It is presented as an immediate must. It is a charade. It is not a good piece of legislation.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the third reading debate on Bill C-50, I cannot help but commend the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) on the speech he made about the cattle and wool industries. I share his regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and this House saw fit to bring forward the amendments on the report stage and deal with them at a time when the agriculture committee was travelling. I would not have minded had the amendments been put forward when I, who was the mover of a couple of the amendments, was absent from the House because of some neglect of the work of the House of Commons of which I may or may not have been guilty. But I deeply regret that the minister saw fit to bring forward the amendments when the agriculture committee was travelling. I felt that the best way I could serve my constituents and agriculture was to travel with that committee, and I say that the minister's actions show a disregard for the work of the House of Commons. It is only common courtesy for the House to afford members time to present their views according to the rules and regulations of the House. According to the rules, I had dutifully filed amendments to Bill C-50. I was unable to participate in the debate on the amendments as fully as I would have liked because, as I say, I felt my duty was to travel with the agriculture committee to western Canada to hold hearings on Bill C-41.
What did the amendments deal with, Madam Speaker? The subject matter was dealt with by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but basically I felt that wool should have been included-


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When we dealt with the motions put forward by the hon. member, it was not at a time when the agriculture committee was travelling. The hon. member was absent at the time. I do not know where he was, but other members were here when the amendments were dealt with at the report stage. I did not submit Bill C-50 to the House. The House leaders agreed to do so at the time, though I had some serious doubts. We dealt with report stage but not third reading. I suggest the hon. member knows full well that when the House dealt with his motions the agriculture committee was not travelling at that time.


Fred Alward McCain: On the point of order, Madam Speaker, before the committee went on its trip to the west I was assured that Bill C-50 would not be presented to the House, and I felt I had that assurance from members of the committee on both sides of the House. This was a breach of etiquette which is inexcusable, Madam Speaker.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I explained the position on Bill C-50. It would be normal procedure for the House leaders to discuss it, not for the Minister of Agriculture to submit the bill, and the hon. member knows right well that is so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not intend to stir up a great deal of controversy, Madam Speaker, but having done so so easily I guess the minister must have a bit of a guilt complex.


Eugene Whelan: Just put the facts on the record, that is all.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister talks about putting the facts on the record, Madam Speaker, and I will put the facts on the record. I spoke on those amendments before the agriculture committee travelled, but they were dealt with in all final stages while the agriculture committee was travelling. I am certain the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has some sway within the cabinet. He could have spoken to the government House leader and said that since we are nearly through dealing with these amendments, he would prefer not to have this House debate agricultural matters while the committee on agriculture was travelling. I know his power has been diminishing ever since this government obtained a majority in the House of Commons. When they were in a minority position and needed the minister, they paid attention to him. In any event, I know he still has some authority and he could have spoken to the government House leader. With regard to this business of the House leaders having agreed-


Eugene Whelan: That is right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -the House leader of the NDP and the House leader of the Conservative Party cannot in any way direct the business of the House of Commons. It is the government House leader who directs the business of the House, and the Minister of Agriculture could have spoken to him about this matter.


Eugene Whelan: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member knows full well, if he checks the proceedings of the agriculture committee, that the representative of the official opposition agreed to the amendments, etc. Some members of that party did not go along with the agreement worked out in respect of the proceedings of the committee by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). In any event, they went on their merry way, which was completely contrary to what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain had agreed to at the committee, yet they talk about agreements and word of honour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I have the committee proceedings before me-


Mr. Elzinga:: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I should like to point out to you and the House the type of agreement that is reached with this government. We saw earlier here the type of agreement that is reached when the House leader of the government party rose and said it was agreed among the House leaders that we would
July 10, 1975

discuss Bill C-50 today, and immediately following that the House leader of the NDP rose and stated he was not consulted. This is the type of trickery this government plays just a little too often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I am not going to debate the point of whether or not the Minister of Agriculture has the power to dictate, as I think it is pretty well established right now, but he does have some sway within the cabinet regarding House business. A former minister of agriculture and a former hon. member for Medicine Hat thought he was going to be House leader when he joined the Liberal Party, holding a great deal of power within the cabinet. This minister does not even think he has any power within the cabinet in respect of House business.
The minister spoke about the views of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain on this bill. I have the proceedings of the committee before me. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain stated that this was a good bill but he had reservations in respect of two concepts, indexing and top-loading. That is not a direct quotation, but if anyone questions me very seriously I could quickly find what he said in the proceedings which I have before me.
I have the same concern about top-loading and indexing. I would not try to bring members opposite up to date in respect of what has been said about this bill as recorded in Hansard; that would be an almost impossible task, in view of the closed minds of the trained seals opposite.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Hardly trained minds.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is right.


An hon. Member:: You talk like a westerner.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This bill basically does two things about which I am concerned in addition to top-loading and indexing. The bill refers to amendments to the old stabilization bill brought about by the Conservative Party back in the late 1950-1959, I think it was. It deals with amendments to that legislation and updates the mandatory average to 90 per cent instead of 80 per cent. Also, it makes the average in respect of five years instead of the old provision of ten years. The support price should be above 90 per cent.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) dealt with the question of wool, and I should just like to touch briefly on this subject. The Sheep Council of Canada presented a brief to the committee on agriculture in which it suggested that wool should be included as a mandatory commodity. It can be argued that sheep fall within the mandatory commodity category in this bill. Until a few years ago the sheep industry was assisted through a support price on wool. A few years ago the former minister of agriculture said it was wrong for the federal government to be supporting the price of wool because wool was becoming an outdated commodity and would soon be no longer in use. He suggested that polyesters were taking over in the clothing business and that wool would become obsolete in the world. I have paraphrased the reasons of
Agricultural Stabilization Act
the former minister of agriculture for discontinuing support of the sheep industry in respect of wool.
Times have changed, and polyesters have become pretty expensive. In my opinion, they are not the greatest materials for clothing and the trend in the trade has swung back more and more to the use of wool. We now see wool as a very durable commodity throughout the world. Those in the sheep industry believe that the best way the industry could be assisted is by supporting the price of wool. Wool produced in Canada is subject to price fluctuations brought about by the situations of supply and demand. Supply is mainly from Australia and New Zealand. If there is surplus wool production in those countries, our prices drop drastically.
Canada is a very small producer of wool in terms of world trade. We do not produce anywhere near Canada's own requirements for wool. For that reason I feel wool should be supported. The Sheep Council of Canada believes the industry should be assisted through a supported wool price and I am very disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture did not see fit to state clearly today that the sheep industry would be assisted through a support price for wool. I have not given up this fight and I will continue, with the aid of the Sheep Council and members of parliament, to press for reconsideration in respect of the stabilization of wool prices for the benefit of the sheep industry in particular and Canadians generally.
This bill has one other fault in addition to top-loading and indexing in that it grants the minister all kinds of powers. The Agricultural Stabilization Act, chapter A-9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, has ten sections which deal with the powers of the board. Section 10 has seven paragraphs, running from (a) to (g), outlining those powers. This legislation gives the board power to make deficiency payments, to buy and sell, and to do nearly everything but implement supply management. Bill C-50 states quite clearly that all other powers which the minister wants are to be placed at his fingertips.
We have seen in Canada some attempt at supply management. I am not particularly pleased with the manner in which it has worked in respect of CEMA and the broiler industry. There is no question about it; supply management would allow everybody to divide up the pie. But the main question is, how big should the pie be? Because of our ability to produce agricultural commodities in Canada, we have felt we should be broad-minded enough to consider the many starving people throughout the world who need the food which Canada has the ability to produce.
We should, through well thought-out agricultural policies, encourage production and play our part in the world in an attempt to alleviate misery, starvation and hunger in areas which are not as fortunate as we are. In respect of this power in Bill C-50, I see the Department of Agriculture adopting a very inward-looking program with a policy based on the attitude: feed thyself at high prices. That is really what the Minister of Agriculture is saying to the agricultural industry in Canada.
I am opposed to high prices, but I am also opposed to inefficient production. I believe supply-management in one way or another eventually brings about inefficient

July 10, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
production. Recently the border was closed to the importation of United States eggs. Very few people in Canada are aware of the fact that we export to the United States, on average over a long period, three times as many eggs as we import. By closing off this importation we are not only closing off our ability to export three times as many eggs as we import, but we are reducing our productive ability in respect of our capacity to consume. That, to me, is an example of an inward-looking philosophy.
The poultry industry has tried supply-management. I suppose it is thought in some parts of Canada that supply-management will work in the hog industry. Many people in central Canada believe we should control hog production and have an effective supply-management program. I refer to central Canada because it is my belief, since western Canada exports some of its produce to the United States and Japan whenever possible, that it is not encouraged to adopt the idea of supply-management. Although I was not present at the hearings of the committee, I was surprised to read the evidence presented when representatives of the Canadian Pork Council appeared before the committee. The president of the Canadian Pork Council, Mr. Reginald Coutu, said in his opening remarks as recorded at page 4 of committee proceedings No. 29:
We have supported stop-loss at the level which I will give support to the industry-
In other words, the representatives of the Canadian Pork Council are saying that stabilization is fine so long as it is a stop-loss program. Every member of this House agrees with that concept. That was the basic concept when the stabilization act came into being back in 1959. It seems to me that this bill adopts the concept that the minister may apply supply-management. I wish to read a little further from Mr. Coutu's remarks with regard to supply-management. He said:
We have supported stop-loss at the level which will give support to the industry and which will not require supply control.
In the same proceedings, as recorded at page 6, Mr. Coutu said:
Okay. The five-year average of the price that we received today must be around $38. I am not satisfied with 90 per cent of that. Does that answer your question?
He was replying to a question by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin) who was a member of the committee. This points out very vividly that the hog industry is not particularly prepared to accept supply-management. When this bill was before the committee I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he had in mind some kind of single-desk marketing system for the hog industry. He replied that he had. A single-desk marketing system is a very nice way of saying, "Leave it to us; we will manage the market and we will legislate the supply." If I were in the selling business I think I would be a pretty good salesman, but I am not confident that I could supply everything.


An hon. Member:: What about vacuum cleaners?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not care whether it is vacuum cleaners or whatever; I believe three salesmen are better than one. I am not particularly enthusiastic about the idea of a single hog marketing agency. It could be said that it would curtail competition by the prairie provinces, Manitoba,

Saskatchewan and Alberta which are entering into a contract with the Japanese in respect of the hog industry. I do not know whether a single marketing desk would curtail that competition. Would it sell more at a higher price? I do not believe it would.
Agencies and boards set up by the federal government have a tendency to become stale. They become tools of governments, and governments become stale. That is why in a democracy we have elections every four years, to invigorate, if nothing else, the government and the cabinet by changing them around. The old theory that a new broom sweeps clean sometimes applies to governments in a democracy. Boards are part of a stale system, and a single marketing desk will not improve sales.
Supply management will do two things: it will shrink the market, and increase the price to the consumer. I am surprised that the consumer organizations across Canada have not let out a great hue and cry and have not taken the minister to task. There is an article in this morning's Globe and Mail which deals with this question. As I say, I am surprised that the minister has not been taken to task for having caused the price of eggs to increase by 15 cents a dozen by a stroke of the pen. I can remember going to the chicken coop and gathering eggs when they were worth one cent a piece. That was a long time ago. The minister has increased the price of an egg by more than one cent with a stroke of the pen.
It might be said that the system will work. I think in a free, competitive society, where the market place has in fact a part to play, the cheapest way to bring about price stability is through the play of the marketplace and the prices quoted there. I hear my NDP friends saying, "Oh, my God". I said that also when I watched their convention on TV. I brought my three sons, who want to become engaged in agriculture, to watch the program. I said they should look at that convention because it would give them an indication why I remain in politics. My sons watched, listened, and shared my concern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will get over that when they grow up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not know when some people will grow up. My eldest son is 24 and I think he is relatively mature. He is 6 feet 4 XA inches, so I think he is tall enough.
Getting back to the bill, supply-management increases the price to the consumer and shrinks the market for the producer. That is the old story of the NDP and the CCF. They wanted to get rid of the middleman and lower the price to the consumer. CEMA has removed some middlemen, and some producers too; but has it lowered the price to the consumer? The middleman has become government. Government is the biggest middleman in every industry today. I would like to see a limited amount of government involvement in the agricultural industry because I believe government is a curse as a middleman. Once it becomes a middleman it is impossible to remove. Who can remove government once it invades the manufacturing field or any industry? Government grows, it never shrinks. Middlemen sometimes go broke and out of business. Competition forces this. But governments go on forever, they grow
July 10, 1975

and grow and prices go up for the consumer. As a producer, I want my products marketed efficiently and cheaply so that I can obtain the biggest return for the agricultural commodity I produce.
What does the producer earn from a loaf of bread? He earns less than two cents; and bread sells for more than 30 cents a loaf. The middleman has a big spread. Governments have a spread in this respect. What does the producer earn from eggs? The government can operate under the name of a board. Some people have an aversion to using the title "government." It may be called a board or a government agency, but still governments take and governments grow.
At third reading of this bill I want to urge the House of Commons, the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian consumer to curtail in every way possible the growth of the interference of government in the agricultural industry, because governments are huge middlemen and they do not shrink, they grow.


Eugene Whelan: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture is babbling away like a fish in a brook. As a fish, he has about as much effect on the direction of a stream as he has in the Cabinet. In any case, governments grow and if they become middlemen they continue to increase the price of commodities to consumers.
In the cattle industry in British Columbia we have seen a great grab. The hon. member for Medicine Hat spoke about this. We have seen a great grab by the province of British Columbia in the cattle industry, not for the sake of that industry but for the sake of votes and the stabilization of government. It is not for the stabilization of the cattle industry. The Minister of Agriculture was boasting about how many people wanted government to interfere and how the industry wanted supply-management by his government in Bill C-50. He boasted about the way the cattleman voted at the Kamloops meeting. Could they have done anything else, when the average payment to the British Columbia cattle producers under that program meant something like $7,000 apiece? That is bribery at its best. That is the action of a desperate government reaching for votes.


Mr. Benjamin:: That is socialism.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, that is socialism. It will last for a while but eventually it will go broke. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brings in a budget and admits that we will be in debt this year to the extent of $4.5 billion. That is socialism, too. The Premier of British Columbia took over with his government when there was a surplus. I do not think he will have a surplus if he continues this way and I do not think it is the best thing for the cattle industry as a whole.
It may be surprising, but before the agriculture committee had completed its hearings, the Minister of Agriculture expressed reservations about the top-loading effect of the British Columbia program. He used it as a point to sell the idea to the committee. Before the committee had finished examining him on this bill he expressed those reservations, yet he has not stood up and said that under no
Agricultural Stabilization Act
circumstances will the federal government subscribe to the British Columbia program because it is an abuse of the principles of Bill C-50. He has not said that yet; I hope he does in his speech on third reading.


Eugene Whelan: Give me time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister asks that I give him time. The day is young and he has lots of time, and he takes lots of time. But I want him to answer this question. That is an example of the abuses which the minister of agriculture for Ontario feared with respect to the top-loading concept when he appeared before the committee.
The minister said under his breath, but I heard him, "Not at all", meaning that that is not an abuse.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of our bill that is not the case at all, because that program is under the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia. It is the same as they have done in the province of Ontario. That is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. I am not suggesting that the federal government should contribute to that plan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad that is cleared away. The minister said he does not anticipate contributing to that program. I hope he sticks with that statement, because elections are coming up in British Columbia and, of course, the present premier and government will stop buying votes after a while. They brought in a land program which angered cattle producers, then they brought in a subsidy and gave them $7,000 apiece. Perhaps they thought that would pacify their anger and return the votes in those areas.


Eugene Whelan: Are you suggesting B.C. cattlemen are dishonest?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am not suggesting they are dishonest at all. They are shrewd businessmen. By and large, many of them saw through the program and thought it was not good for the industry generally. On the other hand, they said the NDP government would not last very long and that they might as well take what they could get while the government was giving it, so they took their average payment of $7,000 knowing that it would not aid the industry.
The British Columbia government has a program with regard to the hog industry. That program is an example of top-loading. It encourages production in British Columbia rather than in an area which can produce hogs with greater efficiency. If an agricultural commodity is not produced where it can be produced most efficiently, the cost to the consumer is increased. What is happening to feeder hogs in Alberta? They are going to be finished in British Columbia because the British Columbia government has a hog support program. All hogs over 100 pounds in Alberta move rapidly to British Columbia to be finished there because of the hog support program. That is an inefficiency. Alberta produces 50 per cent of the barley produced in Canada. That is where the grain is produced, and that is where the hogs should be finished. But because of inefficiency, the greed of politicians and their desire to gather votes, we see in the agricultural industry-


Eugene Whelan: Tell us where they are consumed.

July 10, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would think that Alberta hogs are consumed all across Canada. Alberta produces about 22 per cent of Canada's hogs. It does not have 22 per cent of the Canadian population; therefore it has to export hogs to all parts of this country and to all parts of the world if possible.
The point I am making is that when I see inefficiencies in agriculture I become concerned because I know they effect the consumer who eventually rebels against the higher prices which result. Meat is a commodity on which consumers generally focuses. I wish they knew what a good buy it is today. Officials of the meat marketing inquiry set up by the Minister of Agriculture have not found many inefficiencies in the beef industry.
I am concerned about the other powers granted to this inward-looking Minister of Agriculture. I am concerned that the inefficiencies of the poultry and hog industries will invade the beef industry. I could not let Bill C-50 pass without uttering my concern, without warning the minister and his executives, and the chairman of the committee on agriculture who plays an important role in government legislation, to be on guard. Beef is one of the big consumer commodities in Canada; we consume more beef than we do poultry or pork.
It is we, the politicians, who have caused inefficiencies in the pork and poultry industries. The politicians in British Columbia, in Alberta-all over Canada-have caused inefficiencies in the agricultural industry and this has increased the cost to the consumer. The consumer is "Mr. Power" today and politicians should be aware of that fact. My only fear is that the consumer will not register that concern where it can be felt, at the ballot box, and thus condemn this government for bringing inefficiency to the agricultural industry.
I say to the chairman of the agriculture committee, to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Minister of Agriculture, "Be on guard. Do not allow any more inefficiencies to be created in the industry, because it will mean higher prices to the consumers of Canada and the consumers of the world." As an agricultural producer myself, I believe the world is my market. The Canadian consumer is part of that world market. The Minister of Agriculture says, "Try to get into some of the world markets". I know it is difficult, but other ministers of agriculture in past years have made valiant attempts to get in and have been successful. Nothing comes easily.


Mr. Turner (London East):: What about Bennett? He was going to blast his way into world markets.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, I did not know that the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) was old enough to remember Bennett.


Charles Robert Turner: I remember him quite well.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If we want to discuss the agricultural problems of the thirties, I would remind the hon. member that the United States buried the equivalent of one year's production of Canadian hogs rather than try to market them. Bennett at least tried to market them; he did not

have to buy them and bury them as the United States did. All I want is that the Minister of Agriculture try to market our products. I know world markets are difficult. I also know that the Canadian consumer is concerned about cost. Don't create interference, try to market. Don't give up. Don't be like the hon. member for London East and say world markets are difficult and that 30 or 40 years ago Bennett tried to break in and was not successful, so why try now. Surely we have some new spirit; we do not have to rely on old members like the hon. member for London East. We should get out and try to sell.
The world is our market and we have the ability to produce as efficiently as anybody. The biggest drawback to the agricultural industry today is government interference. We should not let the Minister of Agriculture interfere too much, because interference is inefficient and inefficiency in marketing means increases in price.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), I am moved to speak for three minutes, although it might be four. I should like to remind the hon. member for Crowfoot that his fears are all in one direction and mine are in the opposite direction. This is a typical piece of Liberal legislation which tries to run down the middle of the road. I would remind the minister that is where all the accidents happen.
I do not think the legislation goes far enough. The hon. member for Crowfoot and his colleagues think it goes too far; but there is nothing new about our disagreement. The concept of supply-management did not emanate from the NDP; it was put forward by agribusiness. For the last 20 years they have talked about supply management and making agricultural production and processing more efficient. Many of them are corporate enterprises which have run the small farmer out of business. The policy of the New Democratic Party is guaranteed prices with full production. In a hungry world we see no reason why full production should be curtailed in respect of any commodity in Canada. We could be the factory of the world. It is the responsibility of the nation as a whole to help producers receive guaranteed prices and to encourage them to achieve full production.
In a brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made the following statement:
It is our understanding that the purpose of this legislation is to make more certain, and more adequate in relation to production costs, the level of price guarantees provided for agricultural commodities by the federal government or jointly by the federal and provincial governments and producers.
This purpose we wholly support. It will be found to be increasingly intolerable if agricultural producers are subjected to the extreme degree of price and income insecurity that has been their lot, for the most part, up until the present time.
The point made by the CFA is that it is a free and open market that has kept agricultural producers in a situation they call "intolerable if agricultural producers are subjected to the extreme degree of price and income insecurity". It is that same free and open market that has caused governments of all political stripes to interfere in the marketplace in an attempt to obtain some security for the Canadian producer. The CFA brief also states:
July 10, 1975

There is a rising ground-swell of demand in the farm community for a shift of emphasis from low stop-loss levels of guarantee to levels that represent more closely a system of meaningful income assurance and protection.
The hon. member for Crowfoot, and I believe the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), took the opposite stand. They believe that stop-loss legislation is sufficient. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture believes, and I believe-and the minister went halfway between- that the emphasis has to be shifted from stop-loss concepts to a system of meaningful income assurance and protection. If this legislation does anything for protection, I am all for it and so is my party.
I have listened to hon. members reviving the old myth of the open and free marketplace which has victimized Canadian agricultural producers for decades. Hon. friends to my right worry a great deal about government interference, but I say that the very system they support has forced governments to interfere in the marketplace. There is no other rrason. The so-called free and open market, if there is such a thing, has only proved how inefficient and unfair their system is.
I submit we need a greater measure of income protection and more guarantees through so-called government interference. We need a system which will guarantee prices and full production. The nation would support it and help to bear these costs. We must do this if we are to be the pantry and granary of the world. We need such measures much more than we need the half-measures this government proposes and the non-measures the official opposition wants.


Mr. Alex Patterson. (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, really, we are considering maintaining agriculture in Canada as a viable industry. Few challenge the assertion that agriculture is one of our most important industries, vital to the Canadian economy. It is incumbent on the government to support the industry and draft and implement policies which will ensure its expansion. Unfortunately, government policies of the last few years, despite all the government's talk, have not stopped the drain of people moving from rural to urban communities. People are still moving off the land despite the efforts of various individuals and organizations to maintain our agricultural economy.
There are valid arguments supporting the contention that Canadian agriculture must be maintained and developed if only to enable individuals to remain in the industry. Some have chosen farming as the most desirable and wholesome way of life. It is sad to see such people forced off the farm and forced to live in urban areas, there to struggle on the labour market for remunerative employment. Such a lifestyle is far from their ideal. I believe it is important to give such people the chance to remain in agriculture; we must make sure that young people who want to farm can remain on farms and that those who have left farms can return to farming.
For too long agriculture has been considered less desirable than other occupations. Farmers worked long and arduous hours and returns were uncertain and negligible. Times have changed and now, when the average age for
Agricultural Stabilization Act
farmers is 58, we must make every effort to facilitate the entry of an increasing number of young people to this industry. Maintaining a stong and viable agricultural industry is essential for Canadian consumers. We need a continuing supply of high quality agricultural products. This is in the interests of consumers and producers, for I do not think we should become dependent on imports from abroad as a shortage of domestic products could escalate prices and increase living costs.
In addition, we must maintain the viability of Canadian agriculture because not only Canada but the entire world needs food. Arguments favouring the maintenance of a thriving agricultural industry are not based entirely on what we need; they also take into account the needs of the world. As was mentioned this morning, vast areas of the world contain people who are hungry and live on the verge of starvation. So it is incumbent on this country, which has been so signally blessed by Providence, to maintain its agricultural production facilities and to produce the food which this country and, indeed, the rest of the world needs. For these reasons, I think one ought to be aware of situations which could give rise to concern as we must not forget our responsibilities in contributing to the world's food supplies.
I suppose the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was trying to be sincere when he introduced this bill and claimed it to be a far-reaching, a most advanced proposal, and so on. He also claimed that he has been given more authority than any minister of agriculture in our history. We heard him say in the House what a tremendous job he is doing and that no other minister of agriculture in our history has done so much for Canadian agriculture. I suppose if nobody else blows his horn, he must. I suppose the minister's efforts were sincere but, as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) suggested, the minister is apparently losing his influence in the cabinet and cannot bring forward policies he considers essential for the maintenance of a viable Canadian agricultural industry.
After hearing the minister speak about this bill being far-reaching, most advanced, and so on, I read it. Frankly, I do not think it measures up to his statements. The bill seeks to amend legislation passed in days gone by, but I do not think it goes far enough to solve some of the staggering problems facing agriculture. The problem lies in the government's approach to agriculture. As I have said, the minister has advanced some good proposals. The shortcoming has to do with the implementation of policy. The implementation, I suggest, leaves much to be desired and the impact on the agricultural community will be negligible. I suggest the minister must consult his provincial counterparts more often.
Allow me to read from the brief presented in 1974 to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. It reads:
We do not see how farmers and governments can effectively develop national agricultural and related policy without really well and highly developed planning and consultative processes. We must say that we think the federal government is so far very badly equipped, in philosophy and procedures, to meet this very vital challenge .. . Our point is that it (consultation) is not being done well enough for purposes of meeting the policy-making challenges that lie ahead, as related at least to agriculture.

July 10, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The brief mentions other areas of concern to the federation. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in its latest presentation to the cabinet, says on page 2 of its pamphlet "1975 Presentation to the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament":
As we proceed to implementation of the new legislation, effective consultation procedures with producers are of the utmost importance.
The Minister of Agriculture must consult his provincial counterparts because until closer consultation is established and more effective machinery set up we shall not see implemented the effective policies which this country needs. We all support agricultural stabilization. No one disagrees with agricultural producers being given a fair, even generous return. I have stated before that my constituency has some of the best agricultural land and some of the best farmers in Canada. They are entitled to compensation for their investment, enterprise and labours in this connection.
I intended to go into some detail on this matter but time will not permit. I believe there is some desire to conclude the debate; therefore I will not make quite a few comments which I intended to make with regard to this legislation. The minister stated time and again that he was glad to see food prices increasing. He said that when the price goes up in the marketplace, the farmers, the producers, obtain better returns. That is not always true; in fact, there is a wide discrepancy between increases in the cost of food and the income the farmer receives. If the primary producers received the compensation due to them, there would be some argument in favour of this, but as the hon. member for Crowfoot stated this morning, there is a wide differential in prices that must be accounted for other than by just saying the farmers are getting a better income and more adequate compensation for their products.
The bill before us does not in any way indicate that the government is prepared to deal realistically with the question of stability in the agricultural industry. Several amendments proposed are desirable, but in no way is this an imaginative or innovative move on the part of the minister and the government to the degree that it will ensure effective assistance for the farmer in his quest for justice in the face of continuing inflation. The measure does not include many agricultural products. I refer again to my own area. A group from my area recently made representations on behalf of the raspberry growers. The response was ineffective and inadequate. They were told this product might be considered later as coming under the provisions of the stabilization act. However, there was no guarantee.
These are the issues that confront the people. Definite measures should be taken to ensure that all sectors of agriculture, no matter what they may be, benefit from the provisions of a stabilization bill such as the one now before us. I say to the minister that even when he puts together all the parts that are included in this bill, he still does not have the type of legislation that is required to solve the problems of the agricultural sector today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[English]	.

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion relating to a case of urgent and pressing necessity having to do with the fact that yesterday the government announced its intention to scrap Olympic Bill C-63 after only two committee meetings and less than six hours of debate on report stage. Since this childish political ploy will further harm the Olympic cause, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the Postmaster General be instructed to introduce forthwith legislation which would allow for the minting and distribution of coin sales of $100 gold coins with an established amount of gold at a predetermined cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You blew it, Otto!


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, the motion cannot be presented unless there is the unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF PROPOSED SALE OF CANDU REACTORS TO STANDING COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, upon a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That in view of pending negotiations for the sale of Canadian nuclear reactors to South Korea and the Argentine and in the light of the danger, particularly in the case of South Korea, that such a reactor might be used for the production of a nuclear bomb and the threat of its use in a nuclear war in a country already in a state of war
July 10, 1975

emergency, and of the opinion expressed by General Burns and many others that no safeguards will be adequate in the circumstances, this House instructs the government to postpone the delivery of any such system and to refer the matter of the sale of CANDU reactors to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for consideration and report to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of the Standing Order the motion can only be put if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AIR CANADA
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in connection with the auditing of the accounts of Air Canada and on the basis that patronage must yield to the public good. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That it is the view of this House that the Auditor General of Canada be appointed as a joint auditor of Air Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the motion to be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion relates to the damage done to the gear of east coast deep-sea lobster fishermen by Soviet fleets operating off our coast and the undertakings made by this government to initiate effective action in order that damage claims by these fishermen were duly presented to, and processed by, Soviet authorities. By way of evidence of such undertakings, Mr. Speaker, I might note that last fall the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) told me in a letter-and I quote the minister-that this matter was "being pursued diligently" by his department.


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I was merely laying the basic groundwork. A short while later, the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) issued a press
Criminal Code
release stating that the way has been cleared for Canadian east coast lobster fishermen to negotiate gear damage claims with Soviet authorities.
In order that these fishermen receive prompt and effective action in response to their justifiable claims, and in order that this government be held accountable for undertakings which so far amount to little more than words, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for Externa] Affairs to take immediate action to ensure that claims submitted by east coast lobster fishermen against Soviet trawlers for gear damage be promptly and fully settled, including, if necessary, the introduction of provisions under the Maritime Code to provide for "sister ship arrest", as a means of instituting proceedings, as promised by the minister of fisheries last November 28, 1974.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED MEETING OF CANADA-UNITED STATES INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP TO EXCHANGE INFORMATION ON GARRISON DIVERSION PROJECT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which I trust will receive the unanimous support of the House. In view of the growing concern being expressed in both Houses of Parliament over the Garrison water diversion project in the state of North Dakota and the conflicting evidence being presented in the United States Congress with respect to it ecological impact on boundary waters flowing into the province of Manitoba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That a meeting of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group be convened in Washington at the earliest possible date to provide an opportunity for a full exchange of information on the project.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of urgent necessity.

July 10, 1975
Criminal Code
Since newspapers are publishing advertisements in direct and public violation of the Criminal Code and since I can table a copy of such an advertisement which appeared yesterday in Le Journal de Montreal and which reads as follows:


BETTY FARHOOD CENTRE
[Stage Direction]
7164 St. Hubert St., Montreal Mrs. Betty Farhood
LEGAL! [DOT] INTERRUPTION OF PREGNANCY [DOT]	Attention
Unbelievable
Price!
On request (Same day by gynecologists in licensed clinic)
Only centre in Canada approved by clinic near Montreal*
And a little further another add like:

[Stage Direction]
Can be read.
And considering the committee on therapeutic abortion-
Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wants to present a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, would he please do so rightaway.


René Matte: Thank, Mr. Speaker. According to Standing Order 43, I have to justify that motion, and that is why I was justifying it.
And since the committee on therapeutic abortion is defined in the code-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have a motion to present?


René Matte: I will in a few seconds.
-is defined in the Criminal Code as having quite a different purpose than what that add suggests and section 159 of the code is quite precise in that respect and reads as follows:
(2) Every one commits an offence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order.


René Matte: -who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,-
(c) offers to sell, advertises, publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or miscarriage,-
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the Solicitor General order immediate steps to be taken against those people who trespass the law with impunity in order to restore the moral atmosphere of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, that motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.
[DOT] (MIO)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the import controls on eggs from the United States recently announced by the minister will have an immediate effect on the price of eggs in Canada, and in fact have already had that effect, and in view of the fact that such import controls will touch off U.S. retaliation, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to respond to the charges made by the Food Prices Review Board that the import controls on U.S. eggs are without clear explanation or in'fact justification?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made several statements which I feel are not accurate, such as the one concerning retaliation. He is going on supposition and not on fact. I stated in the House earlier that we followed the proper procedure concerning our agreements with our trading partners under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I also said earlier in the House that we would make public and would table the agreements that we have with our provincial counterparts.
My officials have gone over the statement which the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board saw fit to give to the press first before giving it to anybody else. They have gone over the statement this morning and have found that we followed every accord, as we said we would do. I am amazed that she would say that I never suggested parliament would be informed. I said this procedure was according to the agreements and that they would be made public as soon as they were signed. We have nothing to hide in respect of CEMA at all. I am sure that if she wanted to really do her job she would tell the public of Canada why the price of pork is so high now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the minister chose to attack the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board who is not in a position to defend herself in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: And it is a fact that the minister did bootleg the statement on Friday when parliament did not have a chance to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would ask the minister if he has met the recommendations of the special committee in respect of the cost of production formula, and what steps has he
July 10, 1975

taken to ensure that production levels now agreed to by CEMA accurately reflect domestic demand, and can the minister assure the House that present production levels will not be exceeded by CEMA?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, according to the present information I have and the advice I have been given by the national farm marketing councils, I am sure that CEMA is following the recommendations of the most democratic organization in this country which represents all the people; the parliament of Canada and the parliamentary committee. We are following the suggested recommendations. Perhaps not all of them, but many of them are encompassed in the new agreement to guarantee products to consumers at reasonable prices.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the great champion of the consumer, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope this applause is justified after the minister replies to my question. In view of the announcement by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture last Friday about closing the United States border, and in view of the statement by the President of the Food Prices Review Board today and yesterday has the minister as protector of the consumers' interest in the Cabinet satisfied himself that the restriction on the movement of United States eggs is in the best interests of the Canadian consumer.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to remind the hon. member that the boundary has not been closed but that a quota has been imposed. That fundamental distinction must be borne in mind.
Second, I want to assure the hon. member that the interests of consumers were taken into account in all deliberations. Now, fortunately, their voice is heard on the committee. I think that, in the future, it will be possible not only to look after the interests of the producers but also to ensure an abundance of goods at a reasonable price for the producers and decent costs for all Canadian consumers.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister did not answer the question.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


EGGS-ALLEGED REVERSAL OF MINISTER'S POLICY OF CO-OPERATION WITH PROVINCES IN SOLVING MARKETING PROBLEMS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Having regard to the fact that the minister has often stated that the problems surrounding CEMA could best be solved through consultation and co-operation with the provinces rather than through confrontation, and in view of the obviously veiled threat directed to the provinces of New Brunswick and Alberta in his telexed message to the provincial ministers dated June 25 to the effect that if the provinces did not sign the egg agreement the federal government could put controls on the movement of eggs out of the two provinces and flood these provinces with large quantities of eggs from inside and outside Canada and withdraw their privilege of applying levies, would the minister explain his obvious reversal of policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can say that I wish the hon. member, in referring to that telegram, would quote all of it. I said in that telegram that none of the alternatives listed appealed to me because that was what happened when the provinces came to the Government of Canada and asked for a national agency when there were egg wars going on and I did not want to return to that situation under any conditions.


EGGS-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF INTENTION OF ALBERTA TO WITHDRAW FROM MARKETING AGREEMENT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, could the minister then explain to the House why the province of Alberta has served notice of its intention to withdraw from the agreement?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta has done the same as the province of British Columbia. It has given us one year's notice. The main concern the province of Alberta had involved the promotion of export markets. That is already being done. CEMA is doing a better job than some people thought they were doing. When I explained that to the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta, he was perfectly satisfied to sign the agreement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether or not the government has reached a decision on the admission of representatives of the PLO to Canada to attend the United Nations Conference on Law and Order.
7438

July 10, 1975
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not reached a decision yet. There are still representations coming in from various quarters, as the hon. member knows, and we are considering them.


John Edward Broadbent: Could the Prime Minister inform the House as to when we might expect to learn the decision of the government on this very important matter?


Gerald William Baldwin: After the House has adjourned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the PLO is a terroristic organization, committed in its basic charter to the destruction to the State of Israel and that it is fundamentally still committed to that principle, would the Prime Minister assure the House that as long as the PLO remains committed to these tactics and to this fundamental objective, the government will not permit representatives to come to Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is, of course, one of the important aspects of the question the government is considering. I must point out that this government has always stood very strongly in favour of the continued existence of the State of Israel. That is basic to our position. We would even go further than the hon. member and say that this government is opposed to terrorism of all kinds from wherever it originates. That is also part of the principle involved in this decision.


John Edward Broadbent: Following up what the Prime Minister has just said about his government being fundamentally opposed to terrorism, and considering that the stated objective of PLO terrorism is the obliteration of the State of Israel, which is a current member of the United Nations, will the Prime Minister commit the government not to give tacit recognition to an organization committed to such a course of action?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course this is not the issue, and Canada has not recognized the PLO. As the hon. member knows, it is the United Nations which has recognized the PLO as an observer, and this is the nature of the difficulty the government is facing. The House should remember that we have not waffled. We did vote against the PLO, and this remains our position. The House has asked me when we will make an announcement, and I said as soon as possible. If hon. members want to argue the issue before that, the government is prepared to argue.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In a recent statement, the minister advised the House that neighbourhood improvement and urban affairs programs would be cut back by $100 million. Can the minister tell the House whether that $100 million cut will affect projects submitted by municipalities and having to do with neighbourhood improvement as stipulated in Bill C-133 which the House passed?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. The cut in the Canadian Urban Demonstration Program does not affect existing programs under CMHC or the National Housing Act. This refers only to the urban demonstration program. Those projects which have been selected and announced will proceed with a general saving in the budgetary measures based on the priorities of the government at this time and the need to restrain spending wherever ways can be found.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I thank the minister for the information which is very important for the municipalities of Quebec and Canada as a whole. Considering the efforts made by private enterprise as well as federal and provincial governments to fight unemployment, would the minister be prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues the allocation of that $100 million cut to housing, which would enable the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to join in that fight and respond more adequately to the numerous applications it receives.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, of course this saving was taken into consideration in the over-all expenditure posture, and is one of the reasons we were able to achieve a $200 million increase in housing funds in this budget. There are other priorities being weighed against this which are very important on the urban scene. I should like to make it perfectly clear that this $100 million did not relate to housing programs or CMHC programs or any of the renovation, rehabilitation, neighbourhood improvement programs or the hundreds of projects going on across Canada under CMHC to help build new housing and improve existing housing and neighbourhoods.
July 10, 1975


METHOD BY WHICH GOVERNMENT WILL HONOUR COMMITMENT TO HIGH STANDARD OF CARE IF PROVINCES UNABLE TO BEAR COSTS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the right hon. Prime Minister is based on my party's commitment to see that Canadians have the best medical and health care services in the world. In view of the statement issued recently by the provinces and today by the Canadian Medical Association that medical and health care services in Canada will deteriorate rapidly if the federal government persists in its present course, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the provinces simply cannot bear the fiscal burdens imposed by the federal ceiling, how does the government intend to honour its commitment relating to a high standard of medical health care services for all Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect to the hon. member, that seems to be a hypothetical proposition.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. In order to maintain a high standard of medical health care services in this country, I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he will start practising co-operative federalism with the provinces and not face them with an ultimatum, a unilateral approach, to such a very delicate federal-provincial matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would want me to remind him that there is nothing unilateral in our approach on this. We have been discussing the question of increasing costs, costs increasing more rapidly than the gross national product, with the provinces over a period of a few years. They, of course, know and I think they share, a desire to make sure that these costs are kept under control. There is nothing unilateral in our approach.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the precise measures taken in the budget, I would also remind the hon. member that twice at interprovincial conferences-at the meeting they had last summer and the summer before-they practically implored the federal government to give leadership in fighting inflation. They indicated in advance that they would be prepared to co-operate with us in measures to control inflation.
I repeat, the government has, through the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, indicated that this is not limiting health services or health care. Escalation will continue and we are just making sure that the rate of escalation will be brought under control. Surely, this is a desire any hon. member opposite must share, that of bringing all costs under control.


William Heward Grafftey: A further supplementary. Do I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister has informed the House that the inflation fight will include letting health care services in this country deteriorate?


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED RENEGOTIATION OF MEDICARE AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
William Heward Grafftey: I would ask the Prime Minister when the provinces were informed about these budgetary considerations or has co-operative federalism virtually been abandoned? Will the Prime Minister show proper leadership and renegotiate a far-sighted medicare package with the provinces immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the precise budgetary measures, of course this government did not consult with the provinces. If it had I am sure we would be blamed by the other side for letting out budget secrets.
As to the question of controls and to bring under control estimated costs and open-ended programs, I repeat, we have discussed this with the provinces for at least two years. The House was informed of these various federal-provincial conferences and, I hope that we will have the support of the opposition, at least for the principle of bringing costs under control, including those in areas mentioned by the hon. member.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A number of weeks ago the minister told the House that proclamation of Part II of the Foreign Investment Review Act dealing with new investment would soon be discussed by cabinet. Could the minister tell the House whether the government has now decided when Part II of the act will be proclaimed and, if so, what that date will be?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question is presently being considered by my colleagues and I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has indicated that the government, even after several cabinet sessions, is unable to make up its mind whether to allow PLO representatives to come to Canada and take part in the crime conference in Toronto in September, and as the PLO bases its mode of operation on organized terror and the killing of innocent civilians, how can the government even consider allowing such an
29576-57%

July 10, 1975
Oral Questions
organization to come to Canada and participate in a conference of that kind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to answer how the government can even be considering it. The reason is that Mr. Grossman of the Ontario government stuck his head out and invited this conference to come to Canada in the first place.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Prime Minister looks back at the record, he will find that his statement about what went on is not quite accurate. May I ask this question: Even if the situation was as the Prime Minister suggests, is the government now acting in accordance with initiatives and views of provincial governments and not basing its actions on what it thinks the government of Canada ought to do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand. On the one hand, hon. members talk about co-operative federalism but, on the other, hon. members are accusing us of not co-operating with a province which has extended an invitation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
* *
*


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is responsible for the status of women. How is the independence and credibility of the Council on the Status of Women to be assured by the government's appointing two Liberal workers in Saskatchewan who are to replace a native person and the former head of the National Council of Women. Does the minister not think that this is patronage in the extreme?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the nominations I made to the Council on the Status of Women were based on the qualifications of the persons concerned. I did not then take any political factor into consideration. However, I must point out that the Prince Edward Island representative is an Indian woman who works very actively for the rights of Indians and especially Indian women in Canada. So the representation of Indians within the Council on the Status of Women was not diminished.


SALE OF CANDU REACTORS BY ITALIAN COMPANY UNDER LICENCE-GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF SALES AND SAFEGUARDS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I seek more information from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the government's nuclear policy? Yesterday he told me that any deal under which an Italian firm would be licensed by Canada to sell CANDU's would be subject to a veto power over where CANDU's can be sold under this licensing arrangement. Perhaps the minister might like to expand on yesterday's answer when he said "Yes, Sir," to my question about the government's policy.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to safeguards, the answer is, as indicated yesterday, that the government of Canada would continue to insist that Canadian safeguards standards apply to any sale by Italy of CANDU reactors to third party countries, or, indeed, to any equipment which would be involved with the CANDU reactor.
I am advised by Atomic Energy of Canada that the transaction they will be forwarding shortly to the government for the government's approval provided the Italian company with an exclusive licence to the Italian market and a non-exclusive licence for outside of Italy, subject to a time delay ranging from six to eight years from the commencement of the first CANDU sales. In commercial terms, the Italian firm would be at liberty to sell outside its own market without the consent of the Canadian government. The terms would be fully subject to safeguards and, of course, the proposal which has been put forward to the government must be approved, but we have not yet received it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Italian company will have more luck than the opposition in finding out what the Canadian safeguards are to be. As Canada is not reserving its right to a veto power, as the minister indicated yesterday, can the minister say how Canada proposes to enforce these safeguards with the Italian company? What mechanism will be set up to enforce the Canadian level of safeguards on this Italian company-whatever those safeguards may be-particularly as Italy has not ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It has.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the hon. member's last statement, I am advised that Italy has ratified the non-proliferation treaty. If I may deal with Canadian safeguards standards, I take it that the Italians have been able to understand them, even though the hon. gentleman has not. They seem to have had no difficulty in deciding in this regard. Of course, the safeguards would be assured by international agreement and the Italian reactors and, indeed, any other subsequent reactors sold, would be subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
July 10, 1975


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should think the Italians would be very happy with these safeguards, as they allow them to do virtually anything they like.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs now prepared to table those parts of the agreement entered into between Canada and Argentina relating to the sale of the CANDU reactor in 1973 which provide for the subsequent negotiation between the two countries, Canada and Argentina, of adequate safeguards? Now that the minister has returned from South Korea is he, after asking all those questions in that country, sufficiently refreshed to be able to answer this question?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his consideration. I think the main document the hon. gentleman wants is the commercial contract, which is a matter for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I think the Leader of the Opposition will have to try his hand again with my colleague on that point.


George Harris Hees: Use a new shuttlecock for passing the buck. The old one is worn out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are two exchanges of notes, which will be made available to the hon. gentleman, on the safeguards. With respect to the commercial contract, I think the hon. gentleman understands that, normally, these commercial contracts are not tabled, but for the final word, he ought to address his question to my colleague.


TELEGRAM FROM NEWFOUNDLAND GOVERNMENT REQUESTING PROTECTION OF FISHERIES RESOURCES- MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister received a telegram from the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland expressing doubt that the inshore fishery of eastern Canada can survive one more year without the federal government's full support and, if so, has the minister replied to the telegram, and what was the nature of the reply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think I received two telegrams from the minister of fisheries of Newfoundland. He is suggesting a meeting and, if my second reply has not gone out, it will be going out shortly, setting the date for the meeting which will discuss the question, in which both
Oral Questions
he and I are interested, relating to the law of the sea and the development of the east coast fisheries.


PROPOSED UNILATERAL ACTION TO PROTECT FISHERIES RESOURCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread doubt and fears that have been expressed, particularly in eastern Canada, by groups of fishermen, unions and people connected with the industry as to whether the industry can survive unless the government takes firm and, if necessary, unilateral action to protect the resource, is it the government's intention to take that kind of action? On the basis of reports from eastern Canada, it is obvious that the industry cannot survive without that kind of firm action on the part of this government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking a question which has been replied to time and again. As the Minister of State (Fisheries) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have indicated, the unilateral action which the hon. member is advocating, and I am not sure if it is the position of his whole party, is one of the options the government has rejected. Two points should be made. First, that is not the way to establish international law. Second, it would be misleading the Canadian people, particularly the fishermen, to have them believe that unilateral action by Canada would solve their problem. It would not solve the problem of the salmon fishery, for example. The origin of that problem is well beyond our 200 miles. It would not solve the problem of how to get nations which have historic fishing rights in these waters to stop exercising these rights. Unilateral action would not achieve that. I remind the House that when this government drew fisheries closing lines a few years ago to increase immensely the rights of the Canadian fishermen, we did become involved in a series of bilateral discussions with nations which had historic rights, for example, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The question is much more complex than the solution seems to indicate. I do not think the hon. member would want to mislead the fishermen into believing that unilateral action is an immediate solution.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Postmaster General. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Mayor of Montreal, Jean Drapeau, came to Ottawa today in a last minute attempt to convince the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and the hon. member for York-Simcoe to stop their filibuster on Bill C-63?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 10, 1975
Oral Questions ENERGY


PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-REASON FOR OPTIMISM OF FRANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald. (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that French Interior Minister Poniatowski told a press conference on July 8 that he is more optimistic than when he came to Canada that the federal government will approve France's plan to build an enriched uranium plant in the James Bay area, will the Prime Minister tell the House what indication he or any of his minister's gave to Mr. Poniatowski that would have led him to this optimistic view of the federal government's agreement to such a proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I might be able to volunteer an answer to that. It probably results from the fact that the pre-feasibility studies which were made known to the government at that time indicated that the case against the enriched uranium plant was not as clear-cut and obvious as some hon. members opposite make it. For that reason, I, personally, told Mr. Poniatowski that we would give very serious consideration to this pre-feasibility study. We said we would not reject the facts out of prejudice, but would study them very carefully.


PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT AT JAMES BAY-POSSIBLE COMMITMENT TO GIVE REPLY TO FRANCE WITHIN EIGHT MONTHS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Did the Prime Minister or any of his ministers agree during the French Interior Minister's visit to give a reply within six to eight months to the French government's proposal to build this enriched uranium plant to produce a product which cannot be used domestically and which, when exported, would add significantly to dangers of nuclear proliferation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not make that commitment and I feel quite certain that no minister did. The hon. member is making an argument which is contrary to the indications of the pre-feasibility study. I think that is the whole issue. We should look at this question objectively, not with our minds set in advance. I, personally, stated in this House that the government had a certain preconception against the plan, but that we were prepared to look at the facts. I hope that it is also the position of members opposite.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications arising out of the current CTC hearings on Bell Canada's application for urgent interim rate increases, to take effect August 1. In view of the serious procedural irregularities or at least

inadequacies, in connection with the present Bell hearings, namely the inadequate length of time for the interveners to examine relevant material, the absence of a prehearing, the allocation of only five days to the hearings themselves and the failure by the CTC to determine whether an "emergency" in fact exists, irregularities so flagrant as to prompt the representatives from the province of Quebec to boycott the proceedings, and in view of the minister's expressed approval of provincial participation, I ask the minister whether he will intervene at this point to suspend these hearings until appropriate and mutually-agreeable procedures have been established for dealing with this application?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question of the Minister of Communications trying to suspend hearings initiated by CTC. The minister does not have such powers. Regarding some parties appearing before CTC who would think they are denied their most normal rights, I think recourses are provided in the legislation and they could take advantage of them. Instead they chose to withdraw.


MINISTER'S POSITION ON BELL'S RAISING OF CAPITAL THROUGH RATE INCREASES RATHER THAN ISSUANCE OF SHARES
Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of Bell's consistent failure to provide adequate residential services in rural areas, while devoting excessive effort and excessive funds to complex telecommunications gadgetry, can the minister inform the House whether the government shares Bell's position that investment capital for sophisticated telecommunications technology should be raised from subscribers, in the form of rate increases, rather than from capital markets or from shareholders?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is not directly to the government that Bell Canada has to present its arguments on that matter, but to the Canadian Transport Commission's Telecommunications Committee. I think that is what the company will be asked to do by the committee. The government will then weigh the decisions the commission will have to make.


DATE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW REGULATORY BODY FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the crisis in telecommunications regulation and the fact that both consumer groups and provincial governments have lost confidence in the present system, can the minister tell us when he intends to set up the new regulatory body provided for in Bill C-5, recently passed by this House, and when he expects to achieve agreement on a new telecommunications policy for Canada, one that will, hopefully, contain a greater measure of direct public control over investment decisions and planning priorities?
July 10, 1975


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question I must unfortunately reply that I am not yet in a position to give a definite answer, due to the complex operation which consists in passing on powers from an already existing organization to the one we have just set up. As for the second part of the hon. member's question, I am also not in a position to provide him with an answer for the time being, but, in my opinion, he will be able to draw his own conclusions on the situation from the negotiations scheduled to take place next Tuesday with all the provincial ministers meeting in Ottawa.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bearing in mind some of the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture in connection with quotas and our relations with the United States, I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he is aware of the letter sent by United States Senator Talmadge, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee to the President of the United States requesting that if quotas are imposed by Canada the United States should, possibly, take countervailing action? I ask this question in view of the somewhat strained relations which presently exist in connection with the movement of agricultural products between our two countries.


Hon.. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I am not aware of any such letter, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe it is correct to describe relations between Canada and the United States in the agricultural field as strained in any way.


Jack Burnett Murta: I differ with the Secretary of State on that point. However, I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since any breakdown in trade relations between our two countries would ultimately be to the detriment of the Canadian producer, and, very likely, it would be to the detriment of the Canadian consumer, I would ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is prepared to instruct that the Minister of Agriculture be sent to the United States immediately to confer with his counterpart there with a view to ensuring that no problems arise between the two countries in matters concerning agricultural trade.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would remind the House that the Minister of Agriculture did meet with the United States Secretary of Agriculture a few months ago. I am glad the hon. member recognizes the persuasive powers of my colleague. There is no indication at this time that a further visit is needed.
Oral Questions HEALTH


ALLEGED REDUCTION IN STANDARD OF MEDICAL CARE- SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON LOWER COST PROGRAMS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister aware that as a result of provincial cuts the quality of medical care has dropped? I should also like to ask the minister whether, when he meets his counterparts in September, he intends to discuss aid, health and shared cost in the health cost programs below extended care?


Marc Lalonde: I would answer the first part of the question by saying that the health statistics do not seem to bear out the view expressed by the hon. member. As to the second part of the question, a task force has been carrying on meetings with the provinces. Some provinces have not yet sent the information which was requested but I have asked that this information be made available to my officials by July 15 so that in the fall we might meet and consider the substitution of certain lower cost care for active treatment hospitals under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Service Act.


HOUSING
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one which was asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse. It is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I assume that all the municipalities and organizations which submitted proposals to the urban demonstration project have been informed of the collapse of that program. As the destruction of that program has been billed as a suspension, may I ask whether the notice to the municipalities suggested any date for the resubmission of projects or has the minister reserved any for reconsideration?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am personally writing to the municipalities and to the proposers of each of the projects which I am returning indicating that the program is in suspension. This is something I am doing with deep regret because this is a program of great potential and it was received with great interest throughout the country. Nevertheless, it was felt that given the range of priorities this was a scheme which ought to be reduced or suspended. Since I did not want to build up any hopes, I did not name any date for the reintroduction of the program, if, indeed, this happens; I hope it will, I hope the program can be reintroduced. But I did not want to indicate when this might be, because I really do not have any idea myself. The priority, now, is to make the programs which are already in effect work well. Then, I think, we look ahead from there.

July 10, 1975
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE LAND CLAIMS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-RESPONSIBILITY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-SUGGESTED MEETING OF NATIVES AND PROVINCIAL REPRESENTATIVES WITH MINISTER
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. In reply to an earlier question the minister informed the House that he is waiting for the Province of British Columbia to settle certain land claims in that province as a means of overcoming native unrest which has been apparent there. Is the minister able to inform the House by what authority it has been possible for him to pass responsibility for land claim settlements on to the provinces, and, if so, what is his department doing to assist the natives of British Columbia to fight their case with the province?


An hon. Member:: You know that already.


Frank Oberle: I know nothing!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: On the question of the land claims, the federal government has not denied that it has the responsibility to extinguish the claim. On the other hand, we have made it clear that the land which is involved in the settlement of any claim is now provincial Crown land and it is essential that the provincial government should have a role and accept that role in extinguishing this land claim.


Frank Oberle: I was hoping that the minister would be as frank in response to my question as I was in asking it. The situation in British Columbia is a difficult one and is causing considerable hardship to those concerned. Is the minister prepared to meet with the Province of British Columbia and with the native people to find an interim solution to this serious problem?


J. Judd Buchanan: As the hon. member knows, I have had several meetings with provincial officials and I shall be delighted to meet them at any time if they wish to sit down and discuss the question of land claims.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Solicitor General.
This morning, a Montreal daily announced that for the first time the government was going to subsidize recreation programs organized by a group of Montreal artists under the direction of Germaine Dugas. Considering that other artistic groups are also working benevolently in various penal institutions, could the minister tell us

whether his department will be subsidizing such groups, and if so, what will be their amount? Or whether another government department will be distributing these allowances, and why a group of artists are being asked to work benevolently, whereas it seems that the same government will be subsidizing another group?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Dugas' group and her organization are not being paid by my department for giving performances in federal penitentiaries, and I have no information to the effect that she is being paid by another department.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
To clear up the matter, Mr. Speaker, may I request from the minister that he make proper inquiries to find out what department is subsidizing this group? And if the group is not being subsidized, I simply want the population to know that the newspaper made an error.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in most cases these groups are asked to give their shows free of charge. From the information at my disposal, there is no grant for this group, but if the hon. member so wishes, I can obtain more specific information.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, now that the House has been making such tremendous strides in disposing of the government's legislative proposals, may I ask the government House leader whether he could indicate what else he has to deal with in the House and whether we will be here long enough to permit that pillar of parliamentary propriety, the Prime Minister, to make the announcement about the PLO inside the House rather than outside?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, as the House knows, we will be completing consideration of Bill C-8. Tomorrow we will continue with the discussion of the Excise Tax Act. We are making some progress and I would welcome any approaches from the House leader to extend the co-operation that we have been receiving, because I am quite satisfied that we can reach decisions after adequate debate and be out of here within a relatively few days.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would take the suggestion that he introduce the legislation arising out of the recommendations in the Hermann report. Within about 60 minutes we could move first, second and third reading and do something for half a million citizens of Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to take that under consideration. I think there are some other bills that could equally be expeditiously handled if they were not made the subject of political wrangling.
July 10, 1975


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have always had a great deal of respect for the government House leader, but I hope he will explain that last statement about political wrangling. If he expects and wants co-operation, then he had better come clean and explain that last statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is most important. We are trying to create a mood of co-operation around here, but I do not know whether the minister wants it or not. I hope he will clarify this last statement for the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I would be very happy to consider any offers of co-operation from the other side. There are a number of items on the order paper that I believe could be dealt with expeditiously, and I am waiting for offers of co-operation.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, during this question period several members of the opposition from all parties rose to ask supplementary questions. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in one very specific instance I requested to ask a supplementary question from the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on a very important subject which I think occupied a great deal of the time of this House. However, you did not see fit to recognize me. Mr. Speaker, I hope that when a government member- [English]
I speak slowly because I want you to understand through the translation system.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you did not set a precedent today. I recognize your great competence as Speaker of this House but I would not want in the future a government member who requests to ask a supplementary question-which by the way was the only one asked by a Liberal-see his request denied on the only ground that he is a member of the party in power. Very seldom do you not recognize us because we sit with the party in power. The precedent set today does not really shock me. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that you recognized members of the opposition on at least 14 occasions. That is your right. I do not question it. But you recognized their right to ask supplementary questions. I had only one supplementary which was the only supplementary question asked by a government member, and you did not see fit to recognize me.
I hope in the future, Mr. Speaker, you will give us the same treatment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will surely recognize, in common with the interests of other members of the House, that several members on both sides were unable to be recognized today and they were not recognized yesterday. Some hon. members have been standing for two or three days trying to be recognized. It would be a
Business of the House
wonderfully simple arrangement if all supplementary questions took precedence over any other kind, but that would mean the same members who asked the original question would be standing day after day. This is a most difficult problem, but surely the solution is not to take supplementary questions in preference to other questions because that would be most unfair to those who had been trying for two or three days to be recognized.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: Perhaps hon. members would be kind enough to wait just a minute. They have had their chance today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a very important and interesting issue. I have already made a number of remarks on this. Other hon. members want to ask questions or rise on a point of order. The hon. member has raised a very important issue and it is absolutely necessary to put an end to the discussion.
Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) on a question of privilege.


Mr. Beaudoin:: It is about the question of privilege on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are not upset. But we should like to remind you that Social Crediters were allowed only one question today. We are aware that yours is a very thankless and difficult task, but I meant to remind the hon. member that we had asked only one question today. We are not upset, but we wish we had been allowed to ask more.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize, as I do, that his caucus achieved the recognition of one questioner only today. The caucus immediately to his right achieved the recognition of only two. Both numbers are well below the number of members in both caucuses. However, I would also point out that the caucus of the official opposition achieved today, if I am not mistaken, the recognition of only 13 questioners. That is not enough, but it is partly due to the length of questions and answers over which I have no control.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, again I rise in a spirit of co-operation in regard to the legislation that is so important to a great number of veteran citizens in Canada. If this legislation were introduced it could go through first, second and third readings in record time, in the interests of many hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
Over the years I have been here I have never offered anything but co-operation, but for some reason or other the President of the Privy Council has referred to political rancour, to which I take exception. This was not my purpose in rising and he should know better. If he wants to get legislation through for the betterment of all Canadians, he should introduce this legislation, which is very straightforward and will help many Canadians who are suffering from inflation and its effect on the incomes they receive.
7446

July 10, 1975
Canada Elections Act


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I just clarify the point. I welcome the indication given by the hon. gentleman, and I will take it up with his House leader. We have quite a number of bills that we would like to get through and I think all parties in the House would like to get them through. This is one of them, but I think that with co-operation we can accomplish many, many things within the next few days.


AGRICULTURE
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as I said I would on two earlier occasions in this House, with the permission of the House I wish to table, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of both the initial and the supplementary national egg marketing agreements.


COMMUNICATIONS
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Section 41(2) of the Standing Orders, I wish to table in both official languages the report on an inquiry by the Department of Communications entitled "Review of the Procurement Practices and Policies and the Intercorporate Financial Relationships of the British Columbia Telephone Company", as well as a copy of the letter on the subject that I sent to the Hon. E. J. Benson, Chairman of the Transport Commission.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-404, to amend the Canada Elections Act (opinion surveys).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit the publication of broadcasting of the results of public opinion polls taken during an election. It will not interfere with research, academic, commercial or political, which is kept confidential during an election so as not to influence the outcome.


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

John Douglas Reynolds: for leave to introduce Bill C-405, to amend the Canada Labour Code (age discrimination).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit, where the Canada Labour Code applies, age discrimination in employment and trade union membership.


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

Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of our Standing Orders, I rise on a question of privilege. However, I would like to say that I do not do so for a matter of political resentment or in malice.
If a minister cannot do his duty because of a direct or indirect collusion with the underworld with a view to protecting it, or for another similar reason, and if moreover he publicly takes a unilateral position and attempts to convince the cabinet by threatening to resign so they will not apply the law which should be used in the circumstances, such as the death penalty provided at least for murderers of policemen and prison guards, he can only resign since he is violating his oath of office.
As a representative of the Canadian people, who are demanding that the sanctions provided in the existing law be applied, I have the duty to rise on a question of privilege and to ask all elected members of this House to intervene so that the Solicitor General of Canada may be replaced by someone who can take his responsibilities and who will not violate either the existing law or the wishes of the majority of Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,247, 2,466, 2,539, 2,564, 2,632 and 2,788.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,786, 2,130 and 2,288 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions Nos. 2,624 and 2,704?
July 10, 1975

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Have discussions taken place with officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission respecting the possibility of the government, through these agencies, subsidizing, underwriting or in any other way, participating in a financial way in the payment to members of the International Longshoremen's Association in the St. Lawrence River who are now receiving guaranteed annual incomes and, if so (a) what was the nature of such discussions (b) how do they relate to the proposals of Judge Gold?
2.	Is there any statutory or regulatory authority which would permit the payment of unemployment insurance benefits when recipients are in receipt of guaranteed annual incomes from their employers and, if so, what is the wording of such authority?
3.	Is there a proposal to pay these longshoremen 10 or 12 weeks minimum unemployment insurance benefits while they are in receipt of, or in addition to their guaranteed annual incomes?
4.	May individuals in receipt of funds from their employers concurrently collect unemployment insurance benefits and, if so, under what circumstances?
5.	Does the government have any estimate whatsoever of the cost of the adoption of the proposals by Judge Gold respecting the payment of unemployment insurance to members of the ILA in receipt of guaranteed annual incomes and (a) if so, what is such estimate (b) if not, for what reason?
6.	Would any such plan if adopted in the St. Lawrence River Ports be applicable to other industries in Canada in other regions and (a) if so, under what conditions (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. No discussions have taken place respecting the subsidizing, underwriting or financing of any guaranteed annual income plan. The discussions that have taken place between officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Maritime Employers' Association concerned a proposal by the Association for a Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Plan to cover longshoremen at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec City, (a) The purpose of the discussions was to determine if the proposed plan could be approved under section 172(3)(d) of the Unemployment Insurance Regulations. (b) The proposed SUB Plan was incorporated in Judge Gold's report.
2.	Under section 17 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, a person must have had an interruption of earnings from employment in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefit. Therefore, in general, a person in receipt of a guaranteed annual income would not likely have the interruption of earnings necessary to qualify for benefits. However, the specific provisions of an actual guaranteed annual income plan would have to be considered before a decision could be given on any individual plan.
3.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission has not considered any proposal to pay longshoremen benefit for any specific period. Longshoremen may qualify for unemployment insurance benefit only on the same basis and subject to the same conditions as workers in any other industry.
Order Paper Questions
4.	A Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Plan allows employers to supplement their employees unemployment insurance benefits and thereby maintain the workers income, during periods of layoff, at a higher level than provided by unemployment insurance benefit alone.
5.	The amount of unemployment insurance benefit that would be payable to any group of workers would depend on the number of workers on layoff, the duration of the layoff and whether all the workers would be entitled to benefit for the entire period of layoff.
6.	More than 200 approved SUB Plans are in effect. They cover workers in many different industries and in all parts of Canada. Employers and employees in any industry are free to set up a SUB Plan on the same basis as that proposed for longshoremen.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned the answer is as follows: 1. There have been no discussions with officers of the Department of Manpower and Immigration with specific reference to subsidizing, underwriting or participating in a financial way in the payment to members of the International Longshoremen's Association in the St. Lawrence River who may now be receiving guaranteed incomes, (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable. Please refer to a similar answer given to the hon. member in response to part 1 of question 2,039.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Are Olympic coins being distributed (a) unilingual English (b) unilingual French (c) bilingual by the Royal Canadian Mint?
2.	What are the details of the written impressions on each Olympic coin?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. (a) No. (b) No. (c) Yes.
2. Series I: See Canada Gazette, Part II, volume 107, No. 24. Series II: See Canada Gazette, Part II, volume 108, No. 16. Series III: See Canada Gazette, Part II, volume 109, No. 1.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	With reference to the ARDA III B Special Agreement which terminated officially on March 31, 1975 (a) which provinces participated and what was the date on which the participation of each became effective (b) how many provinces expressed concern that the terms and conditions of the agreement were (i) too restrictive (ii) insensitive to local needs (iii) otherwise deficient?
2.	By province and by year, how many applications (a) were received from each participating province (b) were accepted by the government?
3.	By province and by year, how many projects were actually undertaken and what were the (a) federal (b) provincial contributions to each?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. (a) Manitoba, July 20, 1971; Saskatchewan, December 2, 1971; Alberta, September 17, 1971; British Columbia, August 25, 1972; (b) None of the participating
29576-58(4

July 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
provinces expressed concern over the terms and conditions of the respective agreements. However, both the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan voiced concern over the apparent restrictiveness of the proposed operating guide-
2. (a) Applications Received as at March 31.
lines and administrative procedures. An agreement to amend the guidelines was reached and the program is being administered in a manner apparently satisfactory to all governments concerned.
Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia1971-72	132	33	25	01972-73	85	65	2	011973-74	84	57	0	081974-75	97	119	0	100(b) Applications Accepted by the Government as at March 31.	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia19"U-72	1	2	0	01972-73	34	29	0	01973-74	51	25	0	101974-75	52	40	0	24Projects Undertaken as at March 31	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia1971-72	0	0	0	01972-73	29	20	0	01973-74	46	19	0	121974-75	59	28	0	22(a) Federal Commitment ($000) as	at March 31.	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia1971-72	0	0	0	01972-73	1019.7	282.3	0	01973-74	1834.3	812.4	0	1156.31974-75	1900.0	767.8	0	1644.9(b) Provincial Commitment ($000) ;	as at March 31.	Manitoba	Saskatchewan	Alberta	British Columbia1971-72	0	0	0	01972-73	194.2	48.2	0	01973-74	542.3	139.7	0	5.01974-75	308.6	53.1	0	0


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	$574,333.00.
2. (a) Not applicable, (b) Nil. Instructional staff are employees of the Public Service Commission, (c) $61,000. Contract for monitor services, (d) Salaries of staff of

Official Languages Branch, $388,333; Professional and Special Services, $67,500; Travel and removal, $12,000; Freight, Express and Cartage, $500; Telephones and Telegrams, $10,000; Office Stationery, Supplies, Equipment and Furnishings, $14,500; Acquisition of Equipment, $20,000; Miscellaneous, $500.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Is it the intention of CNR to discontinue the overnight passenger train on a daily basis between Ottawa and Toronto as now exists and, if so, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as
July 10, 1975

follows: There are no plans at present to discontinue the overnight train between Ottawa and Toronto.


Mr. Mazankowski: How much did Air Canada pay on claims for lost or damaged baggage in the years 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Total amounts paid on claims for lost and damaged baggage was as follows: 1972, $713,252; 1973, $1,253,023; 1974, $1,418,248. Most major world airlines experienced large increases in claims costs during the period 1973 and 1974. In order to combat this growing trend, in 1974 several airlines, including Air Canada, joined together in a centralized computerized baggage retrieval system. The effects of this new system have begun to be felt and during the first quarter of 1975, the airline recorded a dramatic reduction in the amounts paid compared to the same period in 1974. Also, the number of revenue passengers carried by Air Canada increased from just over eight million in 1972 to almost 11 million in 1974 and it is noteworthy that fully 99 per cent of the total number of 1974 passengers carried arrived at their destinations accompanied by their baggage.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Was the $66,000 per annum fee for the services of Mr. Austin P. Page, as Chief Executive Officer of the Olympic Coin Programme increased and, if so (a) what is the present per annum fee (b) on what date was it increased (c) for what reason was it felt necessary to increase Mr. Page's remuneration?
2.	To date, what has been the total paid in the form of expense allowances with respect to Mr. Page's activities?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: To part 1(a), $66,000; to (b), October 1, 1974; and to (c), to comply with the requirements of the agreement entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada of one part and Groupe de Gestion P.M. Inc. of the other part. The answer to part 2 is to May 31, 1975, $51,464.43.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Does the Farm Credit Corporation intend to open an office in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	How many applications for loans were received by the Corporation from the Province in each year 1970 to May 31, 1975?


Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Yes, effective June 1, 1975.
2. April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971-20; April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972-14; April 1, 1972 to March 31, 1973-6; April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974-11; April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975-10; April 1, 1975 to May 31, 1975-10.
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	During the period March 31, 1973 to February 28, 1975, how many speeches were prepared for a (a) Minister (b) Deputy Minister (c) Assistant Deputy Minister by individuals employed as Information Officers by the government?
2.	In each case (a) who was the Minister (b) Deputy Minister (c) Assistant Deputy Minister (d) what was the occasion of the speech?
Return tabled.



IMPORTS OF MEAT AND VEGETABLES INTO CANADA

Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What quantities of farm produce (a) red meat (beef, pork, others) (b) poultry (c) dairy produce (d) fruits (e) vegetables are imported into Canada?
2.	What was the amount imported of each item each year 1960 and 1965 to 1974 inclusive?
3.	What is the percentage increase (decrease) for each year and overall for each item over the past five and three year periods?
4.	What are the reasons for the increases?
Return tabled.



MAINTENANCE OF PASSENGER AND TERMINAL FACILITIES IN AIRPORTS

Mr. Jones: 1.	What department is responsible for janitorial services, cleaning and maintenance of passenger and terminal facilities in each airport in Canada?
2.	(a) Which airports have such services done by public servants (b) what are the details of all costs including a breakdown in wages, materials, etc. (c) what is the minimum wage for employees doing such work (d) does the Public Service use or employ child labour in such work (e) who is responsible for supervision of such work?
3.	Which airports have such services carried out, provided or handled by private contractors and, in each case (a) what are the details of the contract, including the name and address of the contractor, the amount of the contract, the date of the contract and the termination date (b) were tenders called and, if so (i) on what date (ii) what procedures were followed in calling tenders and awarding of the contract (c) are local contractors retained and, if not, for what reason?
4.	(a) What is the minimum wage for employees doing such work (b) does the contractor use or employ child labour for such work (c) who is responsible for supervision of such work?
5.	Was child labour used at Halifax International Airport on March 30, 1975 and, if so, who was responsible
6.	What was the name of the RCMP constable who was reluctant to investigate and report to the appropriate authority and take the necessary remedies, both legal and otherwise of the use of child labour at Halifax International Airport on March 30, 1975?
7.	Was a report of the incident in Part 5 and in Part 6 made to any department or Minister and, if so (a) on what date (b) what was the purport of such report?
8.	Is action contemplated to halt the use of child labour on government contracts and, if so, what is such action?
Return tabled.

July 10, 1975
7450___________________________________
Petro-Canada



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have had a prolonged opportunity at previous stages to speak on this bill, so I would propose not to speak at the commencement of third reading. There has been some discussion and I think there is the hope that hon. members might limit their speeches to 15 or 20 minutes to enable a maximum number of members to participate. If the House agrees, and it is desirable that I should respond at the end, I wonder if I might be given the floor at 9.30 as I believe it is correct that the vote is to be taken at 9.45. If the House is agreeable to that suggestion, I could speak by way of reply at 9.30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) rising on the point just raised by the minister, or to participate in the debate? If he is rising to participate in the debate, I would recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who I understand wishes to speak on the suggestion.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to take part in the debate. The question on the point of order should be dealt with by the House leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could first settle the points raised by the minister. We would agree to a reduction in the time of speeches during this third reading debate to 20 minutes. I think rather than 15 minutes we would agree to 20 minutes. Also, we would agree to the minister being given the floor at 9.30.


An hon. Member:: That would only give him 15 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that is all he needs.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed this matter with my colleagues, but I see an indication that they are probably not unwilling. I have always thought these matters should follow the route of ordinary debate, with responses back and forth. The minister, of course, had the opportunity during second reading to answer all the comments. If I could be assured that the minister in his final speech will limit himself to calm, reasoned and detached answers to questions which are asked, that would be a different thing. I just file that as a caveat without giving consent to this kind of practice for the future as I do not think it makes for good debate in the House. I see that my colleagues, who have co-operated all along in connection with the passage of this legislation, are not unwilling that this should happen, so I shall not raise any objection to it, much as I might like to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There seems to be agreement. Perhaps to clarify the matter, is it agreed that speeches will be limited to 20 minutes, and that the minister will be recognized at 9.30, with the vote on Bill C-8 being taken at 9.45?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on third reading of the bill to establish a national petroleum company for Canada I do so with a feeling that has degenerated over the months from one of academic argument on the merits or the lack of them in the bill, to one of disgust. While listening to the speeches and reading the debate on this bill I have been impressed with the accuracy of what I said three months ago, that this was a posturing on the part of the government which would not provide any guarantee of more oil or lower prices in the immediate future.
I have concluded that we are just seeing part of a massive fraud on the part of the government to pretend it is doing something to meet the needs of the country. I have taken this view before. When I say "fraud", I am not referring to the type of fraud that is subject to court action such as has now been taken in Saskatchewan in respect of the PFAA. I am thinking more of the political type of fraud. We have in this House at the present time, as part of the whole pattern, a desire on the part of the government to accept a law which would put before the Canadian public debased coinage. This is insulting to Canadians. If there is a desire to raise money for a worthwhile purpose, let us vote it honestly and not try to deceive the people who buy a coin with a face value of $100 into believing they are getting $100 worth of value.
This attitude was also apparent in the budget. There was a suggestion that the government intended to cut back on expenses, and would exercise restraint. As I understand it, the minister asked his colleagues for a cut of $5.4 billion but was able to get an expenditure reduction of only $1 billion. This is not restraint; it is pure public posturing. To me it is nothing but political fraud on the Canadian people.	.
The most massive form of such fraud is contained in this bill. It has been said it will cost from $1,500 million to $2,000 million to set up this company. I think that would be the minimum estimate. Oil companies today must have massive financing; they are dealing with a capital intensive type of enterprise. When we think of gathering the resources of this nation and expending $1 billion or $2 billion just to get started in this poker game, without any guarantee of an extra barrel of oil or one cent less per barrel in the cost structure. I think I am right in saying this bill is a pretence and a fraud.
In my remarks during debate on second reading on March 12 I tried to put before the House, the minister and the government alternative suggestions, which were positive and constructive, as being more useful for the people of Canada than this type of set-up which is merely the setting up of another company. Those better alternatives were in the interests of obtaining access to oil, from any
July 10, 1975

source, faster and cheaper. They were based on the assumption that Canadians as individuals want a chance to share in the wealth of this nation.
I shall again put forward these alternatives in list form, not that they will do any good so far as the minister or the government are concerned but because perhaps anyone reading these remarks will know that there are other and better ways to achieve what the government has in mind as an objective. The first alternative is one which I do not think I would have accepted had I been in the minister's place, but I believe it to be better then the position taken by the government. There are five international companies which control the bulk of the oil industry. Why not buy one of them? This would at least give us the advantage of having in place an organization with 40 or 50 years experience behind it, and it would cost a little less than the amount involved in this proposal. That is one alternative; I do not intend to argue it. It is an alternative which could have been considered and it would have been better than starting from scratch to try to build, in the next 15 or 20 years, the know-how one must have in this complex and risky business.
The second alternative is the one on which I spent the most time on March 12. It is the position of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The concept is that we have five large, international oil companies doing the bulk of the work in Canada today; and I am not putting down the independents, smaller companies. The position of the Progressive Conservative Party is simple. At present market prices, with the simple provision of an inducement in the budget, in two or three years the Canadian people could own 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the shares of the five main companies, and if there were any profit in this risk venture it would go to the Canadians as individuals who had put their money into it. That was the Conservative position. I think it is in harmony with the philosophy of the Canadian people who want to enjoy the revenue from our bountiful resources. At the same time, it would give us the advantage of the skill and know-how of these companies if we owned them, we would have the advantage of their international connections, and I think we would have a better chance of putting some pressure on these companies in a positive way on behalf of Canada in order to obtain oil faster and cheaper.
On this second alternative I think I am prepared, as a partisan, to travel the country and explain it to the people. I know the Canadian people will respond. Millions of people in the work force, or people who have money to invest in this type of thing would like an opportunity to share, as individuals, in the wealth of this nation. This would allow people who are trying to build up estates to know that their investment would grow with the country and would not be tied to the fixed type of investment.
So I have no apology to make for the Conservative alternative which I think would be much better for the people of Canada. It would be much better in dealing with the immediate challenge of making sure that five years down the road we have enough oil to keep our industrial complex working and enough natural gas to give us a start on a large petrochemical industry of the future.
There are other alternatives, some of which are completely in the hands of the government. A third alternative
Petro-Canada
would be for the government to get off its seat and promulgate the oil and gas regulations dealing with land in the north, without spending a dollar and without waiting another hour. These regulations were put in abeyance in February, 1970, with the result that there have been no regulations available for the companies in the north and offshore since that time. If the regulations were enacted, then these companies, if there is oil there-and there is- could move with the knowledge that the government had laid down the terms in respect of section 58 of the land regulations. The regulations were originally set up in 1961 and they were agreed to by all companies, large and small.
These regulations would give the people of Canada approximately 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the oil and gas found in areas outside the provinces. This, of course, represents the bulk of our oil and gas reserves. The regulations were based on the fact that the government of the day, and all governments, would stay off the backs of the oil companies until there was a tax flow. In return for staying off their backs in respect of all these innumerable government charges, we would expect not 15 per cent of the revenues from the value of that oil and gas but 50 per cent to 60 per cent.
Why does the government not stick with those regulations? The companies agreed to them and I think they would would still go to work on them if the government kept off their backs until they had a cash flow. That is one thing that could have been done. It would at least turn loose these five big companies and the smaller companies who want to develop their properties under federal jurisdiction.
The fourth alternative on which I have spoken many times over the past few years has to do with the question of finance. There is no question now that what has been true for the last five years is no longer true. It once needed $400 of investment to find a field which would produce a barrel of oil per day. It now costs $10,000 dollars, as a minimum, in the north; and if we are dealing with the present method of financing in the tar sands, it costs about $15,000. In other words, it needs an investment of $15,000 to obtain a barrel a day productivity in the tar sands, where a few years ago $400 would have sufficed on the prairies. This new fact of capital-intensive industry means that we have to apply new types of financing. The proposals I made in committee and in the House are acceptable to all the large companies. They will come in immediately under those proposals. The only person who loses under my proposal is the one who collects his money by way of interest. We simply get rid of the debt fast, there is a quick pay-out and then there is more money for the provincial governments, the federal government and the companies.
I have said this before and I will repeat it. It is passing strange to me that the only government in the world which has accepted this concept of financing large, capital-intensive industry is a socialist country, the United Kingdom. Under the system there, a company which has invested $2 billion or $3 billion in a risk enterprise in the North Sea receives an immediate write-off of 175 per cent. This means, in effect, that the government receives little or nothing until the debt is paid, and neither does the

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada
company. But when it is paid, the people of the United Kingdom share to the extent of 45 per cent to 55 per cent of the gross. This is the type of financing proposal which could be applied not only to new oil and gas areas but also to the capital-intensive mining industry and other capitalintensive industries in the manufacturing sector.
This type of proposal has received great consideration, as I said, from the large oil companies and they are willing to go along with it, but there has been no reaction of a positive nature from this government except that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) said that type of technique is not used now. This type of magpie reaction, the thinking that the government only uses ideas which come from its own experts and it will not do anything new, is not the way to build this nation. It is not the way to adapt the new circumstances of high costs, high interest rates and particularly the shortage of capital in a nation which is just starting the development of its resources.
The advantage of this type of financing is that the rate of capital use is speeded up three or four times. If the capital is used three or four times under this quick repayment technique, that is the same as having three or four times the amount of capital. If Canada as a nation were to adopt this technique, we would not only have enough money to finance the hundreds of billions of dollars of capital investment we will have to make in the next 25 years, but we would be able to export capital to other countries which need it even more than we do.
This is the type of thing I would like the Canadian government to do. It is a much better alternative than taxing the people $2 billion to set up a company, collecting a group of green people and some experienced people in the hope that in 15 or 20 years we will have new sources of production. I suggest that a new form of financing should be offered to the industry which would achieve more rapid results at much less cost. The present cost of financing a tar sands operation is about $11 per barrel. If it is done the way I have proposed, using the figures of the oil companies themselves it would be no more than $3 per barrel. This government, the government of Alberta and all the other governments are forcing consumers to pay a cost structure of $11 per barrel, when if it were done properly the cost structure would be $3. That is the significance of my alternative.
Finally, I have a fifth alternative which I think would do more good for the people. It could be done immediately if the Minister of Finance, with the support of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), told the government to end the war on the provinces over the question of taxation of resources. There would again be movement in all the provinces. Nothing is happening in British Columbia because of this war. Where the tax liability of the two levels of government in a confrontation position is greater than 100 per cent, there cannot be investment, and under those circumstances it is no use asking Canadians to invest in resource industries.
Those are five alternatives any one of which would be superior to the fraudulent action we are taking today in pretending that we are doing something. The only argument for this type of thing is that half a dozen countries have similar national companies. There are two American senators proposing one, and other countries are proposing

one to keep up with the Joneses. I might put it in the form of a very simple analogy: if there are five big trout in the stream, all this government will be doing over the next 15 or 20 years is adding another big trout to the stream. Will that add to the wealth of the stream? I do not think so, and I say it is time we began thinking about Canada.
I know that this whole exercise started as a result of a political partisanship quarrel. In 1973 when oil prices began to move up, the minister announced that we should go to world prices. Then he realized that he could have a beautiful fight with the province of Alberta by advocating lower prices. He and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have changed their minds again and now advocate higher prices. This time they are fighting Ontario. Is it not about time we stopped thinking about fighting the provinces for political reasons, and started thinking about Canada?
The alternatives I have listed are sensible and possible but, above all, there is another alternative which I have not mentioned. We have available from our scientists and engineers, for almost peanuts in expenditure, renewable, non-polluting forms of energy as old as the world. New technology could bring these non-polluting, renewable forms of energy on stream in less than a decade, at less cost than applies to oil and gas now.
Those are a few little bits of impetus-just a few things to get us moving in this direction. Last year the government paid a person $54,000 because he had enough brains to put solar heating into his house and it paid off. Consider all the other ideas which come flooding into my office every day. There is a tax law in the United States which in effect prohibits companies from using waste oil. We use oil in our cars and after 2,000 or 3,000 miles we change it. All the technology to clean up that oil and to use it again and again has been there for 40 years. In the United States this amounts to one billion gallons per year, yet we have tax laws which prohibit or limit that type of activity. I simply say, let us have a tax credit for people who re-use oil. Let us give that type of incentive for private industry to start conserving oil.
I could go on, as I have in other speeches, and list any number of alternative proposals. I look upon Petro-Can as a betrayal of Canadian nationalism and as a fraudulent device to try to fool people that they are getting real value for their money. I am a Canadian nationalist, and instead of this concept of putting one more trout in the stream I would like to see much less Canadian money put into owning all the trout in the stream. When we face the country on this issue, I am sure that the vast majority of Canadians will believe the doctrine that they should own their resources, but as individuals and not as the state.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in this final debate on the Petro-Can bill. It certainly has been a long one, with miles and miles of political verbiage, especially from the official opposition, in the House on second reading and in committee where we had close to two dozen meetings. The last remark of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) that the Petro-Canada corporation is a betrayal of Canadian nationalism is one of the silliest
July 10, 1975

things we have heard in this long debate, when we know that the industry is over 90 per cent owned by foreign corporations.
The reason for bringing this bill before parliament is not only to increase proven reserves of hydrocarbons and create more activity in the energy sector of our economy, but to have that done by Canadians. Thinking over the many sessions of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works, I am reminded of the old saying "Patience is a virtue". It is almost a necessity in this case in order to maintain one's mental equilibrium. In that connection, I should like to congratulate the minister for his patience because he was able to answer the hundreds of questions during the committee study, many of which were asked half a dozen times.


Mr. Andre:: That's what he did, fend them off; he didn't answer them.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The fact that he answered those questions so well and handles his portfolio so well is a great tribute to him personally and is also of great advantage to Canada. Members of the official opposition said there was no flexibility in the government with respect to this bill. When looking at the reports of the committee debates, however, we see that many amendments were proposed; some of ours were subsequently withdrawn and some of theirs were accepted. I think this shows a spirit of good parliamentary procedure, recognizing that although the amendments do not change the general thrust of the bill, they further define the capability of the corporation, which of course is what we really want to do.
It is nice to see that we have most of the principal players in the House this afternoon, especially the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). I do not see the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), however.


Mr. Paproski:: He is behind the curtains.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Perhaps, with the resignation of the Leader of the Official Opposition, he has already started on his campaign.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party recognized the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal Party in announcing the plan to establish a national petroleum corporation on December 6, 1973. They supported the bill on second reading and in committee. The Tories seem to be opposed to it, and that will be defined tonight when there is a vote. We have not had a recorded division except on the two or three amendments at report stage, but they seem to be opposed to it even though it has been before the House for a long time. It was before the Canadian people in the general election of July 8 last year, and it seems that the people indicated loud and clear that they were in favour of it.
It is sometimes difficult to be sure where the official opposition stands on the bill. The group that participated in committee seemed to be a combination of westerners and eastern hardliners like the hon. member for York-Simcoe. The hon. member for Don Valley seemed to be one of the more moderate easterners and even seemed embarrassed at times by the length of the filibuster. I suppose if
Petro-Canada
there is some division within the party on this question it will be nothing compared to the division during the next few months as the leadership campaign heats up.
There seems to be a certain schizophrenia on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition regarding this bill. They seem to be in favour of the federal government investing in Syncrude and the Panarctic exploration. At the hearings they supported the estimates of some $300 million for the Syncrude investment by the federal government, yet they were opposed to establishing a Crown corporation like Petro-Canada to administer this kind of investment.
In the committee hearings they seemed to say, "If you are going to make an investment in oil and gas exploration and development, do it directly." Of course, that would be administered and controlled by the department and the minister responsible. When it came to the Petro-Canada bill, however, they did not want the government to have any responsibility. They wanted the Petro-Canada corporation to be so far removed from the government that it would have no control over it. Their tones seemed to be a diversity of the two opinions as to how this kind of investment should be made by the government. They certainly did not seem to want a Crown corporation to make the kind of investment we have made in Syncrude and Panarctic with the administrative, technical and managerial ability that this corporation will have. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. Either we establish a Crown corporation with this kind of ability, or we go to the other position of direct investment. The opposition's position on this question seems to be schizophrenic.
The bill makes provision not only for exploration and development in hydrocarbons but for their refining and distribution. The minister made it very clear that for the government to have a string of Petro-Canada gas stations across the country is not a priority and this is not what it wants. However, the development of and exploration for further gas and oil supplies is very important. The opposition spent a great deal of time in committee trying to remove from the bill the powers to refine and distribute petroleum products which at some time in the future may be necessary. Certainly, in a national petroleum company we do not want to remove or restrict such powers.
When we look at the petroleum corporations of the provinces, especially the provinces with Tory governments, Ontario and Alberta, it is rather interesting to note that they have the power to distribute and refine petroleum products. It is also interesting to contemplate what kind of national petroleum corporation the official opposition really wants, when they would require the powers of the corporation to be considerably less than those of provincial Crown corporations dealing with energy.
It seems to me that members of the official opposition see themselves as representatives of Tory provincial governments which they want to keep powers at the provincial level. Or perhaps they are resigned to being perpetually in opposition. I am not privy to their thoughts. Why limit the corporation's present powers? These powers may be necessary in future. If we had limited the corporation's powers, I am not at all confident that we would have been

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada
able to carry out in future the role that will be required of it.
The opposition is divided in its views about Petro-Canada. Some think its capitalization is too large, others that it is too small. The hon. member for York-Simcoe says it is far too big, that the corporation has massive capitalization; the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) suggested the corporation is too small, that its capitalization is a drop in the bucket and that it will not be effective. What is the official position of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? Some opposition members see the corporation as a great plot to nationalize the petroleum industry; others, as a plan for putting many people on the government's payroll. Surely that was the silliest argument we heard in committee.
I suggest that in the petroleum industry, Petro-Can will occupy a position analogous to that of Eldorado in the uranium mining industry. Eldorado is an important producer of uranium, although not one of the giants like Denison or Rio Algom. The larger companies consider Eldorado as an important company but not as a threat. I note that some opposition members suggested Petro-Can would threaten the viability of other, similar companies. Eldorado Nuclear produces significant quantities of uranium and occupies an important position in the uranium producing industry. As I said, we expect Petro-Canada to be to the oil and gas industry what Eldorado nuclear is to the uranium mining industry. Eldorado is going to undertake important exploration work this year. The estimates for that work were before the standing committee earlier this year.
The very existence of Eldorado means that the federal government has available to it expertise in the field of uranium production and can draw on this advice when necessary. In former days of energy surpluses it was not important for a government to have such expertise available to it in the field of uranium or energy generally. But conditions have changed and such expertise is important now. Last fall private companies asked the federal government to participate in the Syncrude project. Such a Crown corporation will employ people who have a grasp of technical matters, and the expertise will be available to the government. So, clearly, one can see the role which Petro-Canada will fulfil, a role in the oil and gas industry similar to that of Eldorado in the uranium mining industry.
The bill stresses the importance of exploration and the development of new reserves. We have developed energy reserves through the use of companies like Panarctic in which the federal government has a 45 per cent equity. That company has developed 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Arctic Islands. Needless to say, that gas will be important to our future. In addition, the company will be entering into joint ventures with small Canadian corporations which want to explore but do not have the wherewithal. Petro-Can will be involved in these joint ventures. In saying this, I immediately think of Syncrude-type projects in which there was a need for government participation.
A few weeks ago, at the national energy conference, it was announced that in the next ten years we shall need to spend $115 billion, in 1974 dollars, in developing the

energy sector of our economy. I am told that of this $115 billion of capital expenditure, about $49 billion will be for electrical utilities, of which about $20 billion will be for nuclear power and related heavy water plants. The petroleum sector-and this will affect Petro-Canada, although the powers of the corporation embrace more than petroleum matters-will require some $59 billion, of which $21 billion will go to pipelines and about $38 billion to exploration, development, refining and marketing. The exploration and development expenditures will take up an estimated $21 billion, and $8 billion is to be allocated to oil sands projects. It is estimated that development of coal and uranium mines will require about $5 billion and the building of coal gasification plants about $2 billion.
Obviously, we shall need tremendous amounts of capital. We do not want multinational petroleum corporations to put up the money; we want Canadians to be given the chance of participating directly through their government, and we want small Canadian companies to participate in this development through joint ventures. Another important aspect of the corporation will be its involvement in research and development of energy. This is of prime concern to us, and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will make an announcement soon relating to research and development in the field of energy.
In conclusion, this bill is important as it will allow Canadians, through the establishment of Petro-Can, to make their presence felt in the oil industry. It is equally important to encourage exploration for and development of oil and gas reserves, such as may be found in the High Arctic, offshore and in the tar sands. Important research and development will take place under the aegis of the national petroleum corporation. For these reasons, I am pleased that this bill is to be passed tonight because it will allow us to get on with the job we want it to do.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to participate in debate on Bill C-8 to establish a national petroleum corporation to be known as Petro-Canada. The second reading debate was somewhat protracted, mainly because of Conservative opposition. I want to concentrate on those parts of the bill which relate to the entire issue of energy in this country.
The three components of a national energy policy, which we have lacked to date because of the misguided policies of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, are ensuring adequate and reliable supplies, reasonable prices, and that Canadians through their government have a direct share of the wealth of our resources. This government has failed miserably to ensure these fundamental principles of a national energy policy.
The origins of the bill go back to the last minority parliament when the New Democratic Party, holding the balance of power, was able to pressure this government to take some action after so many years of neglect which saw our oil industry gradually being bought up by foreign companies to the point where it is now 90 per cent foreign-owned. Today Canadians are paying dearly for that misguided principle of allowing domination of this vital resource by foreign multinationals. We are paying dearly
July 10, 1975

not only in terms of the price of gas and oil, heating oil and natural gas, but of adequate future supplies.
The very oil companies which wanted to maximize profits by exporting oil, mainly to the United States, argued and convinced this government and its predecessors that we had an overabundance of oil. Export permits were granted to the point where we were exporting half of our daily production to the United States. The National Energy Board finally carried out an independent analysis last year and concluded that we would be running short of oil by 1980. Because these multinational oil companies control 90 per cent of the oil in this country, they are now able to hold Canadian consumers up to ransom by saying that unless they get world prices for Canadian oil they will not explore for new reserves so that Canadians will not run short within five years. That is the kind of lack of policy this government has pursued. That is why we are now in this predicament.
Only two years ago Canadian oil sold for $3.80 a barrel. It is now selling at $8 a barrel and will be going as high as $11 in the near future. The average home owner's heating bill increased by $60 last year and will go up again this year because of the latest price increases. This government is imposing a most regressive and unfair gasoline tax on all consumers of gasoline in order to augment its budget and to make compensation payments to eastern Canadians because they cannot obtain our own oil. By allowing the multinationals to control our oil industry we now have a situation where eastern Canada cannot acquire western Canadian oil. Therefore, eastern Canadians must buy the more expensive oil from the Middle East. This falls right into the hands of the oil companies which, when they were selling oil at $3.80 a barrel, were making a good profit and not complaining.
We have fallen into the trap of letting the companies argue that the price of western Canadian oil must rise to meet the price on the world market. If we had had some foresight and a government that was concerned about preserving control of this vital resource in Canadian hands, we would have had a national petroleum company many years ago. When we reached a crisis stage this government finally awoke to the fact that we need a national petroleum company to regain control of this vital resource so that we will not be held up to ransom by the multinational oil companies. Again, it was only because of the minority government situation that we got the government to move in this direction.
As a country, we have failed miserably because of the policies of this and other governments to acquire a direct share of the wealth of our oil resources. I have gone through this argument on many occasions and will not trot out the statistics again. However, over the years the oil companies have made incredible profits. In addition, they have been able to defer income taxes owing to the federal government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. They have been able to obtain depletion allowances and exploration write-offs to the point where instead of paying corporate tax of 46 per cent, many oil companies end up paying income tax of 11 to 17 per cent. Through giving all these concessions to the multinational oil companies they have been able to buy up this vital resource and control its supply and price.
Petro-Canada
Because of the crisis of supply and price the government finally screwed up enough nerve to come up with a national petroleum company which, if you look at the provisions of the bill, has on paper a great deal of scope in terms of power. It can become involved in oil exploration, refining, distributing and marketing. However, whenever the Liberals bring in a bill there is a caveat, especially when it is an idea suggested by the New Democratic Party. It has been traditional for Liberals to accept ideas proposed by my party, using them only in name and not in substance. As an example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has just made a statement as to the scope of this national petroleum company. It is very limited indeed.
The national petroleum company is supposed to become involved in exploration. Where is this exploration to take place? Most of the leases are already owned by the multinational oil companies which want no part of this national petroleum company. They see it as a threat to their manipulative powers over this vital resource. In name, this corporation is supposed to do some exploration. In reality, all the best oil leases south of the sixtieth parallel have been bought by the multinational oil companies. There is no hope of the national petroleum company getting involved in this area.
If we turn to the land north of the sixtieth parallel now owned by the federal government in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, we again have a pretty miserable picture in terms of what scope is available for the national petroleum company. I remind hon. members that in 1960 the government set up oil lease regulations for land north of the sixtieth parallel. The regulations were so favourable that within six weeks the exploration permits, which were granted for 12 years, were bought up by the oil companies to cover some 60 million acres, or 93,600 square miles of potential oil producing land in the Northwest Territories. The most likely land in the north that is available for oil is under the control of the multinational companies.
In addition, and this is illustrative of our sell-out principle in the oil industry, the government required that no rent be paid by these companies for permits. All that the companies had to agree to do was spend five cents an acre on exploration in the first year. After the third year, the expenditure had to rise to $2.65 an acre, maximum. The companies that found oil or gas north of the sixtieth parallel were given 21-year leases on half the land covered by their permits. In effect, that meant they could gain three-quarters of the oil under the land that was leased.
The royalty the government would collect from the oil companies was set at an incredibly low figure of 5 per cent for the first three to five years, rising to a maximum of 10 per cent. Foreign oil companies have enjoyed immense profits under this arrangement. By way of comparison, I might say that Alaska, where there are similar geographic and climatic conditions, levies a royalty not of 5 per cent or 10 per cent but of 20 per cent, and in addition the companies are obliged to pay other forms of taxation such as severence tax. Then, again, in Alaska leases are sold at auction to the highest bidders, whereas in Canada they are granted automatically in respect of half the land covered.

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada
So we find that by 1973 land north of the sixtieth parallel under permit to the oil companies amounted to 920 million acres, or 320,000 square miles. The federal government has this lease system under review, but according to all indications so far, any revision will not apply to land already under lease or exploration permit. The existing royalty arrangements will therefore apply to 80 per cent, or a total of 920 million acres of oil and gas bearing land in the Arctic.
I have shown that the national petroleum company will not have a chance to find oil south of the sixtieth parallel because the other companies have already done all the exploration and bought up all the promising land there. Now we see that north of latitude 60, 80 per cent is already in the hands of private companies for exploration under existing permit and lease arrangements. It is true the government has gone into partnership with the 19 private companies in Panarctic, but by 1974 Panarctic held no more than 60 million acres and there is no indication from the government that the NPC will buy out Panarctic, making a major move in that direction. The capital financing of the NPC is limited to $500 million in common shares, and its borrowing powers are limited to $1 million. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has already announced certain cutbacks and we do not know how they may affect the company.
The minister suggests that Petro-Can can become involved in joint ventures. Any such ventures are likely to be in co-operation with the smaller, independent companies on the periphery of the oil leased area, those which are not in a position to dispose of land with the best potential for oil and gas production. What I am saying is that the company as presently envisaged amounts to mere tokenism, an attempt to convince the Canadian people, who are rightly worried about the fact that 90 per cent of our oil is foreign-owned, that the government is doing something positive to regain control, ensuring that supplies and prices are guaranteed for the future.
In reality, the company will be so limited as to be ineffective. There is one way to make it effective: it is for the government to use the national petroleum company to take over the largest foreign-owned company in this country, namely, Imperial Oil. This would not only give us access at one stroke to the mechanics of the oil industry, enabling us to see how these companies have manipulated their books at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, but a precedent would be set for other companies in this country. By owning the largest oil company the government would be in a position to set prices.


An hon. Member:: It is doing so anyway.


Reginald Cyril Symes: If it were decided, for instance, that gasoline should sell at 70 cents in Canada, then Gulf and the others would have to follow suit because they could not sell gasoline at a higher price than the largest company was doing. In this way, Petro-Can could move to set policy and this would be a significant beginning. But it would only be a beginning, in the view of the NDP. If we really want to assure an economy which meets Canadian needs and protects Canadian supplies, the ultimate must be full ownership of these vital resources. Recent opinion polls show that Canadians are reaching this opinion for themselves.

They are not content with token gestures; they want positive and forward-looking steps to be taken.
The establishment of Petro-Can is belated recognition by the government that it has been bankrupt of policies and that it has allowed matters to drift to a point at which we are in a state of crisis with regard to supply and price. Rather than do something positive, the government has deferred to making token gestures and set up a company which will work only on the fringe of the oil industry, a company which will spend money looking for wells but which will not have much chance of finding new supplies, a company which in the long run will be totally ineffective as a means of controlling the oil industry within our borders. However, it is better than nothing, even though it falls far short of what is needed by Canadian consumers and Canadian industry. I urge the government to move in a more positive manner and to take over one of the biggest companies, in which case Petro-Can would become something significant.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good point to make, in discussing Bill C-8 and talking about Petro-Can historically, that it was preceded by an attempt to bring in Bill C-32, the petroleum administration act. Going back some years, Canada was doing very well with its oil exploration and energy program and there seemed to be no real urgency for rapid development. We were given to understand, by geologists and economists of the oil companies and by independent geologists, as well as by universities and research organizations, that Canada was sitting on huge oil and gas deposits and had no worries. Most of these deposits were in the province of Alberta; some had been found in Saskatchewan, some gas in British Columbia, also in the Mackenzie Delta and, finally, the Arctic Islands. It was a long history. For many years, in spite of drilling vigorously, oil had not been found in Alberta; in fact, the oil industry there was for years subsidized by eastern Canada. Finally, the wisdom of this course was vindicated when the great Leduc oil field was found and exploited.
After this, however, things went along just the same. We knew we had huge deposits of coal in Alberta, some in British Columbia and a good supply in Nova Scotia: there it even extended out under the ocean floor. We also came to realize that there was a big deposit of oil in the continental shelf, which extends for at least 200 miles seawards from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. This made Canadians feel rather complacent. However, we were rudely jolted into reality when the oil producing countries and Arab states, now called OPEC, banded together, put an oil embargo on the western industrialized nations and eventually quadrupled the price of oil. This was done only a short time ago.
Since that time the whole picture of the Canadian oil and petroleum scene has changed immensely. There was talk by the opposition for a while that there was no emergency, that the scarcity was contrived by oil companies. But later all the oil producing countries, including Venezuela, Iran and the Arab states, collectively stated their position, which was that oil was entirely too low in price. They said they had to buy expensive, manufactured
July 10, 1975

articles from the west and they were really subsidizing the west by selling their oil at too low a price.
There was some truth in this, but the price rise has contributed further to scarcities and inflation throughout the world. It has caused increasing disparities between the developing countries and the developed countries. It will take considerable time and a great deal of negotiation for the world to try to even up the standard of living in every country, no matter if the Third World countries have energy and mineral resources or not. This is one of the big tasks of the twentieth century, which will occupy us all through the next century as well.
Therefore, today we have a great deal to talk about. We must decide on our oil policy and where, for instance, price fixing, for one thing, should occur. As one views the scene, one thinks first of the oil producing countries themselves. Should they have the whole say in what oil shall cost? We do not believe so. Should the international oil companies operating in Canada have the whole say? Certainly not. The provinces-producing provinces and consuming provinces-will have to co-operate with the federal government to settle the matter. Talks up to the present have not been too successful and they will have to continue. There will have to be an end to confrontation, shadowboxing and just plain political posturing. There must be a definite agreement between Ottawa and the provinces about prices and about how to make sure that the great fossil fuel wealth we possess is properly developed for the welfare of the whole country.
Another question to be settled is whether or not the whole energy picture should be left to the private companies and corporations and whether we should allow the so-called marketplace to determine prices. Secondly, should we press on with our attempt to become self-sufficient in energy at this time? If we were extremely confident about the world's future, and if we could be certain that the other nations who control energy sources would not be selfish about it, then we could really let our fossil reserves stay in the ground for a long time. But we cannot be sure that there will be no future embargoes and we cannot depend on generous treatment of the western industrialized countries by the OPEC countries. For these reasons we must press ahead with development of our energy resources.
Should there be any government interference in the oil industry? Such interference is now pretty well accepted by most countries. The rule of supply and demand in the marketplace is not good enough any longer to ensure a country's future or the world's future. The whole world needs planning, but before that occurs Canada must do her own planning. She must exercise some government intervention in industry and help our manufacturers, our exporters, and assist our small businesses to keep afloat and remain independent. Above all, we must make sure that we are self-sufficient in oil as soon as possible and for as long as possible. To do this we as a government have to adopt the middle ground.
Government interference should not mean government takeover. We do not believe in socialism.


Harvie Andre: Oh!
Petro-Canada


Samuel Victor Railton: Thank you for listening. In that instance, the government runs the whole economy from top to bottom, as can be seen in the monolithic, non-democratic countries. We think this is inefficient. We think the benefits which are divided amongst the people of those countries are smaller than we can achieve in Canada. Here we still retain private enterprise, have the incentive system operating and a modicum of capitalism.
For all these reasons we would like to see the implementation of Bill C-8. As far as Petro-Can is concerned, I see no reason why this House should have carried on the ridiculous filibuster which occurred in committee during 17 days of consideration of clause 2. This really was the abnegation of democracy. We were stymied by a minority because we have no satisfactory closure procedure. However, I admit that closure should not be necessary very often if we are committed to carry on reasonable and sensible government.
The objects of Bill C-8 are spelled out in clause 6. Subclause (a) provides for exploration of hydrocarbons and other types of fuel energy. Under subclause (b) the act will initiate research and development projects relating to these fuel energy resources. I can see many types of projects here, such as improving the present technology of our Athabasca tar sands and later the gasification and liquefaction of the huge coal deposits in Alberta. These promise to last for some length of time; some forecast that they will last for 300 to 500 years. In addition, there are all the other types of energy, even the exotic ones.
Subclause (c) provides that the company will import, produce, transport, distribute, refine and market hydrocarbons. In other words, there will be an additional company alongside the multinational companies. This will give the government some interest of its own in the industry and will also give the oil companies an example to follow. We should gain some insight into whether or not these multinationals are fulfilling their purpose in Canada. Indeed, the company, Petro-Can, will produce, distribute, transport and market other fuels and energies. To expand on this point, the company is not tied down to fossil fuels alone. Finally, it would engage or invest in ventures or enterprises related to exploration, production, importation, distribution, refining and marketing of fuel, energy and resources. This, to me, means that the company will be able to devote some of its assets to exploration and distribution. This could involve anything from sending gas and oil down from the north through pipelines to the exploitation and development of coal fields. It could offer pipeline distribution of a mixture of oil and coal dust, so-called slurry. Any of these projects would seem to be quite sensible to engage in. After all the discussion we have had, it seems evident to most of us that in no way would the private oil companies enter into all this exploration unless it paid them very handsomely to do so.


An hon. Member:: They might do it much cheaper, though.


Samuel Victor Railton: This is where the government has to get involved. Even though in respect of Petro-Can there is a certain amount of money being taken out of public funds, and even though there will have to be increases in the

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada
price of oil and gas in order to accomplish all the things Petro-Can intends to do, this will make certain that we do become self-sufficient in energy. There seems to be no other way to go about this.
Speaking for myself, it is my feeling that the government will be obliged to raise the price of energy to the point where the rate of inflation in Canada will remain competitive with that of other western countries. The price of energy, we maintain, should be equalized throughout Canada as far as possible, apart from distribution costs. It should also be kept below the world price as long as possible. In that regard, it appears that the world price will continue to rise. I cannot foresee anything else. Sadly, this almost surely indicates that we can expect continued inflation to some extent in the future, but it justifies our policy of securing fossil fuel self-sufficiency in Canada for as long as possible.
In closing, I should like to say that in passing Bill C-8 we will be achieving government participation in the oil industry, competitively as well as by example and leadership. We will also be able to monitor the way public funds are being spent in this sector. Perhaps most important, we will be able to regulate gas and oil prices in all parts of Canada and be in a position to regulate or bring on stream the different types of energy when they are needed and as common sense and practicality dictate.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) on third reading, particularly the part where he stated he was not a socialist and did not support socialist philosophies. If that was a sincere statement on the hon. member's part, I wonder how he is able to support this bill, because it serves no other purpose than to satisfy those who have a philosophical bent and desire toward enhancing government participation in all aspects of industry.
There was no other reason given to us in the committee, during second reading, outside the House or anywhere else to substantiate the type of expenditure called for by this bill than the suggestion that it is a good thing to have government participation in the private sector. I would call a person who feels that way socialistically inclined and I wonder, therefore, why the hon. member opposite feels the way he does.
This is not the first time I have spoken on this bill or its subject matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Pick any of about a hundred times.


Harvie Andre: The reason I felt it necessary to speak so often on the matter is that during my training and in my profession as an educator I learned to appreciate that with the slow and dull-minded it is necessary to repeat and repeat and repeat. Eventually, of course, you find some who are just beyond hope and one must give up.
I suppose we have reached the stage of giving up on this bill today as we take it through to completion. The final stages of Bill C-8 will take place today, and after the members of the other place have dispensed with it in short order, it will become law. Then the people of Canada will

be faced with having to provide some $1.7 billion in capital for this national petroleum company. As the latest bumper stickers in Calgary state, "If you like the postal service, you will love Petro-Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: In all seriousness and sincerity, I hope the episode of the final stages of this legislation will not soon be repeated. This is an episode that probably started with the publishing of a document entitled "An Energy Policy for Canada, Phase I" in the summer of 1973-I believe in July-just about two years ago. This document contains a chapter devoted to the question of a national petroleum company, with a reasonable and fair analysis of the arguments for and against. It contains arguments which clearly indicate to any unbiased, rational observer or reader that a national petroleum company is undesirable and is an unwise manner in which to spend the taxpayers' money.
This is a document published by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) just two years ago in which it is stated that a national petroleum company is undesirable. A few months later, on September 6, 1973, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that the government had decided to establish a national petroleum company. In view of this government publication which suggested this was unnecessary and unwise, why did the government take this new decision? There has not been a single, solitary new piece of evidence given, either then or in the time since, in spite of repeated questions by myself and many other members on this side of the House, to support this new decision by the government.
No new reasons, new data or new rationale have been provided. What an appalling procedure to follow in making decisions involving the expenditure of $1.5 billion originally, now increased to $1.7 billion. The government document to which I have referred suggested this step was unwise, but in spite of that the government has decided to form this company at an expense to the taxpayers of $1.7 billion, without even supplying new evidence, information or data to support the decision. This is a heck of a way to run a country and a heck of a way to make decisions. I am appalled by that sort of decision-making.
It is because of this situation that I hope we never go through this type of episode again with this type of decision-making. No reasons whatever have been provided to counteract the conclusion reached in this document that the establishment of a national petroleum company is unwise. When we ask why the decision was made, we get answers such as the one given to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) during the report stage of this bill. The answer is obvious. Over 90 per cent of the oil industry is owned by foreign multinationals. That is the sort of logic a parent uses with a child to convince the child that he should finish his supper: he is told he should finish his supper because there are people starving in India. That logic works with children but it should not work with members of this House.
The fact that our industry is foreign-owned is a very serious problem. It is about time the government did
July 10, 1975

something in terms of its taxation policies to encourage and permit Canadians to compete in their own industry. If a German drills a well in Alberta, he receives a 200 per cent income tax write-off. If an American drills a well, he receives a 100 per cent tax write-off. But if a Canadian drills a well, he receives a 30 per cent income tax write-off. We cannot compete with foreigners in our own country. Is it any wonder our industry is foreign-owned when that sort of situation exists? Of course not.
We should address ourselves to these problems. We should not say we need a national petroleum company and state participation because our industry is foreign-owned. It is foreign-owned because our government does not allow Canadians an equal opportunity with foreigners to participate in our industry. In spite of the 24 meetings of the committee and the debate in this House, the other aspect of this whole question which is equally appalling to me, if not more appalling, is the precedent it establishes. Up to this point in time every Crown corporation has been formed as the result of a vacuum which the private sector could not fill. That was the basis upon which all previous governments of this country made the decision to establish Crown corporations: there was a need in our society which Canadians as individuals could not meet, and it was therefore necessary for Canadians collectively, through their government, to participate.
This action in establishing a national petroleum corporation sets a totally new precedent in that respect, because there is no defined need which the free sector is unwilling or unable to fulfil. This is superimposed; it represents a whole new precedent which must warm the hearts of the members of the NDP and their philosophical brethren opposite, but it must alarm the majority of Canadians who do not share that philosophy. That type of decision is more in keeping with the traditions of the Middle East sheikdoms than it is of the industrialized world with which we like to think we are associated. I should like to quote from page 185 of the government's document to which I referred earlier, "An Energy Policy for Canada":
Examples of state participation in the petroleum industry are described in Appendix B of this report. Suffice it to say here that it is evident that there is no uniformity of reason and no uniformity of historical experience why these countries, and others, entered into some role for the state in their petroleum industry. The entry into state participation seemed an answer to a particular need within the national community-whether economic, social or political. To a surprising degree, the reasons in most countries were not significantly economic, but related more to factors of direct concern to the state-security of supply, the role of the foreign participant in the domestic economy and its impact on the management and growth of the economy. In some cases the reason was simply the desire to use the petroleum industry as a symbol of what a country could do on its own to increase the pride of its people in national accomplishments.
That is precisely the reason this decision was made. It is totally out of keeping with every decision taken by every government in respect of the formation of Crown corporations. It is that precedent which alarms me. However, in spite of this there is complete lack of a responsible data base on which to make a real decision, and lack of anything approaching evidence for the need for this sort of expenditure with which we are more or less stuck, which I might call a progeny of the Liberal-NDP organic understanding of the last parliament.
Petro-Canada
The minister has the monument he desires for his period as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The socialists have the toe-hold which must gladden their hearts. The taxpayers of Canada have the responsibility to put up $1.7 billion. There it is. The corporation will exist. We on this side hope it will be a success. We plead with the minister, in setting up the policies under which this company will operate, that no preferred position will be given to this company so that damage will occur to the existing industry which would jeopardize our future security of supply.
We ask him not to rely on Petro-Can alone to provide the Canadian content for further growth in this industry. I ask him to take a look at our existing tax laws so that we might encourage Canadians as individuals to become involved in this industry. I say to the minister he should not think that since he has created Petro-Can the question of Canadian participation is no longer relevant and that government need no longer be concerned about it. I say to him; "Do not give Petro-Can the free money that is provided for in clause 22 of the bill, and make sure that it stands up to the same sort of performance criteria followed by other companies." That will help ensure its success.
I also say to the minister, "For goodness sake do not assume that Petro-Can constitutes an energy policy, because it does not." I have seen references in the press to the assumption that since we now have Petro-Can and a price freeze, therefore we have a national energy policy. That is not a national energy policy. Much more is needed if we are to have the future security of supply we require and if we are to have the security provided by nature of being the only western industrialized nation that has potential self-sufficiency.
So I plead with the government which has this monument not to assume that the energy policies of this country are in good shape and that the problems are over. I plead with the government to make sure that Petro-Can operates properly so that the taxpayers' contribution of $1.7 billion will bring in some revenue in return.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to have this opportunity to make a contribution to the discussion on Bill C-8 in these final stages before it becomes law. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to follow the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). During the course of the few minutes available to me, I hope to bring out some of the points which I think indicate a very real need for the type of action the government is taking by the formation of Petro-Can.
If I understood the hon. member correctly, he indicated that there was no new evidence between 1972 and the time this bill came forward to indicate any new need, and I really wonder whether he has been observing developments on the international scene relating to oil problems as well as our own problems on the national scene. In my view, the establishment of Petro-Canada is probably one of the most significant steps our federal government will have taken in the energy field in the history of Canada since confederation. Over the years we have seen provincial governments across this country, of various political

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada
persuasions, move directly into that segment of the energy field which deals with the production and distribution of hydro-electric power. We have also seen federal participation in the uranium and nuclear sector and some direct investment in a corporation which has been engaged in the petroleum and natural gas industry. I refer to the 45 per cent federal participation in Panarctic Oil.
The step now being taken by the federal government is most significant in that it will result in direct national involvement, through the formation of a major petroleum company, in the areas of exploration and development of petroleum and natural gas resources. In all likelihood it will also mean future federal government involvement in the acquisition of oil resources where there is a requirement to go outside Canadian borders in order to meet our national needs.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, I would like to draw attention to the need at this time for the federal government to make this kind of move. The official opposition party, both in this House and in committee, has made every possible attempt to downgrade this element of need. We have heard another indication of that from the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who of course was also very vocal on this point in committee. This need forms a cornerstone for the decision of the government to introduce Bill C-8 and proceed with the establishment of Petro-Canada.
The point has been made that private industry has managed in past years to provide Canadians with an adequate supply of oil and natural gas to meet both industrial and residential needs. The point has been made that with some adjustment in the area of taxation, this same private enterprise could be relied upon to meet future needs in much the same way. While it is entirely unlikely that members of the official opposition who have acted as key spokesmen on Bill C-8 will ever permit themselves to be convinced of the sound arguments which have been put forward by the minister and various government members in support of the concept of establishing a national presence in the oil and gas industry at this time, I think it is important that the public understands this need quite clearly.
I would simply like to elaborate on some of the aspects of this argument which have been so ably demonstrated by the minister in the past, with particular reference to the speech he made when introducing Bill C-8 at second reading some four months ago. It seems to me that once this question of need is clearly established in the minds of all Canadians, other detailed aspects of the bill-while most important in the technical and operating sense- become somewhat less critical in terms of the over-all concept.
In passing, I think it is perhaps significant to make some reference at this time to the highly successful Crown corporation which was established in my own province of Ontario in the early part of this century to handle the development and distribution of hydroelectric power in the province. I might add that Ontario had a Conservative government at the time. I am sure the members of the cabinet of that particular Conservative government in Ontario addressed themselves to this question of need and

undoubtedly reached the same conclusions that the government in Ottawa reached in 1975.
This time we are considering the national picture as it applies to future production and development of oil and gas resources, both of which commodities were unknown at the time the Ontario Hydroelectric Power Commission was established. No doubt Sir Adam Beck and other founders of Ontario Hydro looked at the gigantic province of Ontario, reviewed its future potential and decided then and there that the kinds of financing, manpower and other physical resources required a government presence.
Having moved in at the very early stages of the development of hydroelectric power in the province of Ontario, that Conservative regime decided to control the industry in its entirety and no provision was permitted for private sector participation. I think most residents of Ontario would agree that over the years both industrial and residential needs in the area of electricity have been fairly well met by this particular Crown corporation, which has at all times remained a direct instrument of the provincial government of Ontario and has been mothered and nurtured by various Tory governments over the greater part of its life.
I make this reference because it strikes me as rather odd that the official opposition in Ottawa is unprepared to look upon the need for a national presence in an industry as basic to our society as oil and gas exploration and development, when its provincial counterpart in my own province of Ontario has considered such state intervention in an allied field as being so essential as to warrant, not partial control but 100 per cent control to the exclusion of all forms of private enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Indian Affairs-Withdrawal of vocational rehabilitation services from natives in Manitoba-Request for review and report; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Proposed lay-off of three thousand maintenance workers- Request for report; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Food Prices Review Board-Report on fish prices-Possibility of reference to combines investigations branch.
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.

July 10, 1975


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga) moved: that Bill S-24, to incorporate the Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I hoped the sponsor of this bill would have the courtesy to report back to the House what had transpired in committee and what information had come forward; that is the usual practice. While there may be general agreement, it is not the usual custom to have a bill of this importance, which incorporates a bank, silently drift through the House in the confusion of five o'clock. We should not let it slide through in this way. It certainly is not my purpose to delay passage of the bill.
The Bank Act provides the only method for the incorporation of a bank, but in my opinion Canadians are handicapped by the structures of the act in putting together a financial system that is not responsive to today's needs. We understand all of the difficulties, and the time taken by the sponsors and organizers of this bank to bring it to this point. But they are far from being in business. We know that during the mid-sixties there were some terrible experiences when sponsors tried to get some bank charters through, but one of them is operating quite successfully now.
It struck me that we are deficient in our total banking system when I saw that a Seattle bank opened a branch in Vancouver this week, calling itself, I believe, Seattle Financial Services Limited. But it is going to offer banking services, Mr. Speaker, and it is exempt from the attentions of the Inspector General of Banks and is beyond the control of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
One may point to Bill C-7 which will allow incorporation by letters patent. But that does not do a thing, Mr. Speaker. By letters patent they would still come under our present Bank Act, and it is quite incapable of dealing with any but one aspect of banking, our chartered banks. It does that very well, by and large. But the organizers of this bank profess that they want to engage in merchant banking.
There should be a section in the act dealing with merchant banks. And what about the suitcase bankers from all over the place operating in Toronto and Montreal, and these near banks like the one from Seattle? Actually the Federation of Caisses Populaires should be operating
Canadian Commercial and Industrial Bank under the umbrella of a general bank act. These facilities occupy a very substantial part of those organizations providing banking and near-banking services to the Canadian public.
This bank will have its head office in Vancouver but it will operate primarily in Toronto because of the money market. There is a hope for regional emphasis, but I take this with a grain of salt. I remember when the Bank of British Columbia started out it was going to do great things in that province. Almost half of all its branches are now in the province of Alberta, and it is opening more. It is well managed and is doing well but is not a British Columbia regional bank.
These people are going to risk their own money. The inspector general has given his approval, and the committee has reported this bill unanimously. I agree that this incorporation should go forward and I would commend third reading of this bill. However, I would have expected our colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga, to have made a report on behalf of the sponsors of this bank.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), for his quite proper rebuke to me for not saying a few words in connection with the bank on third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but since the hon. member moved the motion the Chair should have taken the precaution of seeking unanimous consent in order for him to make his remarks now. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I certainly regret now that I consulted members less senior and knowledgeable in the intricacies of the House and that I did not observe the courtesies, which the hon. member said I failed to do. I welcome his comments, the speech he gave in committee, and the intelligent and perceptive questioning he made there of the sponsors.
The two committee hearings we had were occasions of a good deal of responsible comment on both sides, and ultimately approval was given to the bill.
I was a little disappointed, however, to hear the hon. member suggest that the decision of the sponsors to incorporate the head office in the city of Vancouver was merely a camouflage for the fact that it would principally be operating in the larger commercial centres of Toronto and Montreal. The hon. member himself represents a large bustling city in western Canada, Edmonton, and it is the intention of the sponsors, who already have considerable business in the western provinces, to take advantage of that dynamic economic climate and develop a substantial business in those provinces
As the third largest city in Canada, Vancouver will be the very active hub of the bank's business, and by no means is it the intention simply to put forward an appearance that the bank is going to western Canada for public relations purposes.
The bill I sponsored received generous support from the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), and

July 10, 1975
Alliance Security & Investigation, Ltd. after very perceptive and close questioning by committee members, approval was given. This I am pleased to be able to report to the House today. I again apologize to my hon. friend for failing to observe what he correctly pointed out should have been the courtesy of making a few comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


ALLIANCE SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, LTD.
AN ACT RESPECTING ALLIANCE SECURITY & INVESTIGATION,


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: that Bill S-26, an Act respecting Alliance Security & Investigation, Ltd., be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill is to revive the charter or patent letters of the company known as Alliance Security & Investigation, Ltd.
Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the documents that were tabled, this bill was passed by the Senate where it was carefully studied, without controversy, on second reading and in committee. The company lost its patent letters because it failed to file the reports required by law.
The company was transferred to new owners in 1967, at which time the latter were not aware of the fact that the reports had not been filed in compliance with Canadian law. However, those reports were in fact filed with the Quebec authorities as stipulated by the law.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there was no intention of refusing to supply the required details on the president, the board directors of the company, or its activities; it was merely a matter of not knowing exactly what should be done. Enquiries were made of the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to find out what was required at which time details and information were supplied that were not accurate. Evidently, it is essential to reactivate that company to give effect to what happened since 1968.
I merely wish to point out to hon. members that the bill includes a provision under which the company must meet the requirements of the Canadian legislation and submit within the period provided by the legislation all the particulars which were not submitted up to then. I also wish to indicate that those particulars are available, have always been in the public domain, since they were filed with the Quebec authorities. We do not want to make trouble for the people who use those services nor for the shareholders of the company. I merely wish to say as a lawyer that this shows how essential it is when carrying out transactions to be aware of all statutory requirements with which one must comply. Obviously this was not done in the present case.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to support this noncontroversial bill and refer it to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.

Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre) (for Mr. Campbell) moved: that Bill C-1,001, to provide an exception from the general law relating to marriage in the case of Richard Fritz and Marianne Strass, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is a most unusual bill. Probably this is the first time a bill like this has been presented to the Parliament of Canada. I shall be brief, having explained the matter to some members of the other parties. Very simply, the bill seeks an exception from the general law regarding the degrees of affinity within which two people may marry. The petitioner, Richard Fritz, wishes to marry his half niece, Marianne Strass.
The preamble to the bill, which will be proven in committee, sets out the pertinent facts showing the necessity for bringing the bill before parliament.
Prior to the framing of the British North America Act in 1867, the civil code of the province of Quebec of 1866 was in effect, and it contained the provision saying that a man may not marry his niece.
The next year the British North America Act gave legislative jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada in the field of marriage and, to the provinces, legislative jurisdiction in the field of solemnization of marriage. However, the degrees of consanguinity are part of the law of marriage, rather than part of the law of solemnization of marriage, and therefore only the Parliament of Canada may properly legislate in this regard. The prohibition against marriage between uncle and niece contained in the code is therefore a matter of federal legislative jurisdiction. Because that prohibition was in the civil code in 1866, section 129 of the British North America Act keeps it in force until it is "repealed, abolished or altered" by the Parliament of Canada.
Since parliament has the power to repeal that aspect of the civil code, it has the power to pass a private bill permitting the petitioners to marry each other, notwithstanding the provisions of the code. I submit, also, that this is the only legislative body in this land which has power to pass this law.
Since the facts relating to the bill are contained in the bill and will need to be aired fully before the committee following second reading, I do not propose to go into any further detail.
I am speaking on this matter having been completely briefed by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell). This man and woman, aged 32 and 25 respectively, have been seeking to marry one another for the past year, but only by presenting a private bill to the House of Commons can they hope to marry. I may say that all these things will be proven in the committee with proper documentation. They have seen their
July 10, 1975

medical doctor and have been assured with respect to their degree of consanguinity. There should be no problem with respect to children. Also, the couple wish to be married in their church, and the church is prepared to grant any necessary dispensation. I therefore ask the House to grant second reading and refer this bill to the appropriate standing committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, perhaps hon. members would consent to calling it six o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House having called it six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.20 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. There have been discussions amongst the House leaders. Agreement has been reached that whatever subject is under discussion at 1 p.m. tomorrow the debate be adjourned thereon; that at 2 p.m. the debate be resumed on Bill C-63, and that all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and third reading of that bill be taken not later than 4 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McKinley:: Madam Speaker, in some degree I agree with the government House leader. However, I thought agreement had been reached that the divisions be taken on report stage of Bill C-63 prior to 1 p.m.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I really had considered that the House leader of the Opposition had informed me that the debate on the report stage would be continued in the afternoon. He had some doubt as to whether there would be debate on third reading. He did indicate to me that he expected there would be a debate on the report stage. I think the order I have suggested is in accordance with the understanding of the House leader of the official opposition.
Petro-Canada Act


Robert Elgin McKinley: Madam Speaker, I wonder if this House order could be left over and made at a later time after we have had a chance to confer.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I ask the acting House leader for the official opposition whether he is referring to Bill C-63 or the Excise Tax Act?


Robert Elgin McKinley: Bill C-63.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I have expressed the understanding correctly, but I am quite happy with the suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the opposition front bench, I agree to the decision being made later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the third time and passed.
Alan Gray Martin: Madam Speaker, at five o'clock I was at the point of completing my comments relating to the comparison of the origins of Petro-Canada with those of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission much earlier in this century.
We must bear in mind that this particular move by the Tories in Ontario was made at a time when there was little precedent for government participation in the business sector in any form whatsoever. In the case of Petro-Canada the most that the federal government is seeking is participation on a competitive basis with the private sector that, I think we all agree, to date has done a commendable job in the initial period of our oil and gas industry in this country, a period that covers some 30 years since the Leduc discovery.
Let me return to the matter of need as I see it being applied in the case of the establishment of Petro-Canada. First and foremost, and as emphasized by the minister over and over again in the course of our many discussions on Bill C-8, the situation in the area of oil and gas faced by Canada today is quite dissimilar from that as recently as two years ago.
I remind the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who is not in the chamber at the present time, of the events that transpired during this two year period. First, we experienced the oil embargo that came about without warning and originated with the OPEC countries. We moved from there to the quickly phased-in increase in prices of crude oil imported from these same OPEC countries that resulted in a 400 per cent cost increase for oil imported into that portion of our country that lies in eastern Canada east of the Ottawa Valley line.

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada Act
An example of this increase in price is clearly seen from the posted price for Saudi Arabian light crude on two different dates only four months apart. On October 1, 1973, this price was posted at $3.01 per barrel, whereas on January 1, 1974, the price had risen to $11.65 per barrel. I should perhaps add in passing that the proposed Conservative income and prices control policy of last year would have had absolutely no effect on this fantastic price increase.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: The third factor that has hit Canadians in a more local or national way is the comparatively recent revelation that recent official estimates of our own Canadian oil resources are now considerably less than those estimates determined as recently as two years ago. For example, the National Energy Board had predicted in 1972, based on its assessment of evidence placed before it, that Canada would have oil supplies available for export, over and above its own needs for all purposes, of some 1.75 million to two million barrels per day as late as 1985. Then, as a result of its 1974 report, just two years later, this same National Energy Board indicated to the government and to Canadians that it will be necessary for us to phase out all exports of oil by the early 1980's. There simply will be no surplus. This has already led to some considerable concern that it may be necessary as early as the mid-1980's for Canada to become a net importer at then current OPEC country prices of as much as one million barrels of oil per day.
To put the contrast in even more striking terms, if we go back to an earlier National Energy Board report of 1969 we find optimism being expressed at that time by this independent body that Canadian oil exports could reach four million barrels per day by 1990. Thus, in a period of five years we have seen our potential national oil production move-in terms of official estimates-from a maximum of up to four million barrels a day available for export 15 years hence, to a new situation which may require net imports of anywhere up to two million barrels per day as of that same date in the future.
I do not think it is really necessary to go any further in demonstrating the dramatic changes which have obviously occurred, and which will be bound to affect the entire oil industry in this country over the next 10 to 15 year period and beyond. The situation is urgent. It is indeed critical.
Coupled with these dramatic developments is the understanding that there will be a requirement for capital investment in Canada in the oil and gas industry over the next decade amounting to some $100 billion. This tremendous investment, together with the vital part that the fossil fuels of oil and natural gas play in both our industrial and residential fabric in Canada, must surely pinpoint the need for much more direct and specific government involvement in just what is going on in this field.
Another factor which comes into play in this overall picture, Mr. Speaker, is a further comparatively recent development in the OPEC countries whereby there is now a clear national government presence in all those dozen or so countries with which Canada becomes involved in

importing oil. For Canada to develop this same kind of national presence may indeed be an important factor in the years ahead as we negotiate for the best deals that can be made in terms of our potentially mounting import requirements.
I think it is also important when considering the need for Petro-Can to bear in mind the attitude of the petroleum industry in Canada toward this new government involvement in a field that, up until this time, has been left entirely in the hands of the private sector. From all I have been able to ascertain, the industry viewpoint is either in favour of the establishment of Petro-Canada or has at least resigned itself to the arguments which have been put forward regarding the obvious need for such a federal presence.
The spokesman for the Canadian Petroleum Association, when appearing before the National Resources Committee in connection with Bill C-8, while not prepared to indicate a firm position on the part of its membership-one which, incidentally, includes the multinational petroleum companies operating in Canada-was in no way prepared to indicate any objection to the concept of the establishment of Petro-Can. It is my understanding that this particular view on the part of CPA has not changed. I think this is important, because it seems to me that the fundamental opposition to the establishment of Petro-Can must now be narrowed down to those members of parliament who form the official opposition. Apparently, unlike their Conservative counterparts in Ontario, they are not prepared to accept the need for government intervention in an industry which is developing an essential energy commodity that is so basically vital to both the industrial and residential needs of all Canadians.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the residents of Scarborough West and citizens of Canada generally will in the years ahead look back on this decision by their federal government in Ottawa to create, in the year 1975, a direct and important national presence in the oil and gas industry in Canada as one of the most significant steps undertaken by any Canadian government in recent years.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Madam Speaker, one thing about which there is no argument is that it has been a long time since the Speech from the Throne. There have been a lot of questions about Petro-Canada, and when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) says there has been a lot of debate and discussion that is certainly a fact. In this debate, we have spoken of the way in which government will now be in the oil game with favoured rules. But Crown corporations are still no guarantee of the objectives set by government. The United States is trying to reach its objectives without establishing Crown corporations.
We can point out that Crown corporations are less efficient and give the example of Air Canada, or that Crown corporations are no guarantee of meeting objectives and point out that the CN had the objective of moving grain in the prairies yet failed in that objective. We could point out that in all likelihood what this particular Crown Corporation will do is to sap staff away from the private sector of society and employ them in the government sector as admitted by the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources.
July 10, 1975

But, Madam Speaker, while we can document that, I would like to take the time I have remaining to answer a rather subtle challenge that wasn't responded to throughout the committee hearings. While I attempted at one time to bring it up, I realized that the committee wasn't the right place. Yet it was very obvious, and if time permits I will give actual quotes from the committee hearings to show that within the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources there was, on the part of those favouring Petro-Can, a rather aggressive and negative attitude toward the producing provinces. They look at those provinces as being non-Canadian. I can quote from committee hearings to show that they took those positions.
I think there was an underlying reason at least for some of us in opposing this bill. There has been a trepidation that has been felt throughout history, that shows why western people have felt that they haven't got a good deal from confederation. I believe, I can establish-I know I can if the time is available-and document, from the time these regions of this country joined in confederation, that they have become looked upon as a colonial state for the purpose of supporting the golden triangle of Ontario.
It is my intent tonight to show that part of the trepidation and fears that are felt in the producing provinces is because all of our past history has not demonstrated that we get good deals from Ottawa. Yes, Alberta does produce 85 per cent of Canada's domestic oil, but the promise of that province lies not in an improved economy derived from oil but rather in the plans for the future that go beyond 1985, because once the oil stops where is the economy?
Agricultural economies throughout the world have always been poor. Check the southern hemisphere and all the developing nations. Agricultural economies are poor economies. Check every industrial nation of the world and where you have within them agricultural regions those are the poor regions. Check Canada. It is the agricultural regions which are poor, unless they have some other resource. That has been the history of the prairies and the maritime provinces of this country.
To some Canadians the west has been a source of agitation recently. It has been recognized. Some have looked and made the comment that Alberta is trying to get out of confederation. Madam Speaker, they saw one issue correctly; there is agitation and there is a feeling of uneasiness. But they read the signs wrongly and gave the wrong interpretation to the facts of the matter. What is really happening is that the west is trying to get into confederation. That is what I hope I can document as I go through this speech tonight.
Central Canada does not know that the west is dissatisfied, and that Petro-Can is but another reason for being frustrated. They treat us like colonial people with our own resources. I would like to give an overview of how the regions of this country have been treated by the federal government. For over 100 years central Canada has had protection of tariffs. The colonial regions paid more money than central Canada did for textiles, for automobiles for farm machinery, for manufactured products. All of those products were obtainable cheaper from the United States and Europe, and from Southeast Asia. But the regions of the country paid dearly for them.
Petro-Canada Act
But the regions of the country paid clearly for them.
Many members of the NDP and the Liberal party are condemning the oil companies. They paint them as devils opposing Canadian society. I ask, Madam Speaker, where was the federal government 30 years ago when the producing provinces were begging for help, looking for someone to try to help them develop the industry?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: I notice that the chickadees opposite have been into the fermented choke cherries again. How does this country justify Ottawa's refusal to listen to Alberta in 1959, again in 1967, and then in 1970 when the province wanted to extend the pipeline to Montreal? To extend that pipeline would have added one or two cents per gallon to the price of gasoline east of the Ottawa valley. But oh no, east of the Ottawa valley they could get oil cheaper from Venezuela, and if it could be had cheaper there was no sense, in their opinion, in buying oil from one of the regions.
What happened then, Madam Speaker? All of a sudden Alberta's oil is worth $11 a barrel on the world market. At last there is a chance to make a dollar. What does Ottawa do but insist that Alberta's oil go to the rest of Canada at $6.50 a barrel? After all, they say, it would be good for the whole of the country. Is "central Canada", Canada as a whole? Everywhere east of the Ottawa valley energy is imported mainly from Venezuela at the world price. To cushion that blow, Ottawa tacks an export tax of $5.50 a barrel on Alberta oil headed for the United States, using that tax to help pay Venezuela. This means that the price of oil east of Ottawa is at least close to the price in the rest of central Canada. But it also means that Alberta cannot even make a dollar on the 900,000 barrels a day going south.
That is very nice for central Canada, but the producers see it as pick-pocketing. If we are truly a confederation, then it must be a confederation both ways. If we are going to have cheaper oil across the country, then we must talk about other products as well being cheaper across the country. The "good of Canada" is being interpreted by the federal government as the "good of central Canada"; it is not talking about a whole nation from sea to sea.
If this government really feels it is being responsive to the regions, then we can ask some legitimate questions. Let me ask the members on the other side how it was they accepted the fact that the great depression lasted a full three years longer on the Prairies than in this part of Canada. I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is rather excited at the moment. Let me ask hon. members opposite to justify why it is that western Canada pays twice as much to bring manufactured rapeseed back from Toronto to Lethbridge than it does to ship raw rapeseed per ton from Lethbridge to Toronto. Or why is it that iron and steel products from Toronto are cheaper when shipped to Vancouver than when shipped to Saskatoon? Or why are manufactured goods cheaper when shipped to Vancouver and back to Calgary than when they are shipped directly to Calgary? If we are going to talk about cheap oil

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada Act
for all of Canada, those are the kinds of questions that must be answered.
As another example, it costs $1.50 per hundredweight to ship lumber from British Columbia to Calgary, whereas it costs only $1.79 per hundredweight to ship that same lumber from Terrace, B.C. to Toronto. All of these are matters that must be answered before we can talk about one product being cheaper for this part of the country. Even today there is no ongoing policy to assure the colonial regions a fair economy or a just place in confederation. The prairie regions that are agricultural are treated only with crisis kinds of policies. The recent LIFT program was legislation that came at the moment of crisis. The fact of the matter is that it was like a box of band-aids being sent to the scene of an aircraft crash; it did not do anything for the agricultural concerns of the regions. What it did was to destroy absolutely many of the markets that were already there.
In my area the farmers sing on Saturday nights "Where have all the flour mills gone?" We know where they have gone, Madam Speaker. They have gone, because of prejudiced freight rates, to central Canada. They do not associate themselves with where the product is produced.
Let me give another example. It is cheaper to ship live western cattle to Ontario and feed them with grain grown in the west and shipped to the east under subsidy at low rates, than to slaughter the cattle in the west and send them east for consumption. That, Madam Speaker, documents another case where an industry has been taken away. But according to the federal government it is the business of the west to supply the resources for central Canada, and then in turn to be a market for central Canadian industries.
To keep this in perspective, I think it is important to note that as recently as 1965 the province of Alberta was still receiving equalization payments. We were basically a single industry province-an agro-economy. Then came oil and a chance to get into confederation. Now we have Petro-Can, because someone says it is for the good of central Canada.
While we are talking about what is good for Canada, let me ask this. Why cannot the Wheat Board have its headquarters in western Canada? What cannot the salt fish committee operate in the maritimes? Why cannot the National Energy Board be based in Calgary, since every time they have a meeting that is where 80 per cent of the delegates come from?
As I say, Alberta was an agro-economy before it had oil, but now oil has become our bread and butter. Oil to the western provinces is the same as the auto industry, the textile industry, the mining industry and manufacturing for Ontario. Oil, Madam Speaker, became our hope.
I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave an excellent speech on January 1 of this year. What he talked about was sharing. This is important in confederation, in this land from sea to sea, but though the concept is good I think the Prime Minister failed to go far enough. The Prime Minister stated:
I invite my fellow citizens to rejoice in what has been given to us as Canadians-the good fortune to be united in a federation, a system of government whose most distinct attribute is the sharing of wealth.

The sharing of wealth is not the full concept of sharing. What the producing provinces are asking the other provinces is not just to share our wealth and other things. What we want is a share in participation. What we want is to share ideas. What we want is a share in planning the development of this country. Petro-Canada is an imposition on the part of central government. The fact of the matter is that this government does not trust the producing regions to take care of Canada as a whole, and that is a challenge that I think the government has to answer. Why the distrust?
It is well known that the British North America Act gave to the provinces the right to their resources. There is also no doubt that this whole program is one of distrust. The real question is one of trust. Let me point out for the consideration of the House that disparities still exist. I ask those government members who are so excited about Petro-Canada to justify why it is that central Canada still gets $55.9 million from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion while the western provinces only get $4.2 million, which works out on a per capita basis to $4.05 per head in central Canada but only $1.07 in the prairies.
As far as the banking industry is concerned, Madam Speaker, it is to be noted that virtually every head office in Canada is located in either Toronto or Montreal.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I wonder if he is not straying a bit from the bill, Bill C-8, which is an act to establish a national petroleum company. Perhaps the hon. member would limit his remarks to that bill.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, perhaps we might recognize that I am speaking to this subject. Let me refer to the committee hearings and quote what members opposite have been saying all throughout this debate.
The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) said, and I quote from the committee proceedings issue No. 28:
The province of Alberta comes first in their minds, not the Dominion of Canada. This is a point that I want to have cleared up.
The hon. member for Wellland (Mr. Railton) said, from the same issue:
I was referring to members of parliament from Alberta. I thought we might do something to try to make them see the light. In my opinion they were being very parochial.
Let me quote what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said:
Mr. Malone, I can see that you approach this from a regional viewpoint, and it is your prerogative to do so. We approach it from a national viewpoint-
What I am trying to put on the record is the fact that we are not talking about just this one issue, but about the whole complexity of how we fit into confederation. This does not involve just Petro-Can, it involves an attempt to fall in with the spirit the Prime Minister referred to of sharing, not just sharing our material things but being able to have an influence, not only from the prairies but from the maritimes as well.
Let me continue with some of these quotations. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also said:
July 10, 1975

And the Alberta example, of course. I mean it is absurd, Mr. Chairman, but then it is not related to sense at all. It is pure politics.
Again the hon. member for Mississauga said:
-informed western Canadians would be shocked-by the careless and ill-informed questioning by people who come from that part of the country-
Then I would quote what the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) said when he rose on a point of order, as follows:
Given the attitude of the Alberta members, I wonder whether it would be safe if you put it in Alberta-
He was speaking of Petro-Can.
I could go on as there are a great many more, but I think it is important to point out that it can be documented that most of the banks with head offices in the central part of Canada give very few loans in the maritimes and the prairies. The same thing happens in respect of the government Industrial Development Bank. Let me point out that the province of Alberta, the province of Saskatchewan, and the province of Manitoba obtained collectively only 16.8 per cent of the value of the loans, and the Atlantic provinces obtained only 6.7 per cent, in contrast to the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec which obtained 52.3 per cent.
I will draw to a conclusion simply by saying that anyone who has recognized frustration in the west is recognizing fact. This does not for a single moment signal that there is an attempt to get out of confederation. What the people of those provinces are trying to do is get into confederation. What they want to do is share, but they do not want just to share their resources on a one-way street. They want to be able to have a voice-somewhat different than the representation which exists in this country, with the cities of Toronto and Montreal having more members of parliament than the three prairie provinces together.
I think there is good reason for the suggestion that Petro-Canada was not well received in the west. This is simply another step in 100 years of legislation that has not treated residents of the maritimes, the territories, or the prairies, with the respect of full Canadian citizenship, and that has to be recognized. The regions seek to be full members of Confederation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order I raised at eight o'clock. There has now been a clarification of the understanding among the House leaders in respect of the business for tomorrow. It is our intention tomorrow to call Bill C-63 as the first order of business under government orders and to dispose of all the votes on the report stage before one o'clock, and then to follow that, by agreement, with third reading of that bill and to dispose of that reading before four o'clock. If third reading is disposed of before four o'clock we will resume the debate on the excise tax bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, the government House leader has indicated the understanding on which the government proposes that this measure be brought back. I
Petro-Canada Act
just want to make this one addition. I am given to understand it is not the intention of the parties in the House to call for a recorded vote on third reading. It may be left to any party, any member, or any group of members to indicate their dissent in the usual way without a recorded vote. Should it happen that a recorded vote be called for, it is clearly understood that it will not take place until next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, with the clarification by the House leader it seems that we do have the matter properly before us. There are just two comments I should like to make. The statement has been made that votes on the report stage amendments will be taken before one o'clock. I think the understanding was more precise than that, namely, that those votes would be called at 12.45 which means that the debate on the report stage must be ended then.
In respect of the question of there not being a recorded vote on third reading, I think we are all agreed on that. If we on the negative side shout loudly enough that the Chair declares the bill defeated then, of course, that will be that and we will not need a recorded vote.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Madam Speaker, we generally agree with the proposals. But we wonder whether there will be time to proceed with the three votes-we are told there are to be three votes at 12.45 p. m.-if we will have enough time, if the bell will ring long enough. In these circumstances, I fear we will not be able to have the three votes before two o'clock. That is the only thing that worries me.
The other statements aside, I am told there will not be a recorded vote at four o'clock. I hope I understood correctly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETRO-CANADA ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH CROWN CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-8, to establish a national petroleum company, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Madam Speaker, this bill to establish a national petroleum company merits our support for, among others, two very important reasons. First, Petro-Canada will increase the opportunities for industrial research and development in the crucial area of energy resource production. As I have shown in this House on several occasions, our industrial research and development effort in Canada is inadequate and appears very small, indeed, when compared with the activities in this area of other technologically advanced OECD countries.
As a Canadian company without multinational ties, Petro-Canada will require the establishment of an exten-

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada Act
sive, independent research and development facility. I would stress the word "independent" as this is the first opportunity we have had to set up a facility of this nature and magnitude, free from the whims and priorities of foreign head offices. I cannot emphasize too greatly the importance of industrial research and development in the over-all energy picture and for our economy as a whole.
This activity furnishes the building blocks which enable us to follow the innovative process from the genesis of a new idea right through to the successful marketing of the resulting technology and product. That is a second reason for this bill's importance. New opportunities will open up through this measure for Canadians to gain practical experience in the international oil business at the very highest level. The resultant co-ordination of activities will lead to greater economies of production and increased opportunities for leadership in the industry.
As the 1974-75 annual report of the Science Council of Canada points out, Canada has been content to rely on our corporate relationships, which means primarily the Canadian subsidiary of a foreign parent company, to link us to technological developments being promoted outside the country. The report points out that this lack of economic, and therefore technological, sovereignty has meant that decisions regarding the pace and manner of development of some of our natural resources are made outside Canada. Petro-Canada will be in a position to help rectify this situation.
One of Petro-Canada's major objectives will be to assure an adequate supply of energy for Canadian needs. As the Syncrude project has shown, this task can be, and usually is, both risky and expensive. We are no longer in a position that would allow us to leave the question of continuation of supply in the hands of those whose motivation in this regard is only profits. To ensure the maintenance of public confidence in itself, Petro-Canada will necessarily have to be run as a profitable concern. However, the public will at least have the knowledge that, should times become hard for the oil companies, Petro-Canada will not pull up stakes and move out of the country. The company's participation in Syncrude will allow it to monitor that operation and ensure that all partners are working in the best interests of the Canadian people.
It is imperative that the government have a strong say in the development of energy resources in this country, as the possible consequences of ignoring that responsibility could critically alter our way of life which is so dependent on a constant supply of energy.
We must also bear in mind that Petro-Canada's mandate gives it authority to develop forms of energy other than petroleum. Our energy requirements are supplied by a "product mix" of energy forms. For example, electricity is generated through the use of several of these-hydro, nuclear power, coal, oil and natural gas. As the relative use of these energy forms changes, that "product mix" alters to reflect the economics involved in the use of each form. Only one organization is concerned with the development of all these energy sources, and that is the federal government. Petro-Canada will provide the government with the commercial arm which will enable it to implement

changes in the relative use of these resources. Petro-Canada is therefore extremely adaptable to change, and this capability gives it a great advantage in working to fulfil its purpose of ensuring a continuous supply of energy for Canadians.
Petro-Canada will enable Canadians to become world leaders in the development of new technologies designed to solve the problems inherent in oil exploration in the far north. These difficulties are compounded when Arctic drilling is done off-shore, involving the establishment of facilities on ice and water. A well planned research and development effort is required to overcome these difficulties. Once the expertise is developed, however, Petro-Canada will be in a position to engage in the exploitation of deposits in technologically hostile regions around the globe.
As exploitation of reserves becomes less economical, new technologies must be developed to increase the total ultimate recovery of oil and gas in marginal fields. Research and development will be confined not only to the extractive and refinement processes, but also to problems of logistics, transportation, and environmental protection. The challenge is great, and the timing of this bill is extremely appropriate. The opportunities for significant achievements by Petro-Canada in the field of energy development are very great.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, I think at this stage of the debate on Petro-Can it would be desirable to look at the philosophy of this bill which places the Government of Canada squarely in the middle of one of the most capital intensive and one of the most risky businesses known to man. The principal question then is whether the Government of Canada should be in the oil and gas business and, if so, why.
The minister who appears still to be a babe in the woods, or at least sleepwalking as it relates to the realities of the oil and gas business, has blundered ahead, followed by his equally misguided colleagues, to ram and drag this ill-conceived piece of legislation through the House and the committee to its present advanced stage. A number of important points and facts are now on the record regarding Petro-Can's future, and in addition several important and appropriate amendments were made by this party.
I maintain in the strongest terms, however, that the minister and his minions have not convinced opposition members of the committee or of the House that at this critical time in the economy of Canada, or for that matter at any time in the future of this country, a national petroleum company is required or desired by the citizens of Canada.
Why should the Canadian taxpayer be financing, at huge cost and at high risk, a national oil company? The minister's answer to this question can be found by looking at the objectives of the company as stated by the minister in the House, and by his parliamentary secretary as well. The minister and the parliamentary secretary said over and over again, through their speeches in the House and their answers in the committee, that the principal objective and the prime need to be filled by this Crown corporation, Petro-Can, is that of making available to Canadians adequate supplies of oil and gas at reasonable prices. The
July 10, 1975

minister said that compelling reasons for creation of a national oil company relate primarily to security of supply from our domestic resources and also possibly from abroad. This seems to be the principal argument put forward by the government to attempt to justify this lame bill, and in the months ahead this lame company, to the people of Canada.
I think anyone with funds such as will be in the hands of Petro-Can could buy production, thus creating nothing in the way of reserves, and by merely taking over an existing oil company can buy into the oil and gas business and probably fairly quickly show a profit, but that has nothing to do with the creation of new reserves of oil and gas at a reasonable price, or additional supplies for Canadians.
I do not think that any knowledgeable individual in the oil industry would deny that an expenditure of $1.5 billion over a period of time will find reserves of oil and gas, although I think most Canadians who look at the operation and performance of Crown corporations already in existence will agree that generally their ability to serve the needs of the country and to reduce costs falls a long way short of the example provided by the private sector. Surely the best example of this took place during the oil crisis in late 1973 and early 1974 when the Department of Supply and Services under the direction of its minister made, according at least to the words of the parliamentary secretary, one of the best deals for the purchase of oil at something in the order of $1 a gallon, at which point in time oil in the rest of the world was sold at a fraction of that price. This is an example of the type of problem the government gets into when it attempts to compete in the world and with the private sector. I believe that the government and the minister are deliberately or through ignorance misleading the Canadian people in trying to sell this bill on the grounds that it is the solution to this vital and critical problem of supply.
It is interesting that, when questioned in committee, the minister was unable to give any figures whatsoever on what oil or gas Petro-Can might produce at any time during its expenditure of the first $1.7 billion. All the minister could say was that the company would be subject to the disciplines of the balance sheet and a profit and loss statement. He did not say whether such discipline would require that the company show any profit, or whether in fact the balance sheet would show any assets after the $1.7 billion had been expended by way of exploration and drilling of holes in the ground.
Just this week one further horrible example was brought to light with regard to how Crown corporations subject themselves, as the minister says, to financial disciplines. An inquiry into the operations of Air Canada was told that the Crown company had a Mickey Mouse accounting system. That may be because Canada has a Mickey Mouse government. Air Canada deliberately concealed information and tampered with its accounts to hide the facts from a committee of this House. I think that is shameful. All of this was done to cover up well over $1 million which was lost by the company through one of its subsidiaries.
Petro-Canada Act
With the powers and the flexibilities granted to Petro-Canada in this bill, the areas open to abuse, bungling and failure could make the performance of Air Canada, the Post Office, and all Crown corporations put together since confederation look like a mild error by comparison.
The fiasco at Air Canada today is perhaps just the tip of the iceberg, but let us compare in size Air Canada to this new creature, Petro-Can. Petro-Can is to have an initial capital of $500 million, more than ten times that of Air Canada. Adding its proposed borrowing of in excess of $1 billion will give Petro-Canada total funds of something more than 150 per cent of those available to Air Canada.
This new Crown corporation, like some Crown corporations, is to be immune from the audit and normal checks by the Auditor General of Canada. Just today the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) refused the request of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to permit the Auditor General to audit Air Canada's accounts. Petro-Can will be by far the most powerful of all Canadian government enterprises. It will be a monster in disguise, sold to the Canadian people as the solution to Canada's energy shortage problems.
The Auditor General reports to parliament. More is required in the Petro-Can audit than just an opinion on the financial statements. Based on the conclusions of the independent review committee which was set up and which reported on the office of the Auditor General recently, this Crown corporation should be audited or co-audited by the Auditor General. Perhaps the minister in the course of speaking tonight will say something about this important fact and perhaps confirm to the House that the Auditor General will at least be a co-auditor of Petro-Can. If the minister does not, it would seem to me that this would clearly be an indication of the intention of the government not to make the facts of this corporate operation available to this House.
In view of the exposure which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has had and the advice he has had from the private sector, he must now be considered as one with a significant degree of information, and one must ask why this government is moving into the oil and gas business at this time. The first mention of such a step was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the fall of 1973 when bowing, as the government continually did, to the demands of the New Democratic Party. The government agreed to create a national oil company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: At that time this one line policy commitment pacified the NDP. It now appears that the government, notwithstanding the fact that the NDP in this House was all but wiped out in the last election, continues to support the socialist policies put forward by the New Democratic Party.


An hon. Member:: Say something, Stan.


Peter Colwell Bawden: The whole question of oil and gas moved, during the latter part of 1973, into the political arena, and the government has been motivated by political expediency in virtually every step which has been taken as it relates to this industry, which is vital to the future of the
7470

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada Act
economy of this country as well as to all Canadians. Canadians do not want this government or this minister playing politics with a subject as important as energy. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have continually stated that the private sector should continue to play an important role in the development of Canadian resources. At the same time, however, they have consistently put forward policies which were contrary to this stated objective.
There is but one conclusion: the government is continually moving Canada further and further into the socialist camp, and the true colours of the Liberal Party might be better appreciated if the name of the Liberal Party was changed perhaps to the "Socialist-Liberal Party of Canada."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is always hope.


Peter Colwell Bawden: This might be especially appropriate as the Prime Minister himself publicly supported socialist philosophies before he set out to take over the Liberal Party.


Gerald William Baldwin: So did Mussolini once.


Peter Colwell Bawden: What does not seem to be appreciated by the people of Canada is that the costly promises made, particularly by the government during the 1974 election, and its total spending, which at the present moment is completely out of control, must be paid for by all working and taxpaying Canadians.
This is a huge and growing tax burden, and Petro-Can is just another significant cost to be thrown in. It will rest squarely on the shoulders of the workers, investors, and employers who create the wealth of this country. Every increase in the share of the government reduces the incentive to work, save and invest.
Tax receipts at all levels of government in Canada have not kept up with public spending in recent years. If we are to meet Canada's investment requirements in the years ahead-and for the oil and gas industry alone this figure is estimated to be in excess of $50 billion between now and 1985-important changes will be required in our taxation and incentives to explore. At the present time this country has a tax bias against savings and investment, and perhaps the prime example of this is that despite the projected shortfall in the supply of oil and gas for the future of Canada, foreign citizens can still explore and invest in our resource industries on a basis which is much more favourable than that available to individual Canadians.
Under our rules Canadians cannot afford to participate. If the minister has the courage to do so, perhaps he would take the opportunity to try to explain this evening why with all the protestations by this government about foreign investment and concern for future energy, no steps have been taken to encourage Canadians to step forward and meaningfully invest in natural resources in Canada and assist in solving the problem.
(Mr. Bawden.]
In this whole question of taxation Canada must look at other countries of the world where depreciation rates are higher and thus reflect the realities of the world's inflation today, and in addition-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is definitely straying from Bill C-8, which is to establish a national petroleum company. Would the hon. member please confine his remarks to the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: To the extent that an asset's value has risen because of inflation, the capital gains tax in Canada is just another instance of rewarding the government with higher revenues for the inflation it alone has created.
I raise this important matter because I think Canadians should know that the fiscal policies of the government could easily be modified to encourage and provide most of the investment required in this country for energy supply in the future. If such were done, the goal of self-sufficiency could be reached and its achievement would be at a much earlier time than it would if Petro-Canada is relied upon to do the job.
Notwithstanding the adverse actions of the government and the fact that many small Canadian companies have been forced out of the oil and gas business, there is still in place in Canada a large group of independent, largely Canadian owned and Canadian controlled oil companies which are ready, willing and able to take on the task of searching for and producing oil and gas. These companies are, however, faced with the impossible task of raising funds due to the low level of confidence existing, not only with Canadian investors but foreign investors as well.
The minister has suggested that Petro-Can would play a part in assisting these companies. However, the minister should realize that any company which has a competitive and viable proposition can usually find support from other oil companies or other investors in Canada. Thus it may be concluded from the minister's remarks in the House that Petro-Can is in fact going to subsidize Canadian oil companies. I strongly suggest to the minister and to the government that this approach not be taken.
I do not think that subsidies would have any general acceptance by the oil and gas industry. What they want, and what most western Canadians want, is an equal opportunity to compete-no special favours, no subsidies, but merely ground rules which will enable western Canadians and explorers to get on with the job.
Perhaps the factor that most concerned the committee in the Petro-Can deliberations, and which was never answered by the minister, comprises the rules under which it will operate in federal lands in the Arctic and offshore. The minister continually hoisted this problem ovef to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) saying the questions will be answered at a later time. I suggest to the House that if in fact the government takes unto itself special favours for Petro-Can through the regulations which would be brought forward later this year by the Minister of Indian
July 10, 1975

Affairs and Northern Development, Petro-Can will drive out far more investment each year than it has in its entire budget. In other words, Petro-Can could prove to be a disincentive to investment in our country and increase the shortfall of reserves and production required for future years.
On two previous occasions in this House I pointed out the effect on Canada of the National Energy Board report of November, 1974. I stated that four years from now this country would be suffering from a balance of payments deficit as a result of crude oil imports exceeding 20 per cent of our needs and costing us $2 billion or $3 billion, a significant contribution to an already difficult balance of payments problem. By 1985 this shortfall will have risen to 50 per cent of our crude oil needs. This figure is confirmed by senior officials in the minister's department. At today's prices this will cost our country $6 billion per year; at tomorrow's prices the figure may reach some $10 billion.
This week's Financial Post states that this country will run up a cumulative deficit in its balance of payments on oil and natural gas of more than $75 billion between now and 1990.
It is clear to those in the Conservative Party, and to most thinking Canadians, that even if this Petro-Can bill is passed and the company ultimately becomes successful, huge shortfalls must be projected in oil and gas in the years ahead. Even now, since the lead time for production of oil and gas is some ten years, it would be almost impossible to find and produce supplies which would materially alter the National Energy Board projections for 1980. The time is long since past for the government to act and put in place plans which recognize the reality and the potential disaster which faces Canada.
The Minister of Finance in his budget of June 23 referred to the incentive he felt that he was providing to the oil industry for exploration. Undoubtedly the minister concluded that his measures would be sufficient to meet the capital demands for the future through the private sector, or that Petro-Canada would be expected to cover the shortfall.
On the gas price situation the federal government has taken a progressive step and we are going to see an aggressive search for gas in Alberta. Unfortunately, Saskatchewan and British Columbia must be counted out.
From the 15 cents increase in the price of gasoline which is to be paid by Canadians before the end of this summer, approximately one cent only goes back to those who are charged with providing energy supplies for the country's future-the oil and gas industry.
It must be recognized that today the average accepted cost of finding oil and gas is something in the order of $5 per barrel. Madam Speaker, we are thus in a position, and the Canadian people must, be warned, that neither the incentives offered by the Minister of Finance nor Petro-Can will come even close to meeting our energy demands;


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 for Fort William (Mr. McRae).
Petro-Canada Act


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased tonight, July 10, to speak on a subject which I first spoke upon on December 7, 1973, some two and a half years ago. It has taken that long to get this bill to where it is. There has been a tremendous amount of opposition, and I am very pleased we are at this point that the bill will be passed before the end of this sitting.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced on December 6, 1973, that we intended to go ahead with Petro-Can-some called it "Oil-Can"-there were discussions about our federal energy policy. In a speech I gave on December 7 I indicated three major areas of this energy policy in which Petro-Can would fit extremely well, and I should like to go over them again tonight. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) mentioned them and took them as his own, but I would recall to hon. members that I enumerated them on December 7, 1973.
The first ingredient of a Canadian energy policy is a secure supply, which means making Canada self-sufficient. This became a real problem because in 1972 we were told that 130 billion barrels of crude oil were ultimately recoverable. Today we are talking about 50 billion or 60 billion barrels, and in the meantime we have taken out perhaps four or five billion barrels.
The second part of a policy that we enunciated was the single reasonable price across Canada. We set a price of $6.50 per barrel, which goes now to $8. That is still $4 below world prices. I challenged hon. members opposite in committee a year ago when I said, "I think you would like $8 per barrel," and they did not say they objected to it at all. I am saying now that we have maintained a single fair price, and $8 per barrel is the new price, $4 below the world price.
The third ingredient in a Canadian national energy policy is more Canadian control and Canadian ownership.
I should like to look at Petro-Can very briefly now as I know one or two other members wish to speak before the debate winds up. I should like to look at Petro-Can as it relates to these major purposes, the first being self sufficiency in supply. The second thing is to show that we do have single fair price. In this case we are talking about a Canadian nationally owned company that will monitor this industry. The third purpose is to increase Canadian ownership and Canadian control of the industry. I should like to deal with these three purposes very briefly.
In committee members of the Conservative party kept talking about what a fine industry the oil industry was, and how straightforward and so on they were. But the information that was being supplied to the National Energy Board was coming from the industry. It was coming from other sources too. When we went into 1972 we were told, and when we came here and sat in 1973 committees we were told that there were unlimited quantities of oil-that we were talking about 130 billion barrels. We were told by hon. members opposite that we should not be limiting our exports to the United States when we decided to put a quota on in the spring of 1973. We were told these things, but this is the industry that now has to admit there is a shortage-this is the industry that is concerned about a shortage just three short years later. Do not forget that.
7472

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada Act


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member is unwittingly misleading the House and country as, according to my arithmetic, 1973 was not three years ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. That is a point of debate.


Paul Edmund McRae: Madam Speaker, we were informed in the spring of 1973, although the 130 billion figure was arrived at in 1972.
It is absolutely imperative for us to increase supply, and it is important to set up a Canadian-owned company which will do this. Not only do we need to find more oil; we must conserve it.


Mr. Gillies:: Then why not introduce a proper tax policy?


Paul Edmund McRae: I know some members are angry about the establishment of Petro-Can, but even they must admit that its involvement in Syncrude will be useful. Initially, I understand the company will spend about $300 million in that area.
You know, there is always the danger that multinational companies will find oil supplies elsewhere and move. Therefore we need a Canadian-based and owned company which will explore exclusively in Canada, and in the north, and support Syncrude-type projects.
Second, by setting up Petro-Can we can monitor the industry. People do not trust the petroleum industry. I think you will find there is general distrust. The petroleum industry made huge mistakes which eventually influenced what are now the OPEC countries to form a cartel and just about quadruple oil prices around the world.
This morning's Globe and Mail carried a full-page advertisement which reads:
Here's where your money goes for those gasoline price increases-
Federal excise tax of 10 cents a gallon, effective June 24, 1975, 100 per cent to the federal government.
That is all it says. The advertisement does not say that the money will be used to equalize the price of oil across the country. The advertisement also says that the coming increase of $1.50 a barrel in crude oil prices will go entirely to the federal and provincial governments. Nothing is said about moneys being returned to the companies if they explore. The industry does not tell you these things.
The industry has been investigated by the U.S. Congress; it has been investigated elsewhere in the world. The huge fluctuations in oil prices which took place during the 1973 energy crisis are also being investigated.
I submit that we shall only know the workings of the petroleum industry in this country if the government sets up a national company and, through it, monitors the workings of the entire industry.
My third point is that the establishment of this company will enable us to retain some degree of Canadian control. The development phase of the industry is 90 per cent foreign-owned, and the refining phase 99 per cent foreign-owned. The five largest oil companies in Canada, Imperial
[Mr. McRae.)
Oil, Gulf, Shell, BP and Texaco control $6.6 billion worth of assets. The members of the Conservative opposition were not concerned about this degree of ownership when we discussed the bill in committee, yet they are members of the party which said one and a half years ago during a convention that within ten or 15 years they want to see this country own 75 per cent of this industry.
Day in and day out they have objected to the size of Petro-Can. "Keep it small" is what they said. If Petro-Can reduces foreign ownership even by 25 per cent or less, its establishment will have been worth while. Frankly, I do not think this operation is too big for Canada, although Conservative members seem to think it is.
Conservative members oppose the Canadian people owning a company which will compete with multinational companies. They see no advantage in such a company. They demanded that a company owned by the people of Canada should have no preference over a multi-national. I find their position hard to understand. One hon. member actually spoke about Petro-Can being imposed upon the people of Alberta. He did not talk about companies whose offices are outside Canada, in Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Britain, or Holland imposing their wills on the people of Alberta.
Alberta will gain greatly from the establishment of this company. The province will be the gainer if Syncrude-type projects are developed. The province of Ontario will gain; all Canada will gain from the setting up of this company.
In conclusion, let me say that in 1973 we announced our policy, and Petro-Can will help us to carry it out. It will help to obtain secure oil supplies for the people of Canada and help us to monitor the industry so that we can be sure of a fair price. Further, it will decrease foreign-ownership in the industry, perhaps to 75 per cent.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, as I rise in the final minutes of this debate, having made a contribution on second reading four months ago and realizing that many words have been spoken since then on this topic, I am reminded of something which happened in the British House. A member asked for guidance of the Chair on the length of speeches. The Speaker replied something like this, "My guidance is this: I hope all speeches will be as short as they can be." My speech will therefore be only half as long as it would otherwise have been.
Over the week end I heard a CBC news announcer say that the recent federal budget had been easily passed. I suppose that tonight we shall hear him say that Bill C-8 passed easily. A majority government of course can pass any bill it wishes easily, but that does not mean that opposition members should not vigorously oppose legislation which they believe to be not in the best interests of Canadians.
Bill C-8 was introduced on October 3, 1974, nine months ago. Since then what has happened to the petroleum industry? I am sure I speak conservatively when I say that oil exploration has been greatly curtailed. This means that our drilling rigs have moved to other countries. Federal and provincial governments have been squabbling, acting unilaterally, and aggravating an already difficult relationship.
July 10, 1975

The oil industry sounded the alarm. The Canadian Petroleum Association has sounded the warning in a small brochure which it puts out, saying that we can choose between one of two alternatives. It explains what will happen if no exploration takes place. Canada will be short of oil. It states that if Canada explores and develops, there will be oil. Of course finding, developing, transporting, refining and marketing are a costly business. They estimate the cost at $30 billion.
There has been a lot of criticism about oil company profits. In the industry's brochure it is pointed out that the profits for the years 1970 to 1973 were about 12 per cent. That is not much more than the yield on the government's Canada Savings Bonds which bear no risk.
The government has indicated that it wants to cut expenditures. Here is the oil industry offering to save it a $30 billion expenditure to find oil. Recent remarks by other industrialists in this country have indicated the dissatisfaction and lack of wisdom in the course the government intends to follow.
At the annual meeting, Ian Sinclair of Canadian Pacific, a group of companies, talked about examples of government involving itself unnecessarily in business functions. He said:
Such intrusions are frequently accompanied by the explanation that "business has failed" to do this, or to do that. What has usually happened is that business has been prevented from doing it because of tax policies, or government interference with markets, or uncertainties injected either by sudden changes in government policies or by contradictory policies at different levels of government.
He went on to say that Canadians have felt that our abundant natural resources were our surest guarantee of future wealth, but now federal and provincial governments are squabbling over them like contending heirs. He also commented on the risks involved in searching for resources. He said:
There is enough risk in resources development without injecting these additional hazards.
The risks that are inherent in resource projects cannot be reduced by transferring them to public ownership. That would simply enforce risk-taking on a lot of people who do not want it. Moreover, results of publicly owned enterprises both here and abroad give us fair warning of the disappointments that public ownership breeds.
There are other statements which, in the interest of time, I will skip.
In my remarks in the second reading debate, I drew attention to the abysmal performance of the government in operating its 59 Crown corporations that now exist. This month on the desk of all hon. members appeared the Labour Canada information sheet. In summary, it states that in April of 1975 there were ten work stoppages in the federal jurisdiction that involved 6,007 workers and the loss of 126,000 man-days. Such a lack of management skills is bad enough in the post office, airlines and so on, but what if it were in the national petroleum company? It would be far more serious.
The fundamental principles should be that the government takes a low profile and provides those services that are necessary and that the enterpriser cannot or will not provide. However, this government wants to involve everybody in a direct manner. It refuses to recognize that
Petro-Canada Act
the corporate giants are really just a legal piece of paper. They are all made up of shareholders who are eventually just people. For example, every worker in Canada who contributes to a pension plan has an investment in some corporate giant.
One might pause to give serious thought to the effect on the enterprisers of Canada, and the enterprise system which has built Canada, of government action such as Bill C-8. That well-known enterpriser from Toronto, John Bulloch, tailor, recently placed an advertisement which related to the old story of "The Little Red Hen" in political terms. After the cries of "excess profits", "capitalist leech", "equal rights" and so on, the little red hen was forced to give up 80 per cent of the production of bread for the benefit of her barnyard neighbours. Predictably, of course, the neighbours always wondered why the little red hen never baked any more bread. One might ask when Canadians will wake up one morning and wonder why the oil industry has not produced any more oil for their factories, furnaces and automobiles.
Finally, I would like to take a look at our friends south of the border. Many Canadians hesitate to draw comparisons with the United States, but inevitably United States history seems to filter north to become our current events. I thought the remarks of the U. S. Secretary of the Treasury, William Simon, earlier this year were very interesting. He said:
I find three long-term trends disturbing and potentially the most destructive within our economy. The first has been the massive growth of government. .. that has sharply accelerated since the mid-1960's-
A second trend that has been gradually weakening our free enterprise system is... that increases in productive performance are required,... to create new jobs and support a higher standard of living. Yet, as a nation we are rapidly expanding public payments to individuals, but neglecting to provide adequate incentives for new investment-
A third trend that is highly damaging has been the progressive acceleration in the rate of inflation over the past decade.
He concluded:
To attain lasting prosperity, however, we must summon all of the wisdom and strength at our command to attack the more enduring and fundamental forces that grip our economy.
First, we must curb the momentous growth of government in this country ... Second, we must maintain and strengthen the foundations of our free enterprise system by shifting the emphasis of our domestic policies away from consumption and government spending and toward greater savings, investment and capital formation.
The Liberal government of this country does not appear to have reached any of these conclusions. Just before the media reports that Bill C-8 has easily passed the House of Commons, I want to say that I deplore this kind of legislation and that tonight's vote will be my final attempt to save Canadians from further	encroachment by
government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It is the understanding of the Chair that at this time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) is to be recognized.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) has waited with great patience. I wonder if the House might be kind enough to let him have a couple of minutes of my time to contribute to the debate.

July 10, 1975
Petro-Canada Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House. I will take just one minute. I only want to say that I worked very hard to become a member of parliament. I did that for two reasons. First, I wanted to be a supporter of this government. Second, I wanted to have some small part in bringing about this bill.
I campaigned for the establishment of Petro-Canada. The worst thing that Canada could do at this point in time would be not to become self-sufficient in food and energy.
Today this House will have passed two very important bills, Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and Bill C-8, Petro-Canada. This is a great day in this House. I congratulate the minister and the government on these two bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kindness of the House in giving me the opportunity to close the debate. I would like to express my appreciaton to the various members of the committee for their very full participation in the discussion of this particular measure.
I would like to draw from historical and other sources some quotations that might mark the occasion. One of them comes from the immortal bard, Robert Burns, and I promise to give the quote to Hansard because of the mixed language. One is struck, in looking at the opposition, to think of the words:
O wad some pow'r the giftie gie us Tae see oorsel's as ithers see us.
One has the feeling at the end of the debate that there was a little bit of self-consciousness on the part of the official opposition who all of a sudden crumbled in their filibuster and gave in. It might not be parliamentary to say so, and of course there is no personal context involved, neither to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) or anyone else, but that is from Burns' poem called "To a Louse."


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You wouldn't finish it, would you?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To my own colleagues in the House I should like to express appreciation for their support and move to another classic, as follows, and say:
It is a far, far better thing we do Than we have ever done . . .


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course Dickens was equally apt in evolving a phrase to describe Conservative members, who are once again being interred in their ancient thoughts and outmoded ideas.

It is a far, far better rest we go to Than we have ever known.
That is Sydney Carton from the "Tale of Two Cities." A special word of thanks is due-I regret I do not have a quotation in this regard-to the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) for the contribution he made to this discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. members who are well versed in the history of the world's leading nation know that the right hand man of King Robert the Bruce who liberated Scotland from England in the years up to 1314 was Sir James Douglas. It is a fact that King Robert and, later, the chiefs of Clan Donald were Lords of the Isles, and Douglas fought valiantly at Bannockburn. Of course Sir James Douglas was not at that time often accused of being a Socialist.


An hon. Member:: You are going to be remembered as a hamburger!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I see the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) sitting there. Special thanks should go to him for his contribution in this regard. As he knows, at the battle of Stirling Bridge which took place in 1292 or thereabouts, Sir William Wallace, the Scots general, had taken on the English army at great odds. The battle hung in the balance. At that moment, the Scots camp followers appeared over the brow of a hill overlooking the field. The English thought they were reinforcements and fled. The camp followers were called gillies, and the hill is still called Gillies' Hill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: What do you mean by that term "camp followers"?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Your crowd fled at Culloden.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On a point of order, I am wondering, really, whether the hon. minister, who claims to be one of that ilk, really knows what a gillie is, because it isn't what he said it was.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, I would have to say about the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that he is not what he says he is. He pretends to know things in this House when, of course, he knows nothing.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) made what I thought was a very logical observation in the course of his participation in the debate. This was with regard to the process of the OPEC countries of becoming increasingly involved at government level in the production of oil. The hon. gentleman pointed out that in the years ahead as eastern Canada becomes an importer of petroleum from the OPEC states, state trading will be one of the realities of this situation and that this bill with its provision of powers to the national petroleum company will enable the Government of Canada to protect itself in
July 10, 1975

the state trading situation and achieve for Canada advantages which would not be available if we continue to be reliant on the international petroleum industry.
There has been some discussion of the question of equality of treatment and I think it is fair to remind the House again in closing that, for example, with regard to tax treatment-and this is one of the times one is amazed at some of the members in the official opposition-specific measures are included in the bill. They say the company should be treated in the same way for the purposes of tax as other corporations. Of course the bill specifically makes such a provision. The corporation will have to pay federal corporate income tax, it will have to pay the levies and other taxes which are laid upon it, it will have to bear, of course, when acquiring properties whether in the provinces or in the territories, the royalties that those particular laws provide.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the Auditor General.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to deal with the hon. member who made a really most unfortunate attack on the profession of chartered accountants in Canada. But I will come to him in just a minute-the hon. member from Houston.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Colwell Bawden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out to this House that the minister has made an error. I do not know whether it is because he is prejudiced against Americans or whether it is because he is not familiar with the constituency of Calgary South, but I should just like to correct him in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Actually, I am not prejudiced, Mr. Speaker; it is that I consider the hon. member to be a bit of a fool. That is why.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Cheap!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to land regulations there was very extensive discussion of the situation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Everybody is leaving the chamber.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hon. members are, of course, improving, as has once been said.
Hon. members have noted that land regulations will come under discussion later during the course of this particular session or in the next session of parliament, and at that time it will be relevant for the House to consider whether or not Petro-Canada, or the national petroleum corporation, should have specific advantages with regard to the acquisition of land in the territories. I will say only this; the argument does not seem to follow, to my mind, that if land is to revert, as it does, under the law, to the national government, the Government of Canada should not have the privilege of itself acquiring for the benefit of all Canadians the land which will revert to it.
As hon. members know, the discussion with regard to the land regulations has been directed to the possibility of special privileges to the national petroleum corporation.
Petro-Canada Act
This is a matter which is being negotiated with the industry and will be dealt with later on in the bill to deal with the regulations.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) demonstrated, if I may say so, a parochial viewpoint with regard to the position of Alberta vis-a-vis the rest of the country, particularly central Canada. I noted his assertion-and I know the hon. member for Don Valley will be interested to hear this-that there had been an attempt to make Alberta a colonial state to support the golden triangle of Ontario. One must really wonder in the current context how the hon. member for Don Valley or the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) would stand in this regard.
.
It is the Progressive Conservative premier of Ontario who is objecting to the very concept of a fair return to the province of Alberta from the realization of its resources, which this government has advocated. In other words, on the one hand the hon. member for Battle River puts the argument that it is central Canada that is working against the interests of the province of Alberta; on the other hand the premier of Ontario is asserting that it is unreasonable for Alberta to have this kind of return.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has referred to the fact that I might not agree with what was said by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone). Earlier this evening he commenced that type of argument, but was quickly subdued when I said that I would not mind if the money that the government was assessing were used to give some assurance that we would have lots of energy available in the form of oil and gas in future years.
Although the minister may deny that some of this money will be used for Petro-Can, probably some of it will. The tax bill that has been brought in, I am sure with the agreement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, is going to take money from all Canadian taxpayers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I shall be finished in a moment, Mr. Speaker. If that is the case, then we would agree. But when it goes toward paying salaries of people like-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I think the hon. member will realize-


Robert Elgin McKinley: I shall be finished in a minute, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Would the hon. member please resume his seat? I think the hon. member will realize that he has not raised with the Chair a point of order but in fact is entering into the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The point to be made here, Mr. Speaker, is that the province of Alberta has chosen to impose a royalty of 65 per cent on the incremental oil produced in Alberta, or if they change the law, 50 per cent. It seems to me that hon. members cannot have it both

July 10, 1975
Division
ways. Either they agree with the hon. member for Battle River that this is a reasonable action for the province of Alberta to take, or they agree with the premier of Ontario that it is not a reasonable action.
The final comment I should like to make concerns the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). He said that if the Auditor General is not an auditor of Petro-Canada he must assume that we want to hide the facts concerning this particular company.


Robert Elgin McKinley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is now past 9.45 p.m., and I suggest Your Honour should call the minister to order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a most unfair attack upon the chartered accountant profession in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I stated my point of order, Mr. Speaker. If it could not be heard, I repeat that the agreement was that we vote at 9.45. The clock is past 9.45 at the present time. I was called to order and I see no reason why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, arrogance and all, should not be called to order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to an order made Friday, June 13, 1975, to interrupt the debate and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

July 10, 1975



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, early in May I directed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) with respect to the withdrawal of the services of the Manitoba vocational rehabilitation branch from treaty Indians in the southwestern part of Manitoba. At that time the minister indicated he did not think this was the fact and gave assurances that these services would be continued to treaty Indians.
I asked a further question on May 27, and by then the minister had become aware of the facts. He defended this withdrawal of services on the basis that it would not do any substantial harm to the problem of chronic unemployability among treaty Indians in this part of Canada.
The operative date for the withdrawal of services was June 30. In the meantime some negotiations had gone on behind the scenes which indicated that the department might change its mind on the matter. It was becoming obvious that to deprive treaty Indians of those services was discriminatory and could even be dealt with by the Human Rights Commission of Manitoba.
The explanation given for the withdrawal was that the responsibility was going to be transferred to the Canada Manpower Centre in the city of Brandon. The centre stated publicly that it did not have the resources to fill the gap in this vital service that would be left on June 30. There is some reference to the Pathfinder Outreach program, which would fill the gap. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder Outreach program is presently in a sad state of disarray, because of internal difficulties.
One of the main projects to be affected is the work activity project in Brandon, which is sponsored by the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada. Substantial sums of money have been poured into the project, which has been described as one of the most effective to be found in any area of Canada.
The friendship centre at Brandon became concerned and was in touch with departmental officials about the matter. As a result of its intervention, assurance was given in a letter sent by the regional director that, very likely, there would be some revision of thinking and there would not be complete withdrawal of this vitally important service. I have now received a letter from the friendship people indicating that the order went into effect on June 30 and that treaty Indians are no longer being given access to this program.
During the summer months the problem of unemployment appears quiescent, but the crunch will be felt in the fall, with the coming of winter. The chairman of the manpower task force on services to Indian people
Adjournment Debate
expressed the opinion that the arrangement made between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Manitoba vocational services was the least expensive and most effective way of dealing with the problem of chronic unemployability among treaty Indians.
The fact that this sort of special arrangement serves a useful purpose in particular circumstances was demonstrated when a special arrangement was made in northern Manitoba, where there is a substantial population of treaty Indians out of work. There the Northern Manpower Corps was formed. It was jointly funded by DREE and the province of Manitoba on a 60/40 basis. I suggest that the situation in southwest Manitoba is similar in many respects, and there has to be a special arrangement to meet those particular circumstances. That is why, over the years, very close co-operation was established between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the provincial vocational services branch.
I trust that either the parliamentary secretary or the minister will assure us this evening that what has been working satisfactorily will not be interfered with and that the atmosphere of confrontation which causes so much damage to our relations with our treaty Indians will not be worsened by any backward step. If the backward step is persisted in, the matter of course would be referred to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and we should face a situation of confrontation which does irretrievable damage to good relations between our treaty Indians and the general population.


Iona Campagnolo: Madam Speaker, in answering the hon. member I should like to point out first that there has been no withdrawal of vocational training, counselling and placement services for registered Indians of Manitoba. There is, however, a realignment of resources between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Manpower and Immigration to produce an effective delivery system for services without duplication of expenditures of federal funds. I am sure that the hon. member, who is interested in the cost effectiveness of government programs, will be happy to hear this.
In essence, as a number of Indian chiefs and band members had expressed some dissatisfaction with the provision of counselling services on their reserves by the Manitoba Vocational Rehabilitation Services, it was agreed in March, 1973, that such services by the Manitoba Vocational Rehabilitation Services would be restricted to status Indian people in urban areas and that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would provide such services to those Indians living on reserves. These changes were introduced on a gradually phased basis in order not to disrupt any existing services.
As the situation now stands, the Department of Manpower and Immigration is officially responsible for employment-related services to all Canadians. Moreover those status Indians who have fulfilled the urban residency requirements are also entitled to services of the Manitoba Vocational Rehabilitation Service in the same manner as any other urban residents of Manitoba. Arrangements have also been made that counsellors of Indian Affairs would assist any status Indians who do not
7478

July 10, 1975
Adjournment Debate
meet the residency qualifications of Manitoba for service, upon referral by the Manitoba Vocational Rehabilitation Service.
With respect to the services being provided by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, officials of both departments finalized administrative details to add four to five additional out-reach workers to the staff of the Manitoba region of the Department of Manpower. Status Indian trainees already enrolled in the Manitoba Vocational Rehabilitation Services' programs will continue until graduation at the expense of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Taking all factors into consideration, there is confidence that the new arrangement will be more effective and acceptable to all of the Indian people served, both urban and non-urban, and at the same time will be more economical by avoiding duplication of services.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-PROPOSED LAY-OFF OF THREE THOUSAND MAINTENANCE WORKERS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on July 2 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) whether he had had an opportunity to look into the announcement by CPR that it would lay off 3,000 workers, 1,200 in Montreal and over 1,000 in Winnipeg, until the end of September. The minister replied that he had made inquiries with the CNR which was making virtually no lay-offs, and that the CPR lay-offs were a matter of negotiation with the union.
I asked the minister in charge of the wheat board a supplementary question. I asked whether he would look into the question of whether, as a result of this lay-off, there would be a shortage of freight cars to move grain this fall, and whether he would look into the question of whether the lay-off was in fact pressure being put on the workers by CPR ahead of their forthcoming contract negotiations this fall. The minister thought this was pretty far-fetched, but promised to look into the question of the possible shortfall of freight cars.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) have recently spoken quite frequently about |he difficulties created in various segments of the Canadian economy as a result of one small group of workers belonging to one union, in a field in which there are many unions, going on strike and tying up the whole industry.
In the railway industry there are 18 unions which represent all the employees. For a number of years they have banded together and bargained. One agreement is reached with the CPR and CNR. However, we now have a situation where the CPR has unilaterally decided on a major lay off of workers in the shop craft industry, particularly the carmen. We have 3,000 workers, many of them with ten or 20 years' seniority, who have worked continuously for the CPR, being given a seven weeks holiday without pay.
I suggest this is not at all far-fetched. I suggest, as I did in my question the other day, that the CPR is beginning the process of negotiating with its employees by warning

them that they better not ask for too much in the negotiations this October because their jobs are not that secure.
The CPR is supposedly worrying about the cash flow of the company. However, at its recent annual general meeting of shareholders, the chairman of CPR, Mr. Ian D. Sinclair, announced record profits in 1974 of $185.5 million, 50 per cent higher than those for 1973, and double the take of 1972. It is true that more than half of the profits came from the conglomerates owned and controlled by CP, but these are essentially in the natural resource field and arise from concessions given to the CP when the original promoters were encouraged to build the railway.
In recent years there have been a number of serious accidents as a result of derailments. The Canadian Transport Commission investigated the situation, held hearings, and recommended that maintenance work be increased sharply; it concluded that the derailments were a result of the lack of maintenance work on the rails.
We are expecting a plentiful crop this fall in western Canada, and again we are faced with the fact that once more Canada is likely to be unable to meet its commitments for grain sales since. According to the railway companies there will be a shortage of freight cars to move the grain. I suggest that this is a time not to be laying off railroad workers but to be putting them to work repairing and reconditioning all the old freight cars which can be made available for use, so that the big crop we are expecting this fall may be moved expeditiously both to the Lakehead and to Vancouver to meet the demands of customers.
I would urge the ministers concerned to use their influence with Canadian Pacific-and it is considerable-to urge that the company rescind these lay-offs which have been announced, that it put the workers to work doing the work they are ready to do and which is so necessary for the well being of the country.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) with respect to the part of the question which concerns the Department of Transport, may I say he has described the situation in which the Canadian Pacific finds itself, that of having to lay off a large number of workers for an extended period over the summer due to a general decline in the economy.
As the hon. member knows, the Canadian Pacific is a privately owned company, and in matters affecting its labour relations the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) exercises no jurisdiction. He has, however, been assured by CP Rail that there should be no problems in supplying cars for the 1975-76 grain shipping season. There is surplus equipment on CP Rail, including covered hoppers, due to a fall-off in potash loadings; partners in split-lease arrangements are asking CP Rail to keep cars year-round until the economy picks up. In addition, some grain boxes are being stored due to a fall-off of grain shipments. At the present time CP Rail has more than a thousand government covered hoppers, with over 2,000 more coming on-stream in January.
The suggestion by the hon. member that involved in these lay-offs is a ploy by CP Rail to put pressure on the
July 10, 1975

government to raise the rate paid for the movement of grain is clearly unfounded.
As regards Canadian National Railways, this company does not intend to lay off maintenance workers in large numbers as CP Rail has been forced to do. CN lay-offs are not expected to exceed very small numbers as required in the normal course of events to adjust the work force to local needs. As a result, grain shipments will not be adversely affected in any way.


FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD-REPORT ON FISH PRICES- POSSIBILITY OF REFERENCE TO COMBINES INVESTIGATION BRANCH
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) has remained behind to hear what I have to say. I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow up my question of June 27 to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), which, stated very simply, was this. I asked whether, in vew of the fact that the Food Prices Review Board report on fisheries indicated a wide discrepancy between the wholesale and retail prices of fish, from 49 cents a pound to $1.08 a pound, the minister intended to bring the matter to the attention of the combines investigation branch of his department. The minister replied that as a result of the excellent report of the Food Prices Review Board he hoped that he would be able to take action on the recommendations. Further, on requesting action on anti-profiteering legislation, the minister indicated appropriate action would be taken.
Naturally the discrepancy that I mentioned between wholesale and retail prices is further aggravated when one considers the spread between the price paid to the fishermen and the price paid by the consumer, which is more frightening. The spread in price in some cases reaches some 1,000 to 2,000 per cent, if one can imagine such a spread.
While I recognize that the yield of some delicate species of fish justifies a variance, it is a wonder that Canadian consumers do pay, for example, approximately $1.50 for a couple of ounces of herring processed outside Canada, which originally brought the fishermen 31/2 cents a pound in Canada at the wharf. This suggests to me that something is wrong or fishy, and is an indication of the inefficiency of our government's marketing policy regarding our fish resources.
Not only is there inefficiency, Mr. Speaker, but complacency, apathy, and a complete disregard for the value of our fish stocks as a source of protein and nutrition not only for the poor of Canada but, internationally, for the poor and poverty stricken of the world. Furthermore, the department shows a blatant disregard for its responsibility.
Almost each and every day in this House of Commons we hear references to prices of food and the difficulties experienced by the people of Canada. Indeed, there is reference to the ineptitude of government in controlling the price of beef, pork, poultry, eggs, and other commodities which we have in abundance in Canada. For some reason or other we ignore the renewable resources of the sea which, if protected by our government, could provide a
Adjournment Debate
protein-rich food resource at a reasonable price to the consumer, in spite of inflationary pressures, on a continuing basis.
I have made reference to the herring species, but there are many other examples of fish the price of which indicate rip-off profits, such as cod, mackerel, lobster, salmon, halibut and many other species available in Canada.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the ammunition to investigate this atrocious practice, and I wonder what he is waiting for before implementing legislation that would prevent this rip-off of many people in Canada. The government is always asking members of the opposition for suggestions. In many cases I have tried to co-operate. In this case I can only ask the minister to investigate the system of pricing from the fishermen through to the buyer, the processing plant, or even beyond, to determine the discrepancy which exists. This would render invaluable service to the Canadian consumer.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has raised an important question. In his remarks tonight I think he has gone beyond the specific question of the pricing of fish to the whole question of the fisheries and its importance in terms of protein, nutrients, etc.
If I may deal with the specific question as it relates to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I should first of all say that, as the hon. member knows, the Food Prices Review Board has conducted an investigation which was confined primarily to the Toronto area. We have taken a great deal of interest in its findings and we hope it will pursue the whole question to find out whether, from its point of view, these spreads are justified.
I should point out to the hon. members of this House that we in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs do not have the legislative base to set some kind of prices or margins on prices. As the hon. member knows, prior to the 1974 election we introduced a bill, called the anti-profiteering bill, which would have given us the legislative authority to take action in connection with what the hon. member might call rip-off prices. That bill was not passed due to the opposition of his own party and other opposition parties in this House, so we are without that legislative base from which to take action.
Subsequently we indicated that it is our intention in the department to bring forward an anti-profiteering bill which would again give us some legislative base to deal with that kind of question on a selective basis. I think it is a very important thing, and we do need this legislative base. When we have the authority from parliament, action of that type may well be taken on these important occasions.
To suggest that we do have the legislative authority to taken action in terms of investigation is true under the Combines Investigation Act, through the director of investigation and research. However, I think the hon. member and all Canadians ought to know that in the action we can take there is no relationship to the setting of prices, but only relationship to collusion or the fixing of prices between differing groups within the market place. We see no
7480

July 10, 1975
Adjournment Debate
evidence that this in fact is occurring at the moment. If the hon. member, or any other Canadian feels there is some evidence that would warrant an investigation by the director under the Combines Investigation Act in relation to collusion or price fixing we would be the first ones who would want to know about it and to take action under the legislation which now exists.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Friday, July 11, 1975