1975-02-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the answer I received on November 18, 1974, to question No. 481 on the order paper. The answer tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Campbell) was:
No payments in excess of $100 were made by the group to any individual among the participants or directors of the project.
In a letter to Mr. James Elliott, of Ajax, Ontario, dated January 24, 1975, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare listed a payment of $3,900 to Mr. J. Forester and a payment of $1,885 to Mr. R. Rathburn. Since both these individuals participated in the project, the answer to question 481 appears to have been totally incorrect. Further, the payment of $3,900 to Mr. J. Forester constituted a clear conflict of interest situation. Mr. Forester began to receive these moneys while employed as a special assistant to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). He continued to receive payments while serving as publicity director during the election campaign. The question of the use of political influence for financial gain in this instance warrants investigation. The incorrect answer to question 481 is a serious infringement upon the right of a member of this House to obtain accurate information regarding government expenditures. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you direct that a correct answer be given to my question.
[DOT] (MIO)


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I was not given notice that this question of privilege would be brought forward, and I did not hear all the hon. member's comments at the beginning of his remarks. However, the hon. member suggested that a man by the name of Forester from my riding was in the employ, I gather, of the Department of National Health and Welfare during the last election. That is not true and never has been true. Actually, a man by the name of Forester was a volunteer worker for me in a full-time capacity during the last election. For this he received no payment from the House of Commons or the Department of National Health and Welfare. If I am allowed to do so under the rules, in order that I may first read the comments of the hon. member I would reserve my option to speak further on this question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard equal contributions on what is essentially a non-question of privilege, let me point out to the hon. member who asked the Chair to direct that a correct answer be given, that the citations-as I know that he knows-indicate that the incorrectness of an answer does not give rise to a question of privilege. Besides, even if I could find a way to be sure that I have authority to direct that answers be made and to determine their correctness, I would have difficulty in enforcing such authority. The hon. member has not called for any action, as I am sure he is aware, which the Chair can take at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at about the present stage of our proceedings I made the proposal that at eight o'clock tonight the House might provide a special opportunity to hear the statement which my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) intends to make on energy conservation; that is, a much longer than ordinary opportunity in order that the spokesmen for the various parties may reply to the statement, and also to provide an opportunity for some questioning of the minister.
When I suggested such a motion yesterday, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the acting House leader for the opposition party, said he would like an opportunity to study the motion before it was put. He has done so and now, I hope, there will be agreement to an order in the following terms: That at 8 p.m., tonight, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources shall make a statement, and after the said statement a spokesman for each of the parties in opposition shall comment upon the statement, and after the comments of the said spokesmen members may question the minister on the said statement until the ordinary hour of adjournment.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for the assurances he has given me, and we are agreeable to the motion as put.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to this arrangement some days ago and we are happy to stand by the agreement. I am a little surprised that the minister put in the word "shall". I should think that it ought to read spokesmen of opposition parties "may" respond if they wish to. However, I suppose it does not make any difference; they all will.

February 6, 1975
Consumer Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous agreement. May I ask if there is unanimous agreement for an order that at eight o'clock this evening the House will proceed to the business proposed by the President of the Privy Council in the terms he just now put forward?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-SUGGESTED DELAY IN ENTERING FORMAL AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of statements made in this House yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) to the effect that no formal agreement had yet been signed between the federal government and the principals of Syncrude, and in light of the fact that the tar sands are a vital resource for the economic future of all Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the federal government not to conclude any formal agreements with the principals of Syncrude that would involve financial commitments until the Prime Minister has met with the premiers of every province and discussed with them the possibility of a joint federal-provincial consortium to develop the tar sands that would result in total public ownership of this valuable resource.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgency which requires our immediate attention.
In view of the fact that the Canadian economy has now slowed down considerably, because consumers do not have the purchasing power needed to buy available products, that quite a number of economists recognize the need to stimulate consumption through an increase in the purchasing power as related to the increase in prices, and that

Dr. Vincent Bladen, an economist, has suggested a negative sales tax to boost consumer purchasing power, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House study the possibility and urgency of setting up a system of retail compensated discount to lower consumer prices immediately to the level of present consumer purchasing power.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, the 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.


HERITAGE DAY
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The urgency arises from the fact that the third Monday in February is fast approaching. Your Honour will recall that in December, 1973, the justice committee presented a report recommending the adoption of a new legal holiday to be known as Heritage Day. There is presently on the order paper Bill C-208, which seeks to implement this recommendation. What gives this matter more urgency is the fact that the holiday has been recognized in the railway arbitration award of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall given in June, 1974. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae):
That Bill C-208 be brought forward to the first place under private members' public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In agreeing to this motion, perhaps I might be permitted to point out that I had informed the government before we met at two o'clock today that I would be moving, under Standing Order 43-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is well aware that, regrettably, there is no provision whereby I am able to permit this discussion to continue. The House may be able to guess the intent of this commentary. I must say that the hon. member was good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to move a similar motion on this subject. For that reason I was looking in his direction a moment ago. Perhaps because of the discussion in which he was engaged, he could not rise at that time. At the moment there is a motion before the House which I must put at this time.
February 6, 1975

Heritage Day TRANSPORT


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question of privilege or a point of order can always be raised. However, I do not know of any authority for saying it can interrupt the putting of a question which is in the hands of the Chair. I will put the motion and then recognize the hon. member on his question of privilege.
The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Nipissing under Standing Order 43. It cannot be put without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


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


REQUEST FOR PROCLAMATION OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1975 AS HOLIDAY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Stanley Howard Knowles: I still rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Prior to the sitting of the House at two o'clock today, I gave notice to Your Honour, to members on the government side and to others on the opposition side, that I would be moving a motion regarding Heritage Day under Standing Order 43.1 was informed that my motion would be accepted. It comes as a surprise that a motion on the same subject was moved ahead of mine, but even so I was prepared to agree to that motion.
In any case, having been informed that my motion would be accepted, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands:
That this House urge the government to proclaim Monday, February 17, 1975, as Heritage Day, so that it may be observed throughout Canada as a holiday.
In the light of the assurance I have been given that my proposal is acceptable, I request unanimous consent to move this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion which is moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 and which therefore requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


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


SUGGESTION GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL DECIDE FREIGHT RATE ISSUE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the numerous delays in making a decision regarding the freight rate increases requested by the railways. In the light of the fact that the decision concerning the implementation of the freight rate increases requested by the railways has been batted around between the Transport Commission, the federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and back again, and since this legal game of musical chairs has resulted in a situation in which, at this point, no one knows where they are sitting, if, indeed, they are sitting at all-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member well knows that Standing Order 43 permits only fobrief explanation by the hon. member. I suggest to him that he ought very quickly to come to the point.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an important matter and I was just coming to the terms of my motion. Since this situation has given rise to grave uncertainties, hardship to the public and a lack of confidence in the federal decision-making process, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill:
That the Governor-in-Council, using his authority under section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act, do now hand down a fair, equitable and firm decision in substantial accordance with the most recent decision of the Canadian Transport Commission, to protect the interests of the Canadian public.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the proposed motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


HERITAGE DAY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to seek permission to put forward a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. As Heritage Day cannot be brought in by proclamation I hope the House will be willing to urge that it be done by legislation.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre:
That this House urge the government to introduce forthwith legislation to provide for the third Monday in February of each year to be observed as a holiday to be known as Heritage Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 6, 1975
Syncrude Project
An Kon. Member: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a most urgent matter, since it may result in a considerable loss of income for hog producers in Canada.
In view of the fact that according to a Canadian Pork Council estimation, the U.S. embargo on Canadian meat will result in a loss of nearly $30 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House direct the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to assess the impact of this measure on hog producers, make proper recommendations and report to the House on or before March 31, 1975.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REASON GOVERNMENT ENTERED AGREEMENT WITH SYNCRUDE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of recent statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that he was awaiting the results of a study on the financial aspects of the Syncrude project commissioned by the Alberta government, and in light of answers in the House yesterday which revealed that the federal government has not conducted any independent examination of the cost estimates for the Syncrude project nor has it had access to any other independent study, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Prime Minister be instructed to explain immediately to this House why the federal government has concluded an agreement with the principals of Syncrude without the benefit of such information.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 and therefore demands unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL ANTHEMS


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which concerns all Canadians. In view of the fact that recordings of our national anthems, "God Save the Queen" and "O Canada", are not readily available at most music distribution facilities across the country, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt):
That the Secretary of State arrange to have qualified Canadian artists make recordings of these anthems and that these recordings be placed on the market throughout the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion. It being proposed pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, it cannot be debated without unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT NOT PARTICIPATE IN SYNCRUDE UNTIL ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS SETTLED-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of recent indications that the pollution control technology envisaged for the Syncrude project, in which the federal government is now involved, will be inadequate to meet federal environmental standards, and in view of the fact that meeting these standards may involve substantial extra costs over and above those already contemplated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the government be instructed to inform the other principals of Syncrude that it is unwilling to participate in the project until it is satisfied that adequate provision has been made for environmental control and until it has received firm cost estimates for any modifications necessary to meet such standards.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent that it be debated?
February 6, 1975

Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PROPOSED TABLING OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the serious consequences implicit in the government's proposed involvement in the Syncrude project, and the importance of making full and complete information available to this House and to the Canadian people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That this House instruct the government to table forthwith all relevant documents relating to the Syncrude project, including cost estimates, correspondence and proposed terms of agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent that it be debated?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent murders taking place in various parts of Canada involving the use of firearms and the increase in public concern about this subject, and in view of the obvious disagreement between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) on firearms laws, and the fact that the gun lobby F.A.R.O. has announced that it will be holding a special meeting this Saturday in Ottawa, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the subject of firearms laws be forthwith referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and after receiving appropriate evidence that this committee be requested to report to the House in three months' time on appropriate amendments to the Criminal Code.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



USE OF BURWASH INDUSTRIAL FARM AS MEDIUM SECURITY INSTITUTION-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43.


An hon. Member:: What is so pressing and urgent?


John R. Rodriguez: If you will just be quiet you will learn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that more than 200 jobs were lost in northern Ontario as a result of the closing of the Burwash industrial farm shortly after the expenditure of millions of dollars for upgrading of the facilities there, and in view of the fact that the federal government is seeking a site for a medium security prison which will cost the Canadian taxpayers $7 million, and in view of the very urgent need to create jobs in northern Ontario and thereby boost its sagging economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Solicitor General be instructed to enter negotiations with the provincial government of Ontario to upgrade the Burwash complex to medium security standards.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relating to the position of the government, which will become a minority shareholder in the Syncrude project. Would the minister tell the House whether there has been an agreement or understanding reached with regard to the technology that may be developed by Syncrude and the availability of this technology to the government of Canada as a minority shareholder, and what are the terms under which this technology will be available?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement in principle with regard to the project. In general terms, I can say that the new Syncrude partners will succeed to

February 6, 1975
Oral Questions
the position that Atlantic-Richfield had as a partner in the Syncrude project, including a rather complex arrangement in respect of the technology of both outside parties and the partner companies.
The next step, of course, will be to formulate a new legal agreement between the older partners and the new with regard to a whole range of questions including availability of technology. In general terms, the object of the government of Canada will be to seek availability to this technology for possible application to future synthetic oil possibilities that might come to the government of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is the intention of the government to seek this availability. Am I to understand that the government of Canada has no assurance as of now that this technology will be available to it as a minority shareholder, or no assurance as to the terms under which such technology would be available to the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have the assurance that we will, of course, succeed in respect of the rights of the predecessor partner in the project, and we will have to examine the situation to see clearly whether we should seek additional rights from the participants.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I gather then that the minister has entered into an agreement without having any clear understanding as to what the position of the government of Canada will be with regard to technology.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, that is not true.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-INFLATIONARY FACTOR IN COST ESTIMATE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Having regard to what one of the minister's colleagues has said, that a $2 billion estimate is the most appropriate one at this time, will the minister tell the House what inflationary factor has been used in the computation of this $2 billion estimate, that is the average inflationary factor per year, and would he also indicate what is the amount of the contingency fund that has been calculated or added in to provide for contingencies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition in his opening sentence is not true. As I said to him, and I repeat again, we have access to the technology under the arrangement Atlantic-Richfield had as a partner to the agreement. Of course, we will want to examine the additional terms that we might like to seek in the course of working out a new agreement in full detail.
As to the detailed financial estimate involved of $2 billion, I do not have it here, and it probably would be inappropriate in the course of questions before orders of the day to go into those calculations. I would be glad to go into them at a more appropriate time.


POSSIBILITY OF SYNCRUDE ARRANGEMENT BEING
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Outside the House on Tuesday, the minister made it very clear that the concessions granted Syncrude would not be available to projects that did not start in 1973. However, in answer to a question on this matter yesterday the Prime Minister said that "if there are other applications we will look at them on their merits." Was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in error on Tuesday and, if so, is the government open to further requests for the kinds of concessions that were granted to Syncrude?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement by the Prime Minister yesterday is, in fact consistent with the position we have agreed to in respect of the Syncrude proposition. As the hon. member well knows, there have been no such proposals put forward at this particular time. The tax laws, of course, have undergone change since that first arrangement in 1973. Therefore, the participants have to take the laws as they find them.


GOVERNMENT VIEW ON NECESSARY PLANT EXPANSION TO DEVELOP OIL SANDS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course that answer generates about five supplementary questions. Yesterday, also in the House, the Prime Minister said that the National Energy Board projections of a new tar sands plant every two years are "merely projections", and there is no government policy announcement on the timing or number of future plants. Has the government any over-all policy on the place the tar sands will have in the goal of achieving self-sufficiency in Canada and, if so, will an announcement be made on the government's view of necessary plant expansion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the initiative in this regard does not rest with the government of Canada alone, it rests also with the owners of the properties in Alberta who are prepared to go ahead and, indeed, on the willingness of the government of Alberta to have them go ahead. The predictions made by the National Energy Board are, of course, with regard to the possible time frame in which they can go into operation. If the hon. gentleman is suggesting that the government of Canada should take over the full operation of the tar sands-


Harvie Andre: I did not say that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. member is suggesting that the entire operations should be run by the government of Canada, I think that is an interesting proposition coming from an Albertan, and I will consider it.


An hon. Member:: You are twisting it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are pretty desperate, Donald.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: That is a total distortion, and it always was.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REASON FOR INABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO FINANCE AS PUBLICLY-OWNED PROJECT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister that bears directly on the answer he has just given. Considering that the most recent estimate of the cost of the Syncrude project is $2 billion, which is what the government has accepted, and keeping in mind that the province of Quebec was able in the past, on its own, to raise some $14 billion for the James Bay project, would the minister explain to the House what considerations led the federal government to reach what on the surface is the preposterous conclusion that the federal government was unable in terms of its own resources to raise $2 billion, in order to make the Syncrude project a totally publicly owned and controlled one?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has a fiscal framework in which it has to operate, and it expects to take only so much out of the gross national product of the country for its own operations. On that basis there is a rather considerable amount for energy projects but no more. The decision was made in the light of the fact that we expect, for example, to be having requests for additional financial assistance from Manitoba for hydroelectric development and as has been referred to in the House, from Newfoundland for hydroelectric development, for nuclear development from the province of New Brunswick, for a project for the building of a connecting line across to Prince Edward Island, and, of course for a substantial development through Petro Canada in the Arctic area and in the Beaufort Sea when that company is incorporated.


John Edward Broadbent: All of which adds up to less than the cost of the James Bay project, but I would like to ask the minister, in view of the conflicting answers given by the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board yesterday, one suggesting to the House that the ceiling of the commitment of the federal government was $300 million in the Syncrude project and the other suggesting that there was no ceiling but a 15 per cent commitment, if the minister would inform the House who was correct, the Prime Minister or the President of the Treasury Board, or would he tell us if either was.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect that question was answered unequivocally.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I point this out to the hon. member only to remind him that I am not able to permit the repetition of a question which was asked earlier in the same session, and that question was asked yesterday and
Oral Questions
answered, as I recall, by the President of the Treasury Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: If there is a challenge of that I may permit it, but I cannot permit a repetition of the same question.


John Edward Broadbent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all respect, Your Honour, to your position, I should like to suggest that we were given two different answers in the House yesterday, one by the Prime Minister and one by the President of the Treasury Board, and in fact a third answer was given before the television cameras outside. It is an issue of profound importance not only to members of this House, but to the people of Canada that we get clarification of the financing of this project, so I suggest with respect, Mr. Speaker, that you permit the question because it demands an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I may have misunderstood the hon. member's question, but I understood it to be regarding whether the participation was 15 per cent, and I understood the President of the Treasury Board answered yes, that that was so. If that is not so, I will permit the question. Would the hon. member repeat the question.


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is: would he explain to the House in clear terms the extent of the federal government's commitment to the Syncrude project? Is there a $300 million ceiling; Is there any ceiling; or is the government committed to paying 15 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is not what you asked to begin with.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for repeating his question, but he has done nothing but satisfy my mind that that is precisely the question he asked of the President of the Treasury Board yesterday afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that over two months have elapsed and I am sure that the Prime Minister has had some input from the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice with respect to correspondence from the province of Ontario regarding the SIU matter, I wonder if the Prime Minister can advise the House now whether the government has made up its mind in regard to holding an inquiry, and if not, why this

February 6, 1975
Oral Questions
unreasonable delay with respect to arriving at a conclusion.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the decision has not been made. The reason for this is that we are making a thorough investigation of the allegations, and there have been officials of the Department of Justice visiting their counterparts in Toronto and examining all the evidence.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think perhaps we might as well find out what is happening in connection with the RCMP probe with regard to the allegations of bribery vis-a-vis federal officials. I wonder if the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General can bring us up to date in this regard. Have there been any interim reports? Is there anything to disclose at this particular time, or just what has been done in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member speaks of allegations of bribery, I have heard none in this House, and in so far as what I know of what the press reported, there were reports of moneys being given for electoral purposes, but I am not aware of any allegations of bribery. Perhaps the hon. member could refresh my mind.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not think that the Prime Minister was really awake for that particular question, and I say that with all due respect. I directed my question to the Solicitor General as a result of the request made by the Minister of Labour. He indicated that the RCMP was investigating alleged briberies of federal officials. I am asking the Solicitor General if he will answer that question which was posed earlier.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I checked with the RCMP last week, and they told me that the investigation is still under way. I will check with them again tomorrow.


HOUSING
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Last Monday, the minister stated in Winnipeg, and I quote:
... the federal government has promised to set up a national guarantee program for home buyers, which will probably be applied by an agency within which the industry will not be the majority.

The industry would have a 49 per cent participation in this agency, and the majority would be headed by representatives of the government and consumers.
The minister added later on that such an agency could be set up almost instantly. Could the minister tell which object his department and the government want to attain with such a program?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have never really believed that anything that is good happens around here instantaneously, but we are certainly prepared to work with the housing industry along with the provinces, the consumers and the lending institutions to arrive at a proper formula for warranty system. We are making very good progress. I had discussions with the industry in Winnipeg and subsequent discussions on it. I am hopeful that very soon we will offer a warranty plan which will be acceptable and will be welcomed by all provinces and all Canadians.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the minister say whether the purpose of this program would be parallel to that of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there is no parallel program. We are not trying to set up parallel powers here in any sense whatsoever. It is a new program to protect home buyers against defects in housing, both major and some not so major, so that they have the assurance that they are getting a good product, as they will under our housing program.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the judgment or order handed down yesterday by the Canadian Transport Commission in connection with freight rates. Under that order the decision is that there be a hold back against the railway companies. I ask the minister whether, if the order is appealed-as apparently it will be having regard to the statement made by the counsel for the Canadian Pacific Railway-the counsel for the minister and the government of Canada will again follow the unprecedented action that it took on January 9 in the federal court in opposing the positions taken, and in direct conflict with those positions and decisions of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba supported by the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and the Atlantic Transportation Commission? Could the minister give the assurance that there will be no monkey business of the kind that took place when the government of Canada stood against the shippers of Canada? Indeed, it was so blatant that Mr. Gordon Blair, a former Liberal member of parliament, said-
February 6, 1975


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


An hon. Member:: This is a speech.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this noise today. Apparently, some of these hon. members believe that if a gaggle of geese saved Rome they are going to save the government by these unseemly interruptions!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give that assurance? Mr. Speaker, I can give information but not intelligence to hon. members such as the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: Especially the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: The fish are biting.


An hon. Member:: How did you know he meant you, Joe?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was not able to discern from the remarks of the right hon. gentleman to which hon. member he was referring.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface, on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is that I want to abide by the rules of this House.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I also recognize that I have to get up because I know that parliamentary secretaries cannot ask questions, and I also know that anyone asking questions should ask them and not make a speech. I object to the brief-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member, of course, does not raise a question of privilege. He does point out, however, that questions ought to be brief. I would appreciate it if the right hon. gentleman would put his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, questions have to be brief, but they have to be understandable to a government that does not want to understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the hon. member for St. Boniface is concerned, I ascribe none of that lack of intellect to him.
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister now, following the protection that has been built around him, if he will advise that this appeal when taken will not find the government of Canada, again through its counsel, supporting the CPR rather than the rights of the consumers of Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: We have heard a statement from a master of misinformation, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Is that Joe Guay?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has taxed the patience of this House to describe, in a totally inaccurate and totally misleading way, a position which the Attorney General has taken. In this case, the position has been to try before the Canadian Transport Commission and before the courts to indicate a particular view of the law which it was seen to be our duty to do.


John George Diefenbaker: What is your duty? To tramp on the rights of the consumers?


Otto Emil Lang: We have so far maintained and followed the kind of line which it seemed to us was important to put before the court and the Canadian Transport Commission, and has resulted in the decision which at this moment has led to the lowering of freight rates to half the level they would otherwise have been increased. While these matters are still before the courts, we ought not to go much further into debate than we have. I think it is important to say to the right hon. gentleman that he is completely wrong in suggesting that we at any time sided with the railways. That is a false statement and he ought to have known it was false.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an answer to the question. I asked the minister if he was going to follow the same course that was wrong and was unjustified of rooking the consumers of Canada. The CPR had their lawyers. Did he not think they were good enough without the assistance of the Department of Justice?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman devises an attack by asking the government whether we are going to do something we have never done and he expects an answer. I think he should have more respect for the House in view of his record in it.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The shipbuilding export assistance program ends March 31 and any sales worked out and

February 6, 1975
Oral Questions
signed by then must be completed by October, 1978 in order to qualify for a 17 per cent export subsidy based on the audited cost price. In view of the fact that unemployment this year is predicted to reach 700,000 Canadians or 7 per cent of the work force, is it the intention of the government to extend the Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program, STAP, in order to provide much needed employment in our major shipyards?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is presently before cabinet, and I would hope to be able to make an announcement with respect to this program in the very near future.


POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATING FREE TRADE PACT WITH UNITED STATES
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the United States Trade Act, 1974, which came into force last January 3 gives the American President the right and power to negotiate a free trade pact with Canada, and as there is great pressure from within the American Congress for such a pact, can the minister say if the government has received any indication from the United States government that it intends to initiate discussions leading to such a pact in the near future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the act provides that power for the United States administration but the priority of both the United States government and the Canadian government is to seek trade liberalization through multilateral trade negotiations.


NATURE OF AGREEMENT WITH SYNCRUDE CONSORTIUM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COPY OF AGREEMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that yesterday we received conflicting answers and in some cases nonanswers, and in view of the importance to the members of the House and the people of Canada knowing exactly the terms and conditions under which the federal government has committed itself in the agreement with the Syncrude consortium, I should like to ask the minister what written agreement there is-I am assuming this is not purely a verbal agreement-dealing with a matter of hundreds of millions of dollars. Was there an exchange of letters of intent or is there a memorandum of agreement? If there is such an agreement, is the minister prepared to table it so that we will know exactly and precisely the terms and conditions under which the government of Canada is entering into it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there was no written document exchanged in this regard. As I said in my statement to the House, this is an agreement in principle which is subject to the negotiation of a detailed partnership or joint venture agreement between the new parties and the existing ones. That, of course, will be a document of some legal technicality and complexity. It will have to be worked out by the representatives of the governments and of the Syncrude partners and it will take quite some time. The existing Syncrude partners will go ahead with the work on the Syncrude project. If, of course, the conditions of the various governments cannot be met, then there would be no obligation. But we are expecting that an effective legal document can be negotiated by the parties, to permit the project to go ahead.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-FORMULA FOR SELLING PRICE OF PRODUCT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. If the agreement is merely contained in the statement of principle which the minister enunciated, let me say this: One of the principles was that the government has agreed to grant to the partners in the Syncrude consortium what the minister calls the internationally oriented price for the production from their plant. I ask the minister if he and the partners in Syncrude have devised any formula as to what is meant by the term "internationally oriented price." Is there a formula? How was it arrived at? The minister is reported to have said outside the House that he meant the Montreal price, plus transportation. Is that the formula? Surely, the minister and the consortium did not reach agreement on such an important matter without a clearly defined idea as to what the term means.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is the Montreal price, plus a charge for transportation and quality differences.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the minister means that there is to be an adjustment for transportation, which means taking the Montreal price, plus the price of transportation to the point in Canada where the oil is sold.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-PROPORTION OF OPERATING COSTS TO BE BORNE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-PARTY TO WHOM FEDERAL SHARE OF OIL SOLD
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister had better clarify that. According to the answer given yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board, I take it that this price is not to be paid to Syncrude, but to the partners of Syncrude, for the oil which they take. If that is correct, does this mean that the Canadian government will take 15 per cent of the oil and that we will pay each year 15 per cent of operating costs?

If this is so, has the minister made any commitment to sell the federal government's share of oil to any of the partners in Syncrude? If so, to which one?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the hon. member's questions in reverse order, no commitment was made, at this point, to sell any part of the production in 1978 or 1979 to any party in Canada. The hon. gentleman will be aware that the law in Alberta requires that that oil shall be sold in the first instance to the Alberta Marketing Commission. With regard to operating costs and available shares of oil for the participants, this question will be decided in the same proportion as the proportion borne by each interested party in the over-all capital cost. In other words, operating costs will be borne in the same proportion as investment in the project and the oil will be available in the same proportion.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who reports to this House for Statistics Canada. My question is prompted by a current news item which appeared in a quarterly agricultural publication, in which it was indicated that Mrs. Sheila McFadyen, a research economist for the Food Prices Review Board, hopes to take a private peek at Statistics Canada confidential reports. I ask the minister if he is aware of Mrs. McFadyen's intentions and whether Mrs. McFadyen has been permitted to have access to and refer to confidential reports. If so, would such access not violate the provisions of the Statistics Act which provide for severe penalties for violations of the act and which are designed to protect the confidentiality of answers submitted.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. I have looked into the subject and there is no truth to the allegations with respect to breach of confidentiality, having a peek, and so on. Indeed, I am not even sure if she has had any contact with the department. I emphasize again to the hon. member, and other members, that Statistics Canada operates under the Statistics Act which protects the confidentiality of information provided by individuals and only provides information in aggregate or summary form.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whose main responsibility, I understand, is to reduce regional disparity in this country. The
Oral Questions
urgency of my question is based on recent statistics brought to my attention which show that unemployment in the Chicoutimi-Lac St. Jean area is running at 20 per cent and over, whereas in your own riding, Mr. Speaker, in the Sudbury area, it is under 3 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: My question to the minister is this: As, since the beginning of the DREE program under which billions of dollars have been spent, regional disparities in this country have greatly increased, what major policy decisions and changes is the minister prepared to implement in his department?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to answer him in detail at this moment. We have made a couple of changes in answer to representations from the hon. member who thought sufficiently of the effectiveness of regional development initiatives to have the whole of his riding included. I agreed to do it, and I would do the same thing to other parts of the country as well, if necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


SEKINE BICYCLE PLANT, RIVERS, MANITOBA-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO OFFSET EFFECT OF BUDGET PROVISIONS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, now that I have the undivided attention of the House-


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt seeks the floor on a point of order. I will see him as soon as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has asked his question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises from the lay-offs at the Sekine bicycle plant, which is part of the Oo-za-we-kwun project at the former Rivers air base in Manitoba. In view of the substantial investment of the Department of Indian Affairs in this program, which is part of its native workers employment scheme, and in view of the investment by DREE of $350,000 for a bicycle frame plant, what action has the government taken to offset the drastic effects its budget will have on the economic viability of this project.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, so far as the budget reference is concerned, I think the question could more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Finance. I am advised, however, that the changes with regard to tariffs were not of a significant nature with respect to this company. I have been in communication with them. If, however, it is shown that there will be some very serious detrimental effects, it may be possible to implement other measures. At the moment I am not aware, despite the

February 6, 1975
Oral Questions
representations of the company, that the change in the tariff has made that much difference. In any event, the company was established when the tariff was at the higher of the two rates and they understood at the time what they were getting into.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the bicycle market in Canada and North America is booming and as the inability of the Sekine bicycle plant to compete in this market arises from the budget changes, will the minister take the responsibility of consulting with other ministers and departments involved so that the right hand of government may know what the left hand is doing in this respect.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether, indeed, the premise of the hon. member's question is correct. I am not satisfied that that is the effect at the moment, but I am prepared and have been for some time to meet with the Sekine people. I shall be in Manitoba this week-end, and if a meeting can be arranged so that I can find out what their difficulties are, I will be glad to do it. I have consulted with the Minister of Finance on a number of occasions on this matter.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the remarks of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi. The hon. member knows full well that he only made about a three hour visit to the Sudbury basin approximately a week ago. He has now misinformed the House, stating that the unemployment rate in the Sudbury area is 3 per cent or less. As everyone in the north knows, the rates of unemployment in the northern Ontario constituencies, whether they be Liberal or not, and they are mostly Liberal, is much higher than 3 per cent. They are between 6 and 20 per cent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the province of British Columbia is trying very hard to increase trade with Latin America, and in view of the fact that CP Air is the Canadian airline flying into most Latin American centres of commerce, can the minister advise this House whether he gave his permission for the Latin American section of CIDA to be declared unilingual French.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, that subject has not been referred to me for consideration or decision. I will look into the matter. If I find any information worth giving, I will make it available to the hon. member.


INDUSTRY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since a great many workers of the textile industry came to the capital yesterday to ask the minister and the government to adopt special protection measures for their jobs, could I ask the minister what was the answer to the union leaders on the matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there was a very substantial discussion with the union leaders and textile workers. We, that is my parliamentary secretary, members of my department and the President of the Treasury Board, reviewed the current situation both in domestic and international terms. I indicated that the Textile and Clothing Board will be making a report to me very shortly and, as soon as that is received, we will act upon it promptly.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries.
I want to ask him whether he intends to recommend to his colleagues of the cabinet, and in particular to the President of the Treasury Board, the extension of the policy previously implemented on the west coast, which gave subsidies for catching dogfish whose meat contains many proteins and vitamins. This extension would enable west coast fishermen to continue their trade during the dead season and its cost would not be over $50,000 a year, I understand.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under study. However, I hope we will be able to come to the conclusion that the program will be more successful than in the past. This is what we are trying to determine.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Since such a grant would allow fishermen to reduce the dogfish population, those voracious and well known predators, and that it would facilitate greater reproduction of herring and salmon, is the minister aware that such a grant would not only help fishermen but would also favour herring and salmon stock growth and, if so, is he prepared to give that measure the priority it deserves?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, while I admit the validity of the premises of the hon. member's question, I must say that is a matter of judgment, that is

February 6, 1975

whether the funding of such a program must have priority over others and that is what we are now considering.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I have given him notice. It concerns the Canadian cheese industry's trade with the European common market. In light of the minister's recent speeches pointing out that Canadian cheese exported to the EEC faces import duties of about 65 cents a pound whereas on European cheese coming into Canada there is only a one cent to three and a half cents per pound tariff, what action is the minister taking to minimize this gross inequity? Specifically, can he advise the House what recommendations he has made to his cabinet colleagues and what reply, if any, he has received?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission will be returning from Europe tomorrow. I hope to have a report from him on this very subject. I should be able to report to my cabinet colleagues on the information he has obtained. Our people in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have also been very active in negotiations with the community.


William Herbert Jarvis: In light of the fact that Canadian cheese manufacturers, because of milk supplies and allocations, have been forced into the production of specialty cheese in addition to Cheddar, and in light of the fact that Canadian sales volumes of these products in the past 30 to 60 days have dropped between 25 and 30 per cent because of their inability to compete with European imports, does the minister plan specific action in this regard and when might that action be expected?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact I am aware of all of these facts-


George Harris Hees: Aren't you lucky you have us?


Eugene Whelan: You want to believe that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We are aware of the problems the cheese manufacturers are having with specialty cheeses. This is being reviewed. I am sure the hon. member knows I met with some of the manufacturers from his constituency when in the city of London approximately two weeks ago. I discussed this personally with them. We are aware that Canada is one of the greatest free trading countries of the world. The tariff is only three cents a pound coming into Canada whereas it is 65 cents a pound going into the European community. This should be reviewed. We cannot be the good guys all the time.
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance how he is getting along with his phantom operations and mysterious policy for fighting inflation. Has the minister had a further meeting with representatives of organized labour? Has he had meetings with representatives of any of the other elements in our economy?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are indeed meeting with various segments of the economy. As a matter of fact, this afternoon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and I will be meeting with some representatives of the business community.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister now able to tell us the name of this policy and can he tell the House very succinctly what he is trying to achieve with these conferences, or is that still as unknown to him as it is to us?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have taken steps to bring the hon. member into my confidence. I have nothing further to report to him at this stage.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-NUMBER OF CONTRACTS AVAILABLE TO CANADIAN FIRMS AND NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What percentage of the total engineering, manufacturing and construction contracts in the Syncrude project will go to Canadian firms? Also, is the minister prepared to table detailed figures on job creation in the project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have for the hon. member today an indication of the availability of either engineering or manufacturing work for Canadian firms. I will be glad to seek that for him. With regard to job creation, the estimate is that there are about 5,000 jobs on site in connection with the construction of the process. That does not include additional jobs, for example, on the townsite or other jobs related to the Fort McMurray area. It is estimated there will be about 1,600 permanent jobs available once the plant is in full operation. Of course, the job estimate does not include manufacturing job opportunities elsewhere in Canada.

Oral Questions


NATIONAL ANTHEMS
Leonard C. Jones: My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that recordings of the national anthems God Save the Queen and O Canada are not readily available at most distribution or retail facilities across the country, would the hon. gentleman arrange to have the musicians and bands left in the Canadian Armed Forces make recordings of these anthems and have them placed on the market throughout the country?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be pleased to consider that
representation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with respect to something which has taken place today. I shall state my point as clearly, as carefully and as respectfully as I can and at the end of it, my request will be that Your Honour review certain of today's proceedings as soon as Hansard for today is available to you.
Your Honour frequently reminds us of certain rules regarding the question period. One, for example, is that the Chair cannot compel a minister to answer a question. Another is that the Chair cannot be concerned about the quality of an answer. These are rules which Your Honour recites fairly often when a questioner complains that an answer is incomplete, or insufficient or evasive. I submit to Your Honour that if it is not for the Chair to accept complaints about the quality of an answer we are entitled to assume that there should not be an expression from the Chair concerning the quality of an answer which in effect comments in its favour.
Today the leader of this party, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, asked a question which was based on several questions asked yesterday. One of them, addressed to the Prime Minister, asked whether the $300 million- and we all know what we are talking about-was itself a ceiling or whether the ceiling was 15 per cent. The Prime Minister's reply was:
The figure of $300 million was arrived at during the session conducted between the ministers I named, the Alberta officials, the Ontario premier and the private companies ...
Later in the same answer he said:
It was an arrangement put together by all parties each seeking, of course, the interest of the people they had a particular mandate to represent.
My hon. friend thought there was uncertainty about that answer and he therefore put a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board-was the agreement for $300 million or was it for 15 per cent. He put it this way:
If the cost goes down, does it mean we pay less, and if the costs go up does it mean we will pay more?
The answer given by the President of the Treasury Board was: "Yes, Mr. Speaker." There followed, as recorded in Hansard, several exchanges which make it clear that

the House was aware of a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion about the matter between the Prime Minister and the President of Treasury Board.
Today, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby did not ask the same question he asked yesterday. Rather if I may paraphrase what he said he asked: In the light of the uncertainty of yesterday, can we be told which of these answers is correct? Your Honour would not allow him to proceed with the question. If I recall correctly, you said that an unequivocal answer had been given yesterday.
I hope I have demonstrated that the answer given yesterday was not unequivocal. It was equivocal; there were two different answers given inside the House and a third answer outside the House. I submit it was unfair-I know what I am saying, and I am saying it as carefully and respectfully as I can-to cut the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby off, particularly since Your Honour has said so often that the quality of an answer is not the concern of the Chair. That is the question of privilege I wish to bring forward and I make it very seriously. I repeat what I said at the start I would do: I ask Your Honour, once today's Hansard is available, to review this whole incident.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the concern of the House leader for the New Democratic Party. I would remind him, though, of the circumstances to which he himself has alluded. Just preceding the phrase of mine which he read from yesterday's Hansard, these other words of mine appear:
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the question but I will attempt to deal with it.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that those words of mine mean what they say. Perhaps I was distracted for some reason, but I had not seen that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby was trying to make a distinction between the 15 per cent of the $300 million figure. It is true that in my answer I gave the $300 million, a figure which had been used by my colleagues and myself. This is, in fact, 15 per cent of $2 billion. I was perfectly justified in using that figure as, indeed, was Premier Lougheed, Premier Davis, and certainly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Whether the figure $300 million stood by itself, or stood as 15 per cent of $2 billion, was a question to which I was not addressing myself. And my answer makes that perfectly clear.
Then, the hon. member put the question more precisely to the President of Treasury Board, got the answer from him, and I agree with Mr. Speaker that the answer was unequivocal. The House leader of the New Democratic Party then alluded to certain goings on-I presume he meant that Hansard records that someone said I was shaking my head one way or another. The House is certainly aware that after my answer, and that of the President of Treasury Board, we talked together; we explained the matter. The matter remained in the unequivocal way in which the President of Treasury Board put it. That was the answer which was given and there was no contradiction such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 6, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members wish to pursue this matter further, and can persuade me that this is not an appeal from the decision I made with respect to the question asked by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I shall be happy to hear further contributions. But no matter how respectfully it is discussed, the fact remains that I did make a decision with respect to that question. I am sure it is subject to several interpretations.


An hon. Member:: It certainly is.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To repeat my ruling of yesterday, the answer given by the President of the Treasury Board seemed to me to leave no room for doubt that the contribution of the government was to be based on a percentage, even to the extent of saying that if the cost went up the government's contribution would go up, and that if the cost went down the government's contribution would come down. This may be an answer which hon. members would wish to debate at some time in the future. But to permit that question to be repeated today would, it seems to me, go directly in the face of guidelines which have been well established in connection with the question period. If hon. members wish to make contributions toward changing those guidelines, I shall be glad to receive them at any time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I, too, rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-I assume you have dealt with the last one. In my capacity as Leader of the Opposition I should like to make two points, one with respect to answers from ministers. I accept the fact that ministers are not obliged to answer questions but I submit, with all respect that it is not proper for a minister to give an answer-and I regret the hon. gentleman is not in his place today-such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave in response to my hon. friend from Calgary. He was not compelled to answer the question, but I do not think it contributes to the business of House for him to twist the question out of all proportion-and I say that in all sincerity.
Secondly, some interest was expressed in maintaining the position of the opposition in this House. With all respect, it seems to me that on at least two occasions recently, perhaps three, motions under Standing Order 43 have been used in a manner in which it was never intended they should be used to disrupt the proceedings of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The reason I rise is that I am concerned that this use of these motions could bring the operations of the opposition collectively in this House into disrepute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for New Westminster rising on the same point of privilege?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think a brief response on this particular subject is merited. I am well aware of the provisions of Standing Order 12(1) under which we do
Oral Questions
not enter into debate on the subject. But the point has been made in the House that this party has been abusing the rules in so far as Standing Order 43 is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I should like to refer Your Honour to paragraph 194(1) of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:
A motion or amendment cannot be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has already been decided, because a proposition being once submitted and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.
When one looks at the terms of Standing Order 43 and then at the motions that today and yesterday were not approved, a very clear inconsistency arises, and I think it is the right of all hon. members of the House to know where they stand regarding use of this particular standing order.
Let me give the House an example of what I mean, Mr. Speaker. If the Fraser River in my riding floods and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West asks the House under Standing Order 43 to approve a motion because the city of Mission is half flooded, and the motion is denied, does this mean that I cannot stand in the House, if the lower mainland is under water, and put another motion under Standing Order 43? The subject matter is the same, but the substance of the motion is significant and very, very different. One aspect of that subject may not be important, but another aspect may be very, very important to the people of this country.
I submit to Your Honour that the aspect of Standing Order 43 that is confusing some hon. members of the House, and I must say is very confusing to me, is whether it is the subject matter or the substance of the motion that is the deciding factor. I submit with the greatest respect that consideration be given to the fact that under Standing Order 43 it is the substance of the motion, not the subject matter, upon which Your Honour must decide whether the particular motion should be approved.
In the same way, Mr. Speaker, if the CANDU reactor at Pickering were to leak, this may be the subject matter of a motion. If the same CANDU reactor lost its storage facilities and the people of the city of Toronto were dying, the subject matter-the CANDU reactor-would be the same but the substance would be quite different. I would ask Your Honour please to carefully review Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member will well appreciate, some difficulties have risen in regard to Standing Order 43. I have attempted to take a very hard line on Standing Order 43 from the very start, and to interpose myself between the mover and the House in order to make a determination whether or not a motion does qualify as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As a result of certain difficulties which arose, I called together the House leaders to discuss the matter in an effort to reach some understanding as to how the rule ought to be treated, and we had some extensive discussions. Very shortly after these discussions, it seems to me we were again facing the same problem.
2970

February 6, 1975
Business of the House
The fact of the matter is that if substantial changes are to be made regarding the interpretation or use of Standing Order 43, then these changes will have to be made by members of the House, not by the Chair. I do not see this to be at any time the function of the Chair. I do not see it as my role in the Chair at any time to endeavour to propose changes. I have tried to explain my interpretation of every rule along the way but, after all, the House operates for the benefit of the members, not for the benefit of the Chair. Experiences like the ones we have had recently break down the operations of the House to the detriment of members just as much, I am sure, as to the detriment of the Chair.
Perhaps what I have just said can be considered a serious allegation, but nevertheless it is one that hon. members should consider carefully. There are obvious problems with Standing Order 43, and I simply reiterate that I would welcome suggestions from hon. members and also careful consideration of the rule by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. Certainly, I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed to the effect that if the rule continues to be misused, as obviously it has judging from the recent number of motions in the House, something must be done to correct the situation. Otherwise, it will again be for the Chair to do so if the practice continues.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, might I ask the government House leader what is the business for tomorrow and next week? In view of the discussion that has just taken place, I would also ask whether he has any plans regarding reference of the rules of procedure of the House to the Standing Committee.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the last question first, the House leaders of the respective parties have been looking at the terms of reference that might be submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and I hope that within the next few days we can reach agreement and put the matter of the order paper.
As for the business, today we will proceed with Bill C-49, the amendments to the Income Tax Act. Tonight, of course, we will revert to the special procedure to enable my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to make his statement. Tomorrow being Friday, we have decided to abandon temporarily the income tax bill-


John Napier Turner: No; "relinquish".


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sorry, relinquish temporarily the income tax bill since it is our hope that the House will be in committee of the whole shortly on the bill and Friday is not a very good day to press votes. Therefore, tomorrow we will call Bill C-33 which deals with the export and import of cultural property. I have also circulated a list of bills of the housekeeping variety that we might have an opportunity to deal with later tomorrow if Bill C-33 is

disposed of before the end of the consideration of government orders. On Monday we will revert to my colleague's bill, which we are relinquishing only tomorrow, until it is completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether he has had discussions with the Minister of Veterans Affairs regarding the reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of the Hermann report? Can he say whether the reference might be made soon? I know the minister likes debates that are short or instantaneous and I believe he would find ready agreement in the House to refer the Hermann report to the standing committee without debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs has received a letter from the secretary-treasurer of the National Council of Veterans Organizations on this subject. Mr. Chadderton has suggested to my colleague that the earliest date upon which they might expect to have submissions ready for the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would be the week of March 17. I think it is my colleague's wish that before then we should refer the report, but not very far in advance of that time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning procedures in the House today, in particular the procedures followed by yourself in recognizing certain members for the purpose of asking questions and relating to that your decisions in permitting the exercise of the right to ask supplementary questions. I recognize at the outset that there is no automatic right of any member to ask supplementary questions to add to the first question he asks, but it is a long established practice in the House that members be permitted, at least during the major part of the question period, to ask at least one supplementary question. That is my first point, and I will come back to it.
My second point is that since this parliament has been convened, Your Honour has decided to recognize questioners in rough proportion to the number of members which the parties have in this House. All parties, mine included, have accepted the fairness of that procedure. The point I should like to make to Your Honour-I do so both with great respect and great seriousness-is that you might consider your own decisions in the past week to see if they have been made with the usual standard of equity, in terms of recognition of questioners and, in particular, that you consider the ruling you made, not only pursuant to the questions I asked today-this has already been referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-but also in respect of our third questioner in the House today, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) who was permitted one question only and no supplementary. I would ask you to consider that decision in relation to the number of supplementary questions you permitted members of other parties today. I simply ask you to consider it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 6, 1975

Income Tax



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

['I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.']
John Edward Broadbent: As a final note to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I refer to the point raised by the Leader of the Official Opposition, the implication being that certain parties-specifically ours-are abusing Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say with complete sincerity that if the record is checked for all parties in this House since this parliament was convened, it will be found that we have attempted to move motions in proportion to the number of members we have-I would suggest, no more and no fewer than the other parties. If, marginally, the number is found to be more or less, that is not the point in terms of numbers.


An hon. Member:: What about today?


John Edward Broadbent: I would suggest that in terms of quality, the point has already been dealt with by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt); and even if there have been more, if they have been put within the rules that is entirely legitimate. My party has a long and, I would suggest, noble tradition in this House of obeying, not abusing, the rules. We have every intention of continuing in that tradition in the future.
I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Official Opposition that we also recognize our obligation as an opposition party in this House to oppose in the firmest and clearest way legislation or policy decisions of this government that we think are wrong, and we have every intention of using every rule that is available to us in this democratic House to do so. We plan to do that in the future even if other parties decide not to do it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is a very small point to which I would reply not because it makes any difference to me but because it relates to the office I hold. I do not want to quibble, but the person who occupies this chair does so as the Leader of the Opposition, not the Leader of the Official Opposition. I spoke this afternoon as the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with my responsibility in connection with the opposition as a whole.


Mr. Speaker:: In responding to the point raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), let me say, as the architect rulings in respect of the handling of the question period, that the way our proceedings are conducted every day is on record in such a way that it cannot be missed: it is in Hansard for the checking. I might tell the hon. member that since the first day I assumed this office-and I described my feelings at that time-I have considered it to be one of the most important responsibilities a person could assume in our country.
In trying to avoid what the hon. member has suggested, I have followed the question period carefully and kept careful note to ensure that I stay as close as humanly possible in distributing on a proportionate basis the number of questions among the number of representatives of each of the opposition parties who have been actually present in the House during the question period. If a check in that regard, by the hon. member or anybody else, reveals that I have been disproportionate or unfair in any way, I would be pleased to hear about it.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-49, to amend the statute law relating to income tax, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (p. 2914).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday I indicated I would give consideration to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in respect of which very valuable contributions were made during the discussion as to its procedural acceptability by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in support of the motion, and by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), in opposition to it. In spite of invitations by hon. members to go into an extensive review of the procedural acceptability of second reading amendments, I prefer to stay on this particular topic only at this time.
I think the background of the matter is clearly established in the 1971 ruling of my predecessor which was referred to in the discussion yesterday. It seems to me to establish beyond any question that the practice which has long been prevalent in the United Kingdom, of permitting the attachment to a second reading amendment of a declaration of principle, was accepted in that ruling and remains a subject of future change as part of our practice. The question is, what type of declaration in that situation is acceptable? To put it another way, what are the limits of that declaration? The very statements and the precedents demand in the very clearest terms that it be a declaration of principle, not simply a description of some opposition to the bill.
I have examined carefully the hon. member's proposed amendment in that regard and I read it and interpret it to be a statement of opposition or a description of opposition to certain of the provisions of the bill. I do not interpret it as being a statement of some principle. In any case, I would go on to say that if it does state a principle, which I am unable to appreciate, as opposed to simply stating some opposition to the bill, it would seem to me that the precedents are equally clear that the statement of principle cannot simply oppose portions of the bill, but must oppose either the principles or the provisions-both in the plural-of the bill and not some of the provisions of the bill.
Whether or not this is a statement of principle, it is abundantly clear that the hon. member's amendment opposes only some of the provisions of the bill. I think that is beyond dispute. Just to make that abundantly clear, the hon. member's amendment specifically recites not only in the second part those portions of the bill to which it is opposed but in the first part those portions of the bill which are acceptable. That makes it clear beyond any question that aside from the difficulty in respect of doing that very thing, the amendment is not opposed to all the provisions of the bill.
28626-S3'/2

February 6, 1975
Income Tax
I submit that in this situation the precedents are that if such a declaration of principle is acceptable, it must be opposed to the principles or provisions of the bill; and I cannot find any authority which permits it to be opposed only to some of the provisions of the bill as the hon. member's amendment is. Therefore, I cannot find any authority to extend and I think it would be an unwarranted extension of a declaration of principle to a second reading amendment to allow a declaration, in this case, which purports to approve some provisions of the bill and therefore disapprove of only some of its provisions. In other words, I think that a strict condition of such a declaration of principle is that it must be opposed to the provisions, plural, of the bill and the principles of the bill, and not some of them. For that reason, I cannot accept the hon. member's amendment as being in order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That's terrible. All right; I'll have something to say on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, yesterday at five o'clock I had the floor when the debate was adjourned and indicated that I wanted to speak today. I will be followed by other colleagues from my own party. In November of last year our party had many severe criticisms of the budget. I think those criticisms have all been borne out to the point where now the criticisms we have are even more serious than those of November. For example, the world economic condition has worsened and unemployment has increased around the world. In this country the cost of living has increased, housing starts have decreased and in general we are facing a more severe economic crisis than we were last November.
Just yesterday in the New York Times I read some statistics from the U.S. treasury which predicted that the unemployment rate for the U.S. in 1975 will be 8.1 per cent, and in 1976 it will be 7.9 per cent. I think on that basis it is very important that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) come forth with some new ideas. If he does not do that now, I predict we will have a mini-budget in April, May or June in order for him to provide more stimulus to the economy and create more jobs.
Then we had the announcement in the House of the new deal with Syncrude. I think this is very relevant to the bill we are discussing today regarding corporate taxation and the relationship between the federal government and the huge corporations of this country. We have in the Syncrude arrangement about $1 billion in public funds from this government, the government of Ontario and the government of Alberta going to rescue the private consortium of Exxon, Cities Service and Gulf Oil in developing the tar sands of northern Alberta. Despite this huge amount of public money, we find that we do not have any control over the development of the tar sands. We have no guarantee of a profit from our investment in the tar sands and we have no idea what arrangements have been made between the federal government and the syndicate.

It strikes me as very strange that our governments should invest about $1 billion in a project over which we have no control and we shall not receive any profit out of the arrangements which have been made. I suggest that the House ought to protest this situation and demand to know what arrangements have been made. I think the time has come, if we are going to spend that much money to rescue a consortium of private corporations, to take control of the project. I see no reason why the oil industry, in this country, and particularly the tar sands should not be developed under wholly public ownership. I have an answer for the consortium-for Syncrude and the private corporations-which is very simple: Get out of this country; we don't need you. We will give a one-way air ticket to Exxon to New York, to Cities Service to Oklahoma, and to Gulf Oil to Oklahoma. We certainly should not be subsidizing private corporations with such a huge amount of money.
I have friends in the Conservative Party who ask how we can achieve public ownership if we do not have enough money to do so. The government of Quebec, through Hydro-Quebec, is developing the James Bay project. I am not arguing the merits of that matter, but Quebec is going to raise $14 billion or $15 billion for that project to be operated under public ownership. Years ago the government of Ontario developed hydroelectricity in Ontario under public ownership and there is no reason why the gas the oil resources of this country should not be treated as a public utility, for public use, under public ownership and control. We have the funds in this country and we have the technology. I suggest we use them.
If one looks around the world, almost every country has control over or total ownership of gas and oil. Britain has 51 per cent ownership in all future projects. Japan, France, most of the western European countries and even the small states, the OPEC nations, have moved to control or assume ownership of their gas and oil. It strikes me as very strange that our country should be among the last in the world to have public ownership of gas and oil, and I think it is about time we moved in that direction. As the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) said, we have to start in Saskatchewan. I commend the Saskatchewan government for establishing Sask Oil. If the federal government would co-operate with them toward public ownership of gas and oil, Sask Oil could move much faster than is possible at the present time. Sask Oil's budget would be increased at a very rapid rate.
Let us consider Syncrude in Canada. We find that there are three governments as well as three corporations involved, and that Syncrude has been guaranteed what is called an internationally-oriented price. The minister in the House today said that this means the price would be based on cost at Montreal plus the cost of transportation to the area of destination, relative to the quality of the oil. What does that mean? Venezuelan oil was quoted yesterday at $13.61 per barrel. That is more than double the price we are now paying for oil in this country. Is that going to be the internationally-oriented price, plus transportation costs and any other costs which enter into the price? If so, what kind of deal is that for the people of Canada?
I see my Quebec friends across the way and I wonder what the Parti Quebecois is saying to the people of
February 6, 1975

Quebec. Is it saying that they can get oil from western Canada at cheaper rates than from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi or any other country in the Middle East? I wonder what policy this government has for the future if we are to pay that price for the oil that is to come from the tar sands. I wonder, too, why we have to guarantee Syncrude the international price.
A few years ago the Great Canadian Oil Sands company decided to operate a plant in the tar sands. They built the plant and they are operating it. They are getting $6.50 for the oil, and they are not going broke. So why do we have to guarantee Syncrude the internationally-oriented price? What will that price be in 1978, 1980 or 1984? These are questions which we have to ask in this House and it is a good time to do so when we are dealing with corporate and personal income taxes. The consortium is being offered great tax concessions by this government as well as by the government of Alberta. I would like to know the total of these tax exemptions, because the people of this country will have to pay for them. Syncrude is also being offered an exemption in respect of prorationing. This means that if we have to cut back in the production of oil, the Syncrude plant in Alberta will not have to cut back; they will be able to sell their oil to Canadian consumers at the internationally-oriented price and gouge the people of this country. Second, it means that they will be able to sell oil to the United States and not have to cut back. It seems to me this does not fit in with Canadian policies or any kind of rational development plan which we should be considering.
These are the questions we have to ask about Syncrude. We also have to ask what we, as Canadians, will be getting in return. When Syncrude was first established it was not intended to make a profit; it was a consortium of four private corporations set up to build a plant to extract the oil, and there were to be no dividends. The four corporations were to be paid in oil, in kind, according to the equity which they had in that plant and each of them was to be billed on a monthly or weekly basis for the expense of operating the plant.
The Canadian government has a 15 per cent share and the two provincial governments have 15 per cent between them. What kind of dividends will they get for this public investment in the plant? We want to know the answers to questions of this kind. Will we be paid in oil? If we are paid in oil, what will we do with our oil? Will we sell it to one of the existing partners in Syncrude or one of the corporations directly, or will PetroCan or the oil corporation which will be formulated get into the refining business and dispose of our oil? These are questions we want answered in this debate before we ratify or rubber-stamp any deal which the federal government has made.
My final question is, why do we have only a 15 per cent equity in Syncrude? Why is the public's share only 15 per cent, when people right across the country are calling for public ownership, or at least public control, of gas and oil?


Mr. Bawden:: Alberta gets half of it; half the profits.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It might get half the profits from Syncrude, but Syncrude is set up not to have any profit but to
Income Tax
sell the oil to its individual partners who will then make the profit-Exxon, Gulf Oil, Cities Service and anybody else who gets into the arrangement. That is great free enterprise! That is why sometimes I have to admire the free enterprise system: it can manipulate the government of this country and make a profit, but if the government steps in and invests on behalf of the people, that is evil. I find that difficult to understand.
An editorial in the Toronto Star of January 21 said, "Let's take control of our oil resources". I think that indicates the opinion of the majority of Canadians and I believe the politicians of this country are running far behind public opinion. In the last few days I have spoken to many people who have voted Liberal or Conservative all their lives and now cannot understand why the government will spend millions of dollars rescuing private corporations and then have no control over them. That is bad capitalism, Mr. Speaker, and people cannot understand it. I have spoken to Conservatives in the hallways here who say they do not agree with public investment in the oil sands, but if there is going to be some it should be enough to give control to the government. If I were on the other side of the argument I would say that makes good business sense. The editorial reads in part:
Syncrude, a company formed of Imperial Oil Ltd., Gulf Oil Canada Ltd., Cities Service Ltd., and the now-defected Atlantic Richfield Co., first of all extracted from the Alberta government an agreement made under which it would share half of its profits or pay a royalty of 7!d per cent, the lowest royalty rate in the world.
Then it got a concession from Ottawa that it would not be subject to the tax rules applied to other petroleum firms.
Now, in addition to demanding a government rescue operation, and imposing a deadline that was to have run out today, Syncrude wants an assurance from the government that it will be able to charge the world price for its oil when production starts. Yesterday energy minister Donald Macdonald promised an "internationally related" price for Syncrude oil, as well as a pledge of between $200 million and $500 million of federal government money.
It's time to call a halt to this brazen nonsense and establish who's in control.
The editorial continues;
Ottawa has been extremely timid about getting significantly involved in the oil business. It has very modest plans for its proposed national petroleum company. But if the federal government is going to bail out Syncrude, it should get control in return.
For encouragement, Ottawa might look to the province of Ontario for a successful precedent. Nearly 70 years ago, the provincial government decided that production of electricity was too vital to the economy and the well-being of the people to be left in the hands of private companies. The outcome of that decision, Ontario Hydro, is one of the finest examples of a public owned utility anywhere.
When the Toronto Star publishes an editorial like that I think it is time for the politicians to start thinking about public ownership of the tar sands and of oil and gas in this country. What are the stakes in the tar sands? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), Oil Week and other authorities say some 300 billion barrels are recoverable with present technology. Of that, some 50 billion barrels are readily recoverable at the present time and there are probably 330 billion more barrels further down that can be recovered as technology advances. If you add these figures together, you have a potential of 630 billion barrels of oil from the tar sands. If you were to get only $10 per barrel, that would be well over $6 trillion for

February 6, 1975
Income Tax
the Canadian people-over $250,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
We are dealing with enormous amounts here and with enormous potential profits, considering the price of oil in the last few years. In 1973, Alberta and Syncrude reached an agreement regarding the development of the tar sands. Their forecast at that time was based on projections made by Foster Economic Consultants of Calgary. In 1971, oil was $4 per barrel. These economists from Alberta predicted that in 1984 it would cost $6.45 per barrel; in 1994, $10.50 per barrel; and in 1999, $13.50 per barrel. Well, we had the 1984 price in 1974, and this year we will have the 1999 price-so what is the price going to be in 1980 or 1990?
As the minister said, the deal with Syncrude is not just for the one plant, but sets the precedent for the future. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) suggested that the other companies will be coming here on bended knee asking for the same tax concessions, and he referred specifically to Great Canadian Oil Sands, now operating in the tar sands. In 1963 that corporation began with $124 million to build a plant to extract oil from the tar sands. When completed, the project cost $300 million, but it extracts 65,000 barrels of oil per day, and at $6.50 per barrel makes a profit.
Let us look at the record of Syncrude. It has the expertise, the economists and technicians from the private world-the boys from Exxon who have all the answers on gas and oil. Let us look at their projections. I know that our brilliant economist, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), will be fascinated by some of them. In 1963 Syncrude started off at an estimated cost of $356 million and with a projected capacity of 100,000 barrels of oil per day. These figures were revised in August, 1971, to an estimated $360 million to $430 million, not including pipeline or utilities, with a capacity of 125,000 barrels a day. In December, 1971, the cost projection was again revised, to $500 million. By March, 1973, the cost was estimated at $744 million. Some free enterprise efficiency! That shows how we can trust the economists and technicians of Syncrude who are now advising the federal government. In September, 1973, the Premier of Alberta announced that he had signed a deal with Syncrude. The project was to cost about $1 billion, with $800 million going for the plant and the rest for power plant and utilities. In June, 1974- just a few months ago-we heard that the plant was to cost $846 million.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nipissing is rising on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Chair could indicate whether the bill before us is Bill C-49 and, if so, I would like to know what the speech of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has to do with it. I do not wish to disturb him while he is talking, but I would like to see the relation, and I cannot. Obviously, if we linger on things that have no direct relation to the bill, we shall stay here for unnecessarily long periods.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rising. Does he wish to speak on the point of order?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the hon. member has raised this point of order, as the bill before us deals with corporate and individual taxation, royalties and the non-deductibility of royalties for tax purposes. The announcement made two days ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was one of the most important we have heard for many years. If discussion of that topic is not relevant, I do not know what is. Other members have spoken about Syncrude in the last day or two and I believe that my rights are the same as theirs.
[Translation]	'


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I agree absolutely-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the opportunity to make his point. I think the answer the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has given him is quite valid. I am sure the hon. member would not want the Chair to prevent one of his colleagues from discussing points that may not have a specific relation to the bill, but which have a general bearing on the oil problem.

I feel that although the hon. member's remarks were not directly related to some of the clauses of the bill, they were directly related to the effects of taxation.


Mr. Dupras:: On the same point of the order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Labelle on a point of order.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that tonight-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wants to rise on a new point of order, he may do so because the previous one has already been settled. So, the hon. member for Labelle on a new point of order.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, on a new point of order, I would say to the hon. member that tonight's sitting has been set aside to discuss tar sands oil. Perhaps he could save his remarks for tonight at eight o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not to be the subject tonight.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite come to us, we will tell them what this question is all about. I was going to say that private organizations, oil men and friends of the hon. member for Calgary South projected in June, 1974, that Syncrude would cost $846 million. This figure was based on estimates made by
February 6, 1975

experts in whom the government and the opposition have so much confidence. In December, 1974, six months later, the cost had risen to $2 billion. That increase represents an inflation rate, in six months, of 170 per cent or a seasonally adjusted rate-we are so fond of talking about seasonally adjusted rates-of 340 per cent. That is not a bad inflation rate for free enterprise, for Exxon and all the other big boys.
Last weekend I was in Alberta speaking to the president of the Federation of Labour. He, on behalf of his association, had presented a brief to Premier Lougheed of Alberta. He spoke about the incredible jump in the cost, from $846 million to $2 billion, which had taken place in six months. He told me that Premier Lougheed looked at him and said, "That was the price in December. Now it might be $2.2 billion or $2.3 billion." Where will it end?
The Government of Canada has committed $300 million or more of public funds on the basis of an estimated $2 billion cost. The cost of the project has gone up by several hundred per cent in the last two years. The government's commitment is open-ended. According to the minister and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), the government is committed to 15 per cent. By 1978 the cost of the project could rise to over $4 billion. How much public money will be paid into it? What will farmers and workers from my area, from Toronto or from Sault Ste. Marie and other parts of this country be paying for that oil? It might cost even more than the crude they are buying from Venezuela and the Middle East. What dividends will accrue to the Canadian people? The government does not have a controlling vote on the board; it has a minority interest in the venture. Our government is committed to the corporate system in this country, but how much has it secured for the Canadian people?
The government does not have available studies of its own. Ministers say, "In a few days we shall see the studies undertaken by the Alberta government and we will know more about Syncrude." But already they have made the commitment. The Syncrude people themselves do not know how much the plant will cost; they haven't a clue. They haven't a clue what kind of dividends will accrue to the Canadian people for the money we are putting up. That this is so is a strong indictment of government policies. We need in this country public ownership of resources. They belong, not to Exxon, not to Inco, not to Gulf Oil but to the people of Canada and they should be developed for and by the people of this country. If this can be done in Mexico, Iran and other small states, it can be done in Canada.


Peter Colwell Bawden: But do you want socialism in this country?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My party believes in democratic socialism. That, I suggest, is what more and more Canadians want. They are in favour of our resources being developed publicly. Many Liberal ministers agree to such sentiments when you talk to them privately. Why do they not speak out in cabinet; why do they not develop the intestinal fortitude to put their mouths where their sentiments really are? The Canadian people want the resources of this country to be developed publicly and not by private corporations, particularly as many of our resources are foreign-owned and controlled.
Income Tax
People ask, where will the money come from if the government is to develop our resources? Where will the money come from if Exxon, Gulf and Cities Service develop the tar sands? Much of it will be borrowed from Canadian banks. What will these companies do with the profits they will make from selling this oil to the Canadian consumer? The money to develop the tar sands will be found in any event, but it will still be our money and we shall buy from the oil companies a resource whose development we have'financed. But the companies will take their profits and invest them in the North Sea or perhaps in the oil shale in Colorado. The government can develop this resource just as the Conservative government developed hydroelectricity in Ontario and the Social Credit government developed hydroelectricity in British Columbia. Our gas and oil should be treated as a public utility to be provided to Canadians at the lowest possible cost. If we develop our resources ourselves we shall ensure proper conservation because they will be developed for the Canadian people and not to make profits for Exxon or any other corporation. We can do it. It has been done in almost every other country, and if they can do it so can we.
For the benefit of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) let me say, in case he does not know, that this bill also deals with the non-deductibility of royalties. Without consulting the provinces, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has broken the agreement he made with the premiers of the provinces by disallowing the deductibility of royalties.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I simply wish to point out that I represent the constituency of Nipissing. I also wish to point out that the speech the hon. member is now making is essentially the same as the one he made during the debate on Bill C-32, which by collateral application also applies to the speech he is presently making.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to state his question of privilege. Otherwise I will have to call on the hon. member to complete his remarks.


An hon. Member:: Haven't you gotten into enough trouble today?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I hear some comments from the peanut gallery. I made a speech on Bill C-32 which negated most of the arguments the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is making at this time. I participated at that time on behalf of my constituents. I challenge any member of the New Democratic Party to equal my contribution in that regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand some of the reaction of the hon. member, but I am sure he does not want to take up the precious time of the House on remarks or comments on points of disagreement for which he can seek the floor in due time. I do not think the hon. member should take advantage of questions of privilege or points of order to prevent the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) completing his remarks.

February 6, 1975
Income Tax


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have a fan such as the hon. member for Nipissing. I have not spoken on Syncrude before. I was about to deal with royalties, and the hon. member anticipated what I would say. I am amazed he has memorized a speech which I made in the House on November 22 or 23. I hesitate to say I did not intend to speak very much on the non-deductibility matter because the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has already outlined our party's position on it. I know that comes as a great disappointment to the hon. member for Nipissing, who is most anxious to hear me. I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made to the House by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I will not repeat those remarks. They outlined the position of our party, the Government of Saskatchewan and all Canadians regardless of their political points of view. This is essentially a non-political issue which cuts across party lines.
The people of Saskatchewan believe that under the constitution they are to develop the resources in that province as fully as possible. The citizens of the province-and i know people in other provinces feel the same way-are very resentful when a corporation such as Exxon is able to deduct a royalty paid to the CPR, the Hudson's Bay Company, the government of Guatemala or any other foreign government but they cannot deduct a royalty paid to the people of Saskatchewan. What kind of a federal arrangement is that? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) claimed in the House today that he is not a friend of the CPR. He is a much closer friend of the CPR and the Hudson's Bay Company than the province of Saskatchewan, if he allows them these privileges and not our province. Perhaps this issue, more than any other, outlines the reasons our party and many other people across this country are concerned about the bill before us and the federal budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
I am sure Premier Robert Bourassa and his colleagues in the Quebec government will be as much opposed to this proviso as we in the western provinces. Quebec has many resources which they want to develop. They will not be able to develop them if the federal government infringes upon the taxing of those resources where the provinces should be taxing in the first place. Eric Kierans, a former member of the federal Liberal cabinet and the provincial cabinet of Quebec, stated that if this bill goes through unamended the premiers of the provinces will be basically relegated to glorified mayors. He said that when he meets Mr. Bourassa or Mr. Davis, he will say, "Hello, Your Workship, how are you doing?" That is the role to which the premiers will be relegated. I hope that the Liberal backbenchers from Quebec will show enough intestinal fortitude to rise in this House and say they have the same thoughts as their provincial colleagues in this regard.
The budget contains many other inadequacies. I mentioned most of them when I spoke in November. However, the economic situation in this country is worse now than it was last November. All hon. members know that. We need only look around the world to see the tremendous discrepancies that exist in balance of payments. Britain, France and Japan are billions and billions of dollars in debt. A few of the oil states have a surplus from the last

year and a half of some $50 billion to $60 billion. There are great imbalances in the world.
The unemployment rate in the United States, which I referred to earlier, is skyrocketing. The rate of inflation in the United States is increasing very rapidly. Most economists in that country say the situation will not get better, but worse. When that happens, the situation will get worse in Canada. We are nothing more than a branch plant economy, and when the trunk of the tree dies, the branches fall off. As long as we do not control our own economy we will not be able to insulate or isolate ourselves in any way from what is happening in the United States. That is why this government must become serious in its budgets from now on with regard to gaining economic control over this country. We must take over control of the financial institutions, control our interest rates and direct our investments and capital.
We must own and control the resources of this country in co-operation with the provinces. If we do not do all these things we will be only a little island floating in the sea, responding to whatever waves come from the United States, Japan or Europe. That is why in the next few months, if the government is serious with regard to doing something about inflation, it must create jobs in this country. There is no reason why there should not be an additional tax cut for those in the middle and low income brackets. Hundreds of millions of dollars should be poured into job-creating programs. We should be refining and processing more of the resources which we have in this country, rather than exporting them in their raw form to other countries.
These are not radical or socialist ideas which I am presenting. These are things which the United States did years ago when they gained control of their economy. These are things the Japanese did after World War II. They are things which every rational and sensible country in the western world did years and years ago. The time has come for this government and this House to become serious about developing Canada for Canadians of today and Canadians of tomorrow.
We are moving into a new world. We will be moving into a world of scarcity of food and many other commodities. If we do not control the economic rivers in this country, Canadians will be left in the back seat without much influence over our destiny. Generations which come after us will wonder why this generation let them down. That is why I am participating again in this debate and why I am asking this government to make some serious moves and take a new direction with regard to our resources, the economy, unemployment and the development of our nation for the future.
If this government will not do that, I can assure them that in future elections the Canadian people, particularly the young people of this country, will move en masse for changes in order that we will be masters in our own house, able to make our own decisions and reap for the Canadian people, and not foreign-based, multinational corporations, the profits from and benefits of our resources.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the Chair, at the end of my very brief talk-and I trust it will not be longer than ten
February 6, 1975

minutes-I intend, according to the rules, to move what I consider to be a reasoned amendment. If there is any intention on the part of Your Honour to find that the amendment is not in order, I would certainly appreciate some sort of notice to that effect so that I may put forward some argument on the point. I do not know whether it is Your Honour's intention to rule immediately on the matter or to take it under advisement.
We are talking about the Income Tax Act. We in the Conservative Party believe the people of Canada are being overtaxed by the federal government. How many members of the public, or members of parliament for that matter, realize that in the month of December, 1974 the last month for which tax figures are available, this government overtaxed the people of Canada at the rate of almost $3 million per day, every day of every week? This is not an isolated fact, nor was December an exceptional month, because in the first nine months of the current fiscal year actual budgetary revenues far exceeded actual expenditures by $534 million.
It is all very well to talk of these astronomical figures running into multimillions of dollars. But let us bring them down to an understandable level. I repeat, the figures for December, 1974, are about average for the whole year. Revenues hit almost $2.2 billion, while expenditures amounted to $2,108 billion. Using December's figures, this means that the government, every single day, extracted from Canadian taxpayers almost $3 million more than was actually needed to meet Ottawa's requirements and obligations.
We in the Conservative Party believe the point has already been reached at which many taxpayers have lost the incentive to work harder. Many of the most productive of our citizens are convinced that more exertion or more effort on their part will only result in the federal government taking a greater share than they do of the reward for that exertion or effort. Surely, in the face of the budgetary surplus now being built up at these high rates, without seriously affecting the standards of government programs or services already provided, without cutting the size or scope of transfer payments or revenues to other levels of government, without affecting the minimal payments we now allot for sickness, disability, unemployment and old age security programs, without touching any of these or other services the government and the Minister of Finance could easily cut back the present high level of taxation which is eroding the incentive of our people and the productivity of our country.
The minister is making a big show, going around the country and saying, "Look, we are cutting your taxes by reducing the rate of tax we now take from you by a further 3 per cent to 8 per cent." Big deal! The point of the arguments we on this side have been making in the present debate is simply this: in inflationary times such as these, the rate at which the average citizen pays his tax does not involve the most crucial of the tax decisions the government has to make. This is because, while the tax rate may go down, the total tax revenue and the total tax paid by the individual goes up as he strives to earn more to keep up with inflation. This not only increases the total tax an individual has to pay, but it usually places him in a
Income Tax
higher tax bracket as well. The amount paid by the average taxpayer has, in fact, immensely increased; so much so that mammoth government surpluses have piled up, are piling up and, we believe, will continue to pile up even though the tax rate itself is being reduced.
According to the last budget forecast, Canadians will soon be paying tax to the federal government alone at a rate of over $4 million an hour. We believe Canadians are being overtaxed. We believe there should be a further reduction in the personal income tax rate, an additional 5 per cent reduction across the board. This would result in a $500 million reduction in the total tax paid by Canadians-$60 to $150 for most taxpayers. Such a reduction is long overdue. A reduction of this order in government revenues would, moreover, significantly reduce the ever present federal temptation to embark on needless and extravagant new programs. In addition, it would help create at least some desire to increase government efficiency and productivity and to carry out a realistic scrutiny of existing programs and services. There is certainly no such pressure at the present time.
The Canadian people are being atrociously overtaxed by this government. That is why I intend to introduce a reasoned amendment at this stage of the debate. We do not wish to vote against the bill in its entirety on second reading, because we are in favour of the proposed tax reductions, miniscule though they may be, and of some of the other provisions which are incorporated in the measure. However, we want to emphasize that we think the minister could have gone much further-at least 5 per cent further-in making those reductions. The purpose of my amendment is to indicate this feeling and, if possible, to force a vote solely on the question of additional tax reductions before the bill is approved in principle.
I want to see individual members stand up and be counted on this question of whether they believe further tax reductions are desirable or not. I want to see how the Creditiste members will vote on this proposition. I want to see whether individual NDP members believe, for example, that their supporters in the organized labour unions want larger pay cheques. Most of all, I want to see whether individual Liberal members are willing to face the reality of today. Are they ready to recognize that the government they support admits, on the basis of its own statistics, that it could very easily chop down the surplus of $3 million per day which is being extracted unnecessarily from Canadian taxpayers?
The biggest individual profiteer from Canada's current inflation is the Canadian government itself. Surplus government funds can and do lead only to unnecessary and wasteful government spending. Taxes can and should be cut. Members of this House should now bear the responsibility of facing up to this single issue and showing where they stand by their votes.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49 because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government.
2978

February 6, 1975
Income Tax


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I invite the parliamentary secretary, who seems to wish to make some comment on the amendment, to address the Chair I think there is a technicality that should be corrected. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) said that this motion was seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden), who has already spoken in the debate and cannot second the motion.


Walter David Baker: I would be very pleased to second the hon. gentleman's motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Then the motion is seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this amendment falls within the category of reasoned amendments. I am sure Your Honour heard the ruling by Mr. Speaker on a similar reasoned amendment in the House an hour or so ago. I submit to Your Honour that the argumentation made by Mr. Speaker at that time also applies, generally speaking, to this particular amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence).
In addition to the decision made by Mr. Speaker, there is another factor here of some importance concerning the financial impact the amendment would have upon the revenue of the Government of Canada. If we reduce taxes we automatically decrease the amount of revenue the government has entitlement to under the tax laws.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is precisely why I moved it.


John Mercer Reid: It would make a substantial change in the budgetary position of the federal government and would lead to a series of other factors as well. The general rule has been that members can lower expenditures but not increase them. I would argue that what the hon. member is in fact doing by virtue of his amendment violates that general principle.
The second argument I would make is that it is an anticipation of an opportunity that hon. members will have at a later point in the proceedings to deal directly and specifically with the clauses to which they take exception. I base the main weight of my argument upon that point, for it is quite clear, if and when this bill ever clears second reading, that we will embark upon a clause by clause discussion of the bill, and at that point the clauses dealing with tax increases or deductions will be before the House. Thus, the House will have the opportunity, specifically and directly, to deal with the clauses to which hon. members opposite take exception.
Therefore, I submit this amendment does not come within the recognized classes of reasonable amendments which this House has accepted in the past. It is an anticipation of an opportunity hon. members will have, as soon as the bill clears second reading, to discuss the clauses directly and effectively, and I might say in a form much more effective and important than the way in which the hon. member has put forward his objections. However, my

main argument against the amendment is that it is anticipating the status of the bill at a future time in this House, and by interpretation and by judgment of previous speakers this clearly should not be allowed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If I may speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, do I gather it is Your Honour's intention to rule on the amendment now, or are you going to take the matter under advisement?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have invited argument and I permitted the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) to put forward an argument regarding the acceptability of the amendment or otherwise. I am also inviting other hon. members who are interested to comment on the acceptability of the amendment. After listening to those arguments I will decide whether I am in a position to make a decision. I cannot prejudge what will be said by hon. members.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Then may I comment, sir, in reverse order, on the matters raised by the parliamentary secretary? First of all, the last point that he made-and no wonder it was last-was that because a matter can be dealt with in another way at a later stage of a bill's progress through the legislative and parliamentary system, it obviously must therefore be out of order at this stage. I submit to Your Honour that is a ridiculous proposition and in no way bears upon the validity or non-validity of the amendment that I have just put before the House. In his second to last point the hon. member kept referring to the amendment as a "reasonable" amendment. Of course, the proper terminology is "reasoned" amendment, not "reasonable". There are grave differences between reasoning something out and being reasonable; if the hon. member does not know that, he should.
I am having a hard time remembering his points, Mr. Speaker, because they really did not bear, I feel, in any manner, shape or form upon whether this particular amendment is in order or not. I believe the first point he made was that it was out of order because it called for a reduction in governmental revenue. Presumably the hon. member is some sort of "pseudo voice" for collective government opinion, but I find that one of the most astounding propositions to come from such a source as he. First of all, the very purpose of the amendment is to reduce government revenue; there is no question about that. From time immemorial in the British Parliamentary system, this, so far as I know, has been a very valid purpose, if not the real duty and responsibility, of oppositions. They do exactly that by reason of amendments such as this.
I think that the hon. member, as he so frequently is, is entirely confusing this with getting approval in principle by His Excellency of any increase in taxation. Obviously that has to be done. Any increase in expenditure has to receive approval in advance from His Excellency. I submit that if the hon. member does not appreciate that there is a difference between a private member of the House bringing forward an enactment asking the House to approve an increase in expenditure, and an amendment such as mine, which asks for a reduction in revenue, then I would tell him that he does not deserve to have the position he has in the government of this country.
February 6, 1975


John Mercer Reid: We will see who wins the argument.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I believe the only other point the hon. member made, Mr. Speaker, was that this amendment falls entirely within the scope of the decision made earlier this afternoon by the Chair. This amendment is quite a bit different in its phraseology, and quite a bit different in its scope, from the amendment moved two days ago by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) because, as was pointed out by the Chair this afternoon in the Chair's decision, that particular amendment indicated part approval of the bill and part disapproval of the bill. In its decision this afternoon, the Chair indicated that certainly on second reading a reasoned amendment in this House is acceptable under our system and under our rules.
If the Chair takes that position-and I think it is a very valid position and I am not criticizing it at all-the next question we have to face is, what can members do on second reading? If we can move an amendment, and if we can do something on second reading other than move six months' hoist or other than voting against the bill on second reading, we must then ask the question, what is it that we can do? The Chair has said that under our rules and practice a reasoned amendment is acceptable. I would submit to you, sir that in respect of an omnibus taxation bill such as we are discussing here, in which there is no single principle but a whole bundle of principles and a whole bundle of policies, the Chair would be putting us in a ridiculous and untoward position if it ruled that we had to bring in, in the form of a reasoned amendment, an amendment which disapproves of each and every one of the principles or policies contained in that omnibus bill.
I would submit to you, sir, that if that was the thrust of the Chair's prior decision, this will give you an opportunity of correcting that, because if we did oppose every single policy contained in every clause in the omnibus tax bill, then clearly our amendment would be out of order as the Chair could very readily come to the conclusion that the proper course of action for us to take on second reading would be to oppose the bill completely and vote no on second reading.
I do not believe that was the thrust of the Chair's decision. Obviously, in an omnibus tax bill such as we are considering here there are many principles and many policies included, as there must be. I would submit to you that if reasoned amendments are to be permitted-and the Chair very clearly indicated that reasoned amendments are going to be entertained-then it is certainly within our purview to pick out one, two, three or any number we want, indicating in the reasoned amendments our strict disapproval, as well as some constructive alternative, as I have attempted to do in my amendment, in respect of one or other of the principles contained in the bill. I think that is very important in a reasoned amendment. I think a reasoned amendment has attached to it not only the thrust that we should oppose the principle of the bill, but as well that we should propose something else, and that is exactly what I have tried to do in the amendment before you.
If the Chair's ruling means that we have to oppose every single principle of the bill, I suggest that the whole idea of a reasoned amendment on second reading is a farce,
Income Tax
because then the proper course of action for us, if we feel that way, is to vote no on second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members must understand that, taking into account an earlier decision by Mr. Speaker which was brought to the attention of the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), I may be off-balance in looking at this amendment although I must do so with the most fairness.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has brought to the attention of the Chair some very valid points regarding the opportunity for an hon. member to move a second reading amendment other than a six or three months' hoist. It is my opinion that the hon. member, on behalf of his party, has gone out of his way to find some way to meet the requirements not only of the Chair but of the precedents in moving an amendment that is acceptable.
On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary, as I said earlier, drew the attention of the Chair to a previous ruling by Mr. Speaker this afternoon which rejected the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). He did not really further his point very much, but he also added that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham would have the effect of putting a burden on the Crown by reducing, ipso facto, governmental revenue.
.In addition, he suggested that what the hon. member was trying to achieve at this time could be achieved at a later stage. I am not sure that this could be achieved easily. In looking at the amendment before me, with a feeling in respect of what hon. members in the House seem to be trying to do at this stage of second reading of this bill, I wonder if I should not look at the amendment with an open view and without trying to be as restrictive as one might by just looking at the rule book or the precedents.
To my mind, although the amendment before us at this time might not be drafted in the best way to show a clear and strong opposition to the general principle of the bill, it is opposed to the passage of the bill and does oppose the basic principles of taxation within the bill. As I said earlier, I do not think it would be easy for the hon. member who proposed the amendment, or any other hon. member, to move a comparable amendment at a later stage in committee of the whole.
Although there might be some fault in respect of the wording of the amendment in meeting the entire requirements noted and enumerated in May's eighteenth edition at pages 487 and 488, to my mind the purpose the hon. member is trying to achieve is to move an amendment which attacks the substantive taxation parts of the bill. For these reasons, I would have the tendency at this time to accept the amendment in its present form.
Before I call it five o'clock, I wonder if the House would allow the hon. member who had the floor at the time the amendment was moved to move the adjournment of the debate, taking into account the fact that we will be going into other proceedings at eight o'clock.
28626 - 54)4

February 6, 1975
Veterans' Land Act


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)- Industry-Electronics-Lay-offs of workers caused by importation of foreign television sets-Government action; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Suggested review of pension escalation formula-Possible increase in basic pensions; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Fisheries-Presence of Portuguese and French draggers in St. George's Bay-Government action.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all material resulting from the first meeting of the VLA senior management team convened by the director-general of the Veterans' Land Administration in Ottawa from March 26 to 29, 1973, as follows (a) operational plans in the periods before and after March 31, 1974, deadline for new loan applications (b) further implementation of MBO as the VLA style of management.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my motion today has to do with my notice of motion for production of papers asking for copies of all material resulting from the first meeting of the Veterans' Land Act management team convened by the director-general of the Veterans' Land Administration held from March 26 to 29, 1973, and dealing with operational plans in the periods before and after March 31, 1974, which was the original deadline date for the Veterans' Land Act, dealing with the deadline for new applications and also with further implementation of management objectives as the style of management under the Veterans' Land Administration.
The main reason that I had the matter transferred for debate is because of my surprise when on more than one occasion this information was denied on the basis of the fact that it was an internal document and could not be disclosed. I really wonder what would be so secretive or classified about discussions in regard to the operational plans between the periods before and after the original deadline date of March 31, 1974, under the Veterans' Land Act.
It must be obvious that those plans must have included the phasing out of the act, and that was before we were able to force the extension of the act for a year after March 31, 1974. I have no quarrel with the senior management team, whoever they happen to be, carrying out their planning because, naturally, they were directed to do so. Nor do I object to the "management by objective" style of management. What I do object to, taking into account the reaction to the phasing out of the act by veterans and organizations across this country, is that those Canadians should be denied the information that would be revealed by the papers I have asked for. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) kept repeating during the many months of debate on the issue that the act had outlived its usefulness, but there was no substantial reason given which was acceptable to me or to the many thousands of veterans who claimed that they were denied their rights under the charter. The only exception to this was two or three editorial writers who did not know what the hell they were talking about in the first place.
If the government, in its refusal to produce the papers, can substantiate that it was in the best interests of Canada to phase out the act, then it should put its reasons by disclosing the requested documents. I am sure that every member of the House of Commons would want to clear his own mind if such proof could be produced. Certainly the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would want to know, in order to ease their consciences because of our failure to live up to Canada's commitment made to veterans over the years. This might be the opportunity we have been waiting for, and I am certain that the motion today will come to a vote and be passed unanimously.
As a result of questioning today, I understand that between the period of April 1, 1974, which was after the original deadline, to the end of January, 1975, over 2,700 veterans applied and are receiving benefits under the Veterans Land Act or they are in the process, which proves that it was worth while having the act extended for a year. I hope that in the remaining two-month period, or less than two months, there will be many more. But indeed we in the opposition parties are completely justified in our request to have the act extended. However, we are now at the crossroads again where we have less than two months before the new deadline, and those two or three press critics who seem to know everything that is going on in the country will no doubt try to cost the program out for the year against the fact that there were over 2,700 applications, and they will be looking for the cost of administration to process those 2,740 applications.
I want to remind those self-styled experts that, as I have said many times before, the administration of the Veterans' Land Administration will not go up one cent. It will

February 6, 1975

be in existence until at least 1980 and probably, as was indicated, for many years beyond. It did not cost the Canadian people one extra red copper to serve the 2,740 veterans whose applications were being approved, in terms of administration. The only cost was that portion of the loans on which, I have to admit, they pay a preferred rate of interest at some cost to the government. But when one has seen the way money has been thrown around for questionable causes over the past many months, the cost of this preferred rate of interest is certainly money well spent because it provides some recognition to veterans who have served this country in time of need.
Certainly this debate gives me and some of my colleagues an opportunity to consider what happens now as the deadline draws near. I can find nothing in the rules which demands some action before the end of March. My colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with his many years of experience, may find something in the Standing Orders to revitalize our thrust against the phasing-out of the act. Indeed, my House leader and many of the other senior members of my party will try to think of a Standing Order that will allow us to fulfil our commitments to the veterans. Representations still come in to members of the House of Commons and, I am sure, to the minister requesting reconsideration of the government's stand. But I guess our main hope is that the minister has indicated on more than one occasion, and as recently as two or three days ago, that new housing legislation is being prepared for veterans. I was hoping that the legislation would have been introduced long before now, because the needs of veterans are very clear to most of us, Mr. Speaker.
One of the most pressing and priority needs is to provide funds for those veterans who are dependent completely on their war veterans' allowances or their disability pensions to exist and maintain their homes at present inflationary costs. This points out the need for a program as a combination of the home improvement loans under the National Housing Act and the residential rehabilitation loans with forgiveness factors for those residing in rural areas.
Under the Home Improvement Loans Act and section 28 of the National Housing Act, it is stipulated that a veteran with whom the director of the VLA has a subsisting contract for the sale of land made pursuant to part I of the Veterans' Land Act may borrow up to $4,000 under the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation guarantee to banks and approved lenders to repair, improve or add to his home. I should like to see a similar type of program made available to veterans but with the forgiveness factors that apply under the residential rehabilitation program, the neighbourhood improvement program and the rural housing program.
I think it is worthwhile mentioning in this regard that the minister, in consultation with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), should authorize a survey of all substandard veterans' housing in Canada. This was done by the provincial command of the Canadian Legion in Newfoundland and they should be given credit for the example they have shown in undertaking such a project on behalf of their veterans.
Veterans' Land Act
The reports are now in the hands of the minister-and I am sure he will agree that the efforts were worthwhile- and show the merit of such surveys. I hope that the funding will be provided as soon as possible, to let them get on with the important phase of rehabilitation that is so urgently required. Such an effort could serve as a pilot project to determine the needs for all regions of Canada. The minister should get the senior management team to start working secretly, if that is the way they work, on this worthwhile effort.
I will not dwell further on the various details of what new veterans legislation should contain, in order to give other members some time to offer their comments. I hope the minister will be ready, when he replies, to allow us to overcome our concern by giving us a resume of what his government's intentions are to provide improved alternates to parts I, II and III of the present Veterans' Land Act, to provide a realistic mortgage loan ceiling which is applicable to today's requirements, to broaden the restricted land requirement and to ensure flexibility so that the veteran who still serves may build where it suits him and his family, to broaden the terms of the type of dwelling that he or she may desire such as condominium or mobile homes, and to remove the ridiculous inequity that now exists which inflicted discriminatory deadlines on veterans. I hope that the minister will keep in mind, too, one very important matter that has to do with the senior citizen veterans, the widow or the widower, and will include a plan in conjunction with veterans' organizations to provide housing with provision for the care required for those left alone.
In spite of the fact that I and my party will go along with a reasonable housing program for veterans, I still feel that the present legislation could be amended to include all these measures that I have mentioned, along with others. I am sure members interested and the veterans' organizations could contribute. By doing so, Mr. Speaker, then we who are responsible because we are elected to fulfill our responsibilities to all Canadians would uphold Canada's commitments made to the veterans of Canada. We could show them that we still hold dear our principles and faith even though so many years have passed, and that we will not set aside any sections of the veterans' charter because we have no right to do so.
I can only hope, Mr. Speaker-and I am sure we will hear the facts as they are-that my motion will be acceptable and that all the pertinent material contained therein will be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, where in our usual non-partisan deliberations we can assist the government in evolving decisions as to what is best and deserving to the veterans of Canada in the critical area of the housing needs so critical, also, for all segments of our Canadian nation.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate with a certain amount of trepidation. I think members on all sides of the House are trying to do what they can for veterans. We want to be reasonable and generous, and yet we want to be sensible about any legislation relating to them. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has espoused the cause of veterans for years and I think he has done a great job,

February 6, 1975
Veterans' Land Act
although I cannot entirely agree with some of the smaller points in his presentation.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that motions of this type create a certain amount of divisiveness. Constant calls for the production of papers do not get us very far, and as far as I can see do not add anything to debate. What we are talking about is whether it is right or wrong to extend the Veterans' Land Act deadline, whether to give the veterans more, and so on. I do not think that confidential material has anything to add to the picture. I understand that the House leaders have met and discussed this matter, but I am not sure if the results of the meeting should be made known. I do not suppose they are ashamed of what happened. In any event, it is best to leave trivia out of our debates, because when we discuss trivia we are not doing that which we were sent here to do, pass legislation.
Speaking of trivia, I was upset because about one hour during routine proceedings was taken up with points of order and motions under Standing Order 43. I think we could get along without such proceedings. Most of the time they waste the time of the House, but perhaps not more time than this motion is wasting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or this speech.


Samuel Victor Railton: The speech the minister gave in 1974 put the matter in a clearer light. He pointed out that veterans land legislation which was introduced after the First World War, in 1918, was phased out six years later, in 1924, after it had done the job it was designed to do. Significantly, the new land settlement act which was brought in after World War II has been in effect for 30 years, or five times longer than the original act. Why was this law introduced in the first place? Mainly, it was to encourage returning veterans to settle on the land, to become agrarian. It was not a form of welfare.
Returning soldiers had available to them alternative schemes, for instance the university training plan which was phased out in the middle 1950s. The re-establishment credit program was terminated in 1968. So, you see, all these programs were terminated. You could only keep the present Veterans' Land Act going if you changed the reason for which it was introduced in the first place. In other words, you would need to substitute a new act for the present Veterans' Land Act. The reason for introducing the new act would be different from the reason which was behind the introduction of the old act. Such a course may be all well and good, and I am willing to wait for the introduction of that new act.
Let me refer to what the first speaker said in this debate. We all want to see what he suggests, but these things should not be done under the Veterans' Land Act. Also, the last time the House was asked to extend the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act I felt that nothing should be done, because the act had been in existence for many years. It is now thirty years after the end of the last world war, and the average veteran is just about ready to retire. Remember, the Veterans' Land Act was designed to establish soldiers on the land, and it is a bit ridiculous to establish retired people on the land. It is about time we

began to look after the veteran who is ready to retire; that is the direction in which we should be looking.
I have talked to very many veterans; they feel they can talk to me because I understand their problems. I have looked after them medically, I went overseas with them in the war, and I understand them. The great majority of veterans I have talked to would be perfectly happy to see the act phased out. They think they have had a good show and they think that the last one-year extension was as much as was needed and there is no reason to keep the plan going. I know that the previous speaker talked about 700 applications having come in since April 1. I believe there were 500 last year and 519 the year before. That is not many applications, although no doubt there has been a last minute scramble by veterans under 60 who want to take advantage of the good interest rates available under the act and build a home. I should think, however, that they are thinking of retirement homes. Don't kid yourself; such applications are not for establishment on the land. As I said, I think most veterans would be satisfied if the act were phased out.
I feel that our veterans can be helped by the proposed new housing legislation, although calling for the production of papers which would show what is in the minister s mind regarding the proposed legislation would be about as sensible as calling for the production of the papers mentioned in the motion we are discussing. I do not think the minister intends to tell the House what he is thinking about before he brings in any proposals.
The previous speaker mentioned the provision under which a veteran can borrow up to $4,000 for the rehabilitation of a home. I think this provision should continue. Any veteran who has acquired a home under the Veterans Land Act will be entitled to the benefit of this provision until April 1, 1977. So the veteran has two more years in which to apply for such help. Perhaps this matter can also be discussed in committee. The hon. member who spoke previously also wondered if this provision could apply to condominiums, mobile homes and other similar homes. If it does, why cannot it be used to subsidize rent?
I do not think any one of us can take credit for being a greater champion of our veterans than anybody else. I think our veterans expect us to act in a businesslike way and not in a way which may prompt some to say what jolly good fellows we are. Veterans should have first call on our generosity; their position should be higher than that of the average citizen. Veterans who served in the forces and expressed willingness to serve overseas, even if they were not sent overseas, are entitled to equal treatment. How can you measure who gave most to this country? Is it the man who was badly wounded, or the man who was never in battle? We know of veterans whose limbs have been amputated; an example is the minister.
There are veterans who have been in many battles and come through without a scratch, veterans who have been on many bomber missions or who have piloted fighters and come through without getting hurt, although perhaps they had some miraculous escapes. Others have been in prisoner-of-war camps. Can we say that one veteran deserves to be more preferentially treated than another? Can we make gradations of heroism, courage and suffer-
February 6, 1975

ing, and say, "We will pay you so much because you did this or that?"
In looking after veterans' problems it is important that we, as citizens, realize not only their sacrifice but their willingness to sacrifice, and treat them as generously as possible in relation to other people in the same age group with the same requirements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us at the present time is very simple. It calls for the production of certain papers. Those papers relate to the Veterans' Land Act. Indeed, procedurally all we are dealing with is the question of whether those papers should be tabled. I say this at the outset of my remarks because I find it somewhat embarrassing to admit that, in view of what has been said by the last two speakers. I am also going to break the rule.
The subject before us is not the question of whether the Veterans' Land Act should be extended. However, if that is what hon. members want to discuss, all right, we shall discuss it. I remind hon. members that this is not one of those private members' motions they can talk out for an hour and that is the end of it. This is a motion for the production of papers. It comes under a special rule. It will again come back on another day like this for 30 minutes or so, and then come to a vote. Therefore, the hon. member across the way who says he is a friend of the veterans will have a chance to vote against them by voting against this motion. If hon. members are going to turn this into a debate on the Veterans' Land Act, I submit that veterans, and the public generally, will have the right to construe the vote as a vote on the question of the Veterans' Land Act.
What is happening with respect to the Veterans' Land Act is, in my view, one of the things that make people wonder about parliament. In the last parliament, when there was a certain situation which made it necessary for the government to respond, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) brought in a bill to extend the Veterans' Land Act for one year. When that bill was before us as a government bill, everybody was for it. Liberal after Liberal was for that bill. The Veterans' Land Act was a great thing, and it was a good idea to extend it.


Mr. Boulanger:: Right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says right, it was a good idea to extend it. However, then there was an election and the situation changed.


An hon. Member:: It was extended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the act
was extended for a year. There was included in that bill a clause which made it possible to have the matter debated again after September 30, 1974. Therefore, after September 30, 1974, we had that debate. We had it on November 5 and 6. All those Liberal members who, in the previous parliament, had said the Veterans' Land Act was a wonderful thing, began to say it was time to phase it out. It is not surprising that people wonder about parliament when that sort of thing happens.
Veterans' Land Act


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The statement that all Liberals who were for the act were then against it is not true. I would like to say that I was very much against extending the deadline beyond March 31, 1974. I expressed that to the minister and the government. I do not think it is correct to say that the Liberals have to vote within party lines. That is one thing we do not do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is as confused as somebody else around here has been today. In the twenty-ninth parliament, because of the pressure the government faced, the bill brought in by the minister was supported unanimously. The Liberals voted for it. However, in this parliament when there was a motion asking the government to extend it another year, the Liberals voted against that motion.


Samuel Victor Railton: One year was enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is what the hon. member thinks, he is not in touch with the thinking of the veterans of this country. I can tell him he is wrong. The view is being expressed by many veterans and veterans' organizations that the Veterans' Land Act should be continued.
Let me again go back to the debate of November 5 and 6. I keep telling myself, as I told you, Mr. Speaker, that I know I am out of order because the motion before us is for the production of papers. However, the debate has become one on the Veterans' Land Act so I shall stay with it. On November 6, 1974, when the Liberals were in a majority and they had decided they would not extend the Veterans' Land Act for another year-


Samuel Victor Railton: You are making the veterans a political football.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whenever we agree with the government on veterans affairs, members opposite like to talk about the unity of the veterans affairs committee. However, whenever we ask for something the Liberals do not want to agree to, then we are dividing the House over veterans affairs. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have the right to express the views and wishes of veterans even if they happen to differ from what the government is prepared to do.
Let me go back to the debate of November 5 and 6, 1974. Liberal after Liberal, including the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) and quite a few others relied for their opposition to extending the Veterans' Land Act for another year on the assurance they had been given by the minister that something would take its place. The hon. member for Welland does not remember what he said.
Liberal after Liberal said, "We have had enough of the Veterans' Land Act, it is going to be improved and we are going to get a veterans' housing arrangement of some other kind that will be better." On that basis, they stood up and voted against extending the Veterans' Land Act for another year.
Despite that vote, not many days ago I tried again to get this House to agree to a motion to ask the government to

February 6, 1975
Veterans' Land Act
consider extending the Veterans' Land Act, but one or two Liberals said no, and the motion could not be put.
In the debate of November 5 and 6, 1974, there were many references to the fact that something better was going to come. When? The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and others have repeatedly asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) when we are going to get this special provision for veterans to take the place of what was in the Veterans' Land Act. It does not seem to be coming.


Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan):: Let not your heart be troubled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs quoting the New Testament, "let not your heart be troubled." Mai tarasesthno humon hai kardia. I am just returning it to the minister in Greek. As I said, this is the sort of thing that makes people wonder about parliament, this shifting from one side to the other, this inconsistent performance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes, my friends over there, especially my very good friend, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), can laugh. We are great friends when we agree with them, but when they do not agree with us, then they say we are playing politics.
I am still embarrassed that I should be engaging in this violation of the rules. All that is before us is a motion for the production of papers. However, if hon. members want this debate turned into a debate on the Veterans' Land Act, that is fine. When the vote comes, as it will come, I shall be voting for the motion. In so doing I shall be voting for an extension of the Veterans' Land Act, and veterans will be quite justified in considering those who vote against this motion as being against the continuation of that act.


Maurice Dupras: I share with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) his apprehensions, and his interest in the welfare of our former brothers in arms during the last war. I welcome his motion for the production of papers because it will give me another opportunity of expressing some views on this subject as it affects the welfare of veterans.
Like those who have spoken before me I, too, shall be out of order at times when I deal with matters other than the motion which should be our main concern.
(Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this matter has repeatedly been the subject of motions and debates in the House since 1970: in 1972, on November 9, 1973, on March 12, 1974 and finally when Bill C-17 was passed on March 28, 1974. Each time, Mr. Speaker, the House studied the question in the spirit that prevailed at the time when the Veterans Lands Act was first introduced in 1942. That is precisely what I tried to do in my speech on the subject, in pointing out that the situation which prevailed in 1942, the objectives the government had at that time, have changed since. One need not

be a soothsayer, Mr. Speaker, to realize that the situation has changed considerably since then, since 1942 when the act was first passed.
Today, we are not dealing with troops answering the call of their country to fight for either the territories of allied countries or our own; instead, we are dealing with people who want to make a career of military life. A young man who joins the armed forces today does not do so for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but because he is interested in a military career. The situation that existed in 1942 and until 1945 has changed substantially. Those who consider a military career are as motivated as those who take up medicine, law or commerce.
On the other hand, a limit has been set to the benefits provided under the act, a limit which did not exist when this legislation was passed in 1942. It was amended several times and the benefits were increased. On several occasions, at least three times, if I remember well, the benefits granted under the act were extended.
However, Mr. Speaker, before we seriously consider extending or even increasing the benefits as suggested, we should also think of the effect this could have on the great number of veterans who took advantage of the other options open to us on our discharge, namely university studies to help us further our education or a money gift to help us set up in business. And I wonder what the reaction of my former comrades in arms would be if, for instance, the benefits provided under the Veterans' Land Act were extended or increased. I wonder if they would not normally feel frustrated and get the impression that their rights had been encroached upon if, for instance, the benefits that I and others among my former comrades in arms received were not adjusted. And how could we ensure a fair adjustment for those who have already taken advantage of the Veterans' Land Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I wanted to say to my colleagues in this House so that they may judge the impact of any amendment to the Veterans' Land Act. It might be better, as we said in March and in February 1974, if the government proposed benefits which, would come from another source, from another department for instance. In a conversation I had with him, the United States Secretary of Defense, Mr. Galloway, gave me some information on the benefits now granted to American soldiers.
It would be untrue to say that members of the Canadian armed forces no longer have any confidence in their legislators and worry about the time when they will have to retire from the armed forces. In a moment I shall go back to the conversation I had with Mr. Galloway, but contrary to what other countries are experiencing, in Canada we do not seem to have any difficulty in recruiting enough people for the armed forces on a voluntary basis, something that does not succeed in France, the Federal Republic of Germany or Holland.
Mr. Galloway told me about the arrangements or measures through which the United States ensured sufficient recruitment to meet the requirements of the American armed forces.
Among those benefits, there are all kinds of advantages that were not included in those provided for people who answered the appeal made to them by the Canadian gov-
February 6, 1975

ernment in the 40's, namely: the Veterans' Land Act, the rehabilitation benefits and also the possibility of furthering college or university education.
The Americans have set a loan and scholarship program for those who will be released. According to a survey made among long-standing members of the U.S. Armed Forces, those career members and also those who joined the Armed Forces over let us say, the past two years, chose rather than benefits to settle on a piece of land, as what is being considered in this debate, scholarships in order to complete their university or college education, or to take vocational training, which will provide them with an opportunity for a much quicker and easier re-integration into society, and they can already prepare their return to civil life even before their release.
Mr. Galloway told me that a great many members of the U.S. Armed Forces, as in the Canadian Armed Forces, are already taking night and holiday courses to prepare for their retirement even before that time comes. I wonder whether it is not in that direction, Mr. Speaker, that we should be looking rather than reexamining the Veterans' Land Act which seems to me a legislation that is difficult to enforce, especially when one considers that the 19391945 and the Korean War veterans average around 60 or 61.
There are also a lot of regretful difficulties in establishing someone without the proper training for that kind of operation. It is fine to imagine that a veteran can settle on a farm but for the one who has no training, Mr. Speaker, or who has never lived on a farm when young, the chances of success are very dim. If one looks at the rate of failure of those who go into that kind of operation without the proper training, one finds that it is very high. I wonder if it is not good not to encourage veterans to go into a business which could turn sour on them.
I said at the very beginning that this kind of debate and the motion introduced by my colleague from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) also provided us with an opportunity to reiterate our concern and our gratitude for those who answered the call in the 1940s. It also gives me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say how much veterans with whom I talked or met appreciate the benefits that the Department of Veterans Affairs has made available to our war comrades, as well as the efforts the Minister is making. These do not cease praising the Minister and, being a veteran myself, I want to praise him publicly too, Mr. Speaker, and pay tribute to this distinguished veteran who is fighting to defend the interests of Canadian veterans.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that these problems are being very closely looked into by the Minister and his departmental officials, to find ways and means to raise the interest of veterans, while helping them start a business of their own which will not necessarily fail, as it is so often the case of those who start a farming operation without proper training.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, just as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned, we should put this matter in proper perspective. Those of us on the veterans
Veterans' Land Act
affairs committee, particularly those of us who have a veteran's background, find it very difficult in most situations to disagree on matters pertaining to veterans. We generally come together.
I understand, not having been a member of previous parliaments, that in many cases when extensions of the act were given, the House did not come to a vote. In the committee, although members disagreed, they stated their point of view, ministers acquiesced, House leaders co-operated, but there was no such thing as serious division vote which had to be won before extending, say, the Veterans' Land Act or other measures.
At this point there is some serious division, however. There are veterans in organizations who are willing to stand up and say they do not think that the act should be extended. I will try to follow the leadership given by the hon. member, who pointed out that we should not really be discussing the Veterans' Land Act but, rather, the presentation of papers, so perhaps I should address my remarks to that fact.
If that were all we were addressing ourselves to, and we knew that we were going to vote on the matter, then it would be very easy for anyone to discern that the vote would be lost and that the papers would not be called for now. Therefore, I would have to say that the main responsibility for extending this debate, and for indicating that there is a difference of feeling among the members on the veterans affairs committee, is the responsibility of the hon. member who presented the motion and of the member who spoke in favour of it.
It was these remarks which asked whether we on this side of the House or they on that side of the House were politic so far as the lives of our veterans are concerned. I, for one, would say that in most cases I am willing to stand in full support of measures that benefit the lot of the veterans. I have said before, and I repeat, that having had a father who himself was a totally disabled veteran from the first world war, when pensions were very small and when, during the depression, if a pensioner so much as shovelled snow and was reported by some close friend he would be taken off the pension roll, I am well aware of what a family of five, living in two rooms in Ottawa, had to live on at that time. Thus I am quite concerned that we do not make this an imposition on anyone.
In coming to the subject at hand we have to remember that the real objective of the veterans' legislation was to re-establish our veterans. We have entered veterans' halls in our constituencies without fear. I recall we debated the last extension just two days prior to Remembrance Day. We then went back to our constituencies and attended cenotaph ceremonies, circulated among veterans, sang some old war songs with them, and never once heard one veteran ask why we had not extended the Veterans' Land Act.
The situation may be different in other areas, and it is terribly important that hon. members speak for their constituencies. If there are many veterans-though I do not know of any-who feel they are being dealt with unfairly at this time, it is most important that they be represented. But I would caution hon. members to remember that there are many of us who are receiving plaudits for the stand of our minister, great pats on the back for the fact that we

February 6, 1975
Energy
are acting as men in a disciplined way in regard to a matter that should come to an end at this time.
Our veterans were never anything but first class citizens, and as first class citizens they do not want to be handed something on a platter. They have received their opportunity. I made my choice when I took an educational grant. My sister in the navy took her choice when she went to the Royal Academy of Drama in London, England. My brother took his choice if he took the Veterans' Land Act. These people say that the time for choice has gone.
Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of members on the opposite side of the House that I respect their opinions very strongly. I respect both hon. gentleman concerned very highly, and I look forward to working with them on the veterans committee for the benefit of veterans-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hour accorded the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, long before the shocks imposed on the world by the price and supply actions of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, it had become apparent from the relentlessly rising rates of growth of demand that the world was entering a period of vastly increased costs of energy and material resources. Indeed, it was largely this rapid and uncontrolled rate of growth, with its increasing dependence on imported sources of supply, that put OPEC in a position in 1973 to undertake such effective cartel action.
At the beginning of this decade, the government of Canada foresaw the dawning of this era, but we did not foresee how rapidly we would enter it. I do not think anyone did. Our consciousness of the need to assess the problems of a future of great change was embodied in the publication of "An Energy Policy for Canada-Phase 1" by my department. We thought there would be ample time for the careful consideration and debate of the issues that that study laid before the Canadian public, but a scant three months after its publication OPEC began the actions that would swiftly bring about the quadrupling of international oil prices, and we have had to cope with the resulting issues almost daily since that time.

I would like to underline that point in the minds of hon. members for it is fundamentally significant. To put it colloquially: the world was ripe for the actions of OPEC; it had become so by unthinking demand growth. The world was at the edge of an era where its undisciplined appetite would force it to turn to less accessible and thereby more expensive energy and material resources. The actions of OPEC propelled consuming countries into that era with such a shove that we are still trying to regain our balance.
The significance of this analysis is that it tells us that a basic change in our economic course is dictated. Our new course must be the intelligent and careful use of our resources-in a word, conservation; conservation not just for the short term, because of the actions of OPEC, but conservation for our future and for our children's future. We are as a man who has gorged himself and imperilled his health; it is of no benefit to diet for a week and then go on another binge, we must adhere to a new sensible course of consumption now and into all the future. To continue the analogy, what we seek is not a short-term loss of weight, but a permanent change in our consumption attitudes. I speak as one with great experience in diets of all kinds.

So, Mr. Speaker, the effect of OPEC action, both in its rapidity and its scale, has been to compress into a very short period of time this adjustment process. The fact that these actions were imposed on a world troubled with a deep-seated inflation and a world in which the growth process itself had distributed its fruits inequitably, has added complex dimensions to the problem. And as we are well aware in this country, any sharp movement in the price of a commodity, particularly where endowments of the commodity are unevenly distributed as is the case with most basic resources and certainly with crude oil and natural gas, raises deep and troublesome issues of income distribution and the distribution of benefits and costs among producers and consumers.
The reactions of the Canadian government and of the provincial governments to these international shocks to the world energy economy have been rapid by necessity, and I believe, marked by the true spirit of Confederation. When the world was faced with higher oil prices and simultaneous supply cuts last winter, Canada was in the unique position of being one of the few industrialized countries that was, on balance, self-sufficient in oil.
The federal government was guided by the desire to increase the opportunities for Canadian self-reliance in energy, while protecting the Canadian economy from the dislocations visited on the rest of the world by OPEC.

In the past year these principles were given expression in decisions reached through the co-operation of the federal government and the provincial governments. Let me list them:
(1)	To establish a high degree of self-reliance for Canadians in oil and in the short term this was achieved through a series of temporary transportation measures, and it will be achieved in the long term through an extension of the interprovincial pipeline system to Montreal;
February 6, 1975

(2)	To establish a single price for crude oil for all Canadians after due allowance for transportation differences.
(3)	To build a fiscal structure that would assure an equitable distribution of revenues among producers, consumers and governments and would leave the industry sufficient incentive to continue the exploration and development activities necessary to maintain Canadian selfreliance in energy;
(4)	To ensure that Canadian energy exports would be sold at competitive prices in the markets to which they were being delivered;
(5)	To establish an energy supply allocations board which would have the authority and responsibility to allocate supplies in the event of an emergency;
(6)	To establish a national petroleum corporation which, as part of its objective, would attempt to ensure that the rate of development of Canadian petroleum resources will be in the national interest and, in a changing world market, would be able to negotiate abroad to secure imported oil on the best possible terms;
(7)	To encourage through federal government assistance the expansion of electrical production based on nuclear energy and a comprehensive inter-connection of provincial utilities to ensure greater efficiency and security;
(8)	To establish an office of energy research and development to review, assess and coordinate the activities of the federal government in energy research and development;
(9)	To complete an inventory of the Canadian resource base in uranium and coal as well as in oil and natural gas, by offers of assistance to provinces, and directly in the case of federal land;
(10)	to establish an office of energy conservation within my department to develop and recommend a program of energy conservation and to play a coordinating role among all institutions and authorities who would have responsibility in conservation efforts.
Beyond these specific actions, Mr. Speaker, the government has acted on the National Energy Board's review of oil export policy. The board is currently holding hearings to assess export policy in respect of natural gas, and its report should be available to the government early in the summer.
Given the continuing uncertainty over the course of international events regarding energy, particularly with regard to future oil prices, we have carried out a major assessment of possible rates of development of Canadian energy resources. This study is attempting to evaluate the costs and benefits of alternate development rates in terms of the social and economic future of Canadians. What emerges is that while Canada is rich enough in potential energy resources to continue to supply domestic energy demands at moderate growth rates until at least the end of the century, this can only be accomplished by greatly increased economic and environmental costs. I would like to elaborate on that particular point.
Energy
My department has forecast that the investment bill to provide new energy sources for Canadians over the next decade will be more than $100 billion. This means that the proportion of the gross national expenditure going toward energy development could nearly double to 6 per cent from the average rate during the 1960's. In human terms that would mean less capital proportionately to build new housing, new schools, and other needed social developments.
A practical program of conservation, that is to say, a new ethic of conservation, can substantially reduce these costs. Some of the benefits of such a program will be the following:
(1)	Canada will become self reliant in energy at lower real costs by transferring fewer resources to energy production.
(2)	Our relative dependence on imports will be reduced, particularly in the early 1980's when a gap could exist between Canadian hydrocarbon demands and domestic supplies.
(3)	The risk of excess investment in relatively high cost energy sources will be reduced.
(4)	In the longer run, policies to reduce energy consumption will extend the life of Canadian resources and permit greater non energy use of hydrocarbons.
(5)	Environmental problems associated with high levels of energy production and consumption will be reduced.
(6)	Individual Canadians, recognizing that they face higher cost energy, will not find their pocketbooks so burdened.


Mr. Woolliams:: Who are you kidding?


An hon. Member:: Ask Barrett about that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while supply policies will continue to be assessed to maintain a capacity to meet demands, energy policy must now be conceived of in a broader context of ensuring that supply and demand balances are maintained at levels that reduce waste and inefficiency to a minimum. This policy of management, if you like, will produce startling results. If we can arrive in 1990 with energy demand levels 20 per cent below those projected in An Energy Policy for Canada-Phase 1-we shall have effected savings equivalent to the output of 12 tar sands plants. To do this, we require a reduction in the current annual rate of demand growth of less than one per cent. On current estimates, this can be considered as the minimum savings achievable through sincere conservation efforts.
The evidence that we have been wasteful and inefficient is persuasive. We all, whether in the private the industrial, or the governmental sector, have acquired careless habits. I believe that much of the impact of higher energy costs can be offset by the savings which will flow from conservation.
Some have argued that we should effect conservation by encouraging energy prices to rise to such formidable levels that our people will not be able to afford to buy as much

February 6, 1975
Energy
energy as they will need. I reject this facile, 'hard-times' answer to conservation. This is not to say, however, that Canadians can avoid paying higher energy prices in the years ahead.
The policies that the Federal government has pursued with respect to Canadian prices of crude oil and natural gas have had two objectives. The cooperative program among Federal and Provincial governments and industry to freeze Canadian crude prices below international levels both avoided exacerbating inflationary problems and permitted a period in which Canadian consumers and governments could adjust to the prospect of much higher costs levels. This price freeze has given us a breathing spell, in effect, to design and adapt ourselves to a new ethic of conservation. We have gained the time to prepare ourselves for phased increases in energy prices.
In the design of the energy conservation policies which I am about to announce, I wish to make clear that these will be permanent policies, not contingency plans enacted in a crisis. They shall apply to all forms of energy. We have developed a five-phase program designed to adapt our energy policy to these changed times of high cost resources, to involve all Canadians in a national program of energy conservation, to distribute the benefits of these new initiatives to all individuals, sectors and regions in our economy, and to provide a stable energy future and high quality of life for all Canadians.

Because energy is so pervasive in our way of life, the direct responsibility for conservation action is widely shared among households, industry, and all levels of government. Our policies, then, in the first instance, must be designed to inform, assist and facilitate a change in deeply ingrained habits common to us all.
Canadian conservation policy seeks to avoid the negative and punitive connotation which we see in the policies of some other countries. We have designed a comprehensive approach in which the impact on all Canadians has been well considered and measured. We are resolved to aim at the causes of energy waste and inefficiency and not solely at its more obvious symptoms and examples, and we are resolved to do this in a manner in which both inequities of cost are minimized and benefits are shared amongst all Canadians.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the federal government in-house conservation program. The first phase of our five-part program involves putting the federal government's own house in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is essential that we eliminate waste and inefficiencies within our own operations because we are a significant consumer of energy and our contribution will make an impact. We intend to demonstrate the seriousness with which we intend to pursue energy management policies, and we hope to provide a strong example to the public and private sectors.


An hon. Member:: What a hope!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In this regard I am tabling tonight a program of energy conservation in the opera-

tions of the federal government. Due to the length and detail of this document I do not propose to read it into the record but merely to summarize it. I would, however, request that it be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Do I have the agreement of the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to the request of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For "The Federal Government's In-house Energy Conservation Program" see Appendix "A".]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These programs were designed by my department with the co-operation of the Department of Public Works, the Department of Supply and Services and the Treasury Board, and are currently being executed by these agencies.
Let me first point out that energy conservation is not something completely new to the federal government's operations. Indeed, in 1974 the Department of Public Works achieved, through its building operating guidelines and combustion efficiency program, average energy savings of 12 per cent in its Ottawa steam generating plants. Some individual buildings cut their demand by 40 per cent, which in one case amounted to dollar savings of $100,000 per year.


An hon. Member:: Why are the expenditures up?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The government program will include revised operating guidelines for the heating, lighting and, in the summer time, cooling of government buildings, including improved steam plant efficiency and building modifications. It will include the purchase and lease of smaller automobiles-


An hon. Member:: Like Cadillacs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -and a speed limit of 55 miles per hour on federal vehicles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The government program will also include reduction of paper use, purchase of recycled paper and the recycling of waste paper; new guidelines for government purchase of products favouring energy efficiency; a review of employee services, including a reduction of available parking to inspire more reliance on public transportation, and the design of more energy efficient cafeteria services.


An hon. Member:: Keep the swimming pool at 30 degrees.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it will be obvious to all that the government intends to build a conservation ethic permanently into its own operations. There will be many fundamental changes which cannot be implemented overnight, and I will have to request the public's understanding when they see certain of these measures lagging or not completely implemented.
February 6, 1975

I am sure right now that there will be problems in carrying out these changes within government. We are setting out to change the habits of a lifetime, and what will be required is an adjustment that presents a personal challenge to all of us. I do, however, invite the public to monitor our attempts, to point out legitimate examples of energy waste where we are not living up to our commitment, to propose new methods of conservation and, above all, to join us by conserving energy themselves at home and at work.
Phase 2 is with regard to consultation. Since conservation represents a far reaching new element in energy policy it is essential that we undertake the necessary consultation with provincial governments, industry and labour. This is even more important since a considerable degree of jurisdiction over conservation matters rests with the provinces, and much of the actual action on conservation must be undertaken by business, industry and labour.
Officials of the Office of Energy Conservation have been engaged in a series of meetings with many of their provincial counterparts and with representatives from industry. We are planning two comprehensive consultative sessions for the near future.
On February 18 representatives from the provincial governments will meet in Ottawa to discuss conservation with my department. They will be briefed on the details of our plans, and asked for their responses. Furthermore, we will be seeking their co-operation in supporting federal measures and in enacting conservation programs of their own. We shall be urging two specific measures for the consideration of all provinces: first, reduced highway speed limits, and second, a revision of electric and gas utility rate structures that currently favour higher consumption.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That will be great for the long underwear business.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In late April a major conference of industrial and business leaders will be convened jointly by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, at which we will discuss the need and benefits of conservation, present several proposed government programs which impact on industry, and attempt to have each industry advise in specific terms as to how it will seek to reduce energy consumption. We shall also be entering a program of consultation with, and seeking the support of, industry and trade associations.

Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention that industry, which is the largest consumer of energy in Canada, shoulder its full share of the conservation challenge. We are convinced that industry can accomplish tremendous savings without serious disruption-and in fact efforts at energy efficiency can improve the financial position of an industry in today's climate of increasing costs, costs amongst which energy is no longer unimportant.
We will, in the near future, as well, sit down with labour representatives to discuss our plans as they would affect the working man, both from the point of view of how
Energy
labour can contribute to the program and how we propose to ameliorate any possible dislocations caused by conservation initiatives. On the whole, we believe that a comprehensive program of energy conservation will ultimately provide a net benefit in jobs; however, there will undoubtedly be some dislocations and adjustments in energy intensive industries.

Phase 3 of the program will be public information and advertising. This month the Office of Energy Conservation will launch an extensive information and advertising program on energy conservation that will run for at least the remainder of this year. The objectives of the program are threefold: first, to inform Canadians of the needs for energy conservation; second, to provide them with useful information on how to conserve energy and how this conservation may naturally assist in offsetting higher costs; and third, to change attitudes about the use of energy-in short-to encourage a conservation ethic.
This campaign, which has been under formulation in my department for a number of months, has been approved by both cabinet and treasury board.
While it will evolve as needs and opportunities arise, the program will include: six to eight full-page informational advertisements in every daily newspaper in Canada covering such topics as energy conservation policy, government programs, insulation and heat retention, transportation and automobiles, furnaces, recycling and industry; some advertisements will also be carried in weekly papers; supportive radio and television advertising; a booklet for students in grades 7 to 11 entitled "The DeEnergizer" which, at first printing, will involve one million copies; a pocket book called "100 Ways to Save Energy and Money in the Home"; industrial conferences plus specific industrial workshops; the production of a continuously updated manual and bibliography covering technical information on energy conservation.
The total allocated budget for this program-until April, 1976, is about $1.3 million, or approximately 20 cents per household in Canada. If the suggested measures are followed each household can realize savings of $50 to $100 per annum.


An hon. Member:: And spend that on sweaters and underwear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, another way of looking at these benefits is that for every 1 per cent that the communications program lowers energy demand, there is a resource saving in unnecessary supply development of at least $ V2 billion. A reasonable target for the informational ad campaign would be a 2 per cent reduction this year, thus producing a future saving of about $1 billion. That is not a bad return on a $1 million investment.
Phase 4 is the central core of the new energy conservation measures with concentration on a number of government guidelines, regulations, standards, incentives and investment programs designed to achieve energy conservation by eliminating waste and promoting energy efficiency throughout our economic system, without creating major structural changes in the nature of the economy. A great many of the regulations, financial incentives and

February 6, 1975
Energy
behaviour patterns in our society were conceived in the past without reference to energy conservation and have inadvertently led to a high demand for energy. It is our intent to reverse the direction of these factors so as to indicate for individuals, businesses and other institutions the way to energy conservation practices and to reward them for that choice.
This set of programs includes both mandatory measures, in the form of standards and regulations, as well as a host of financial and informational incentives. It is the nature of these proposals, however, that the responsibility for the modification of existing programs or the promulgation of new measures is widely dispersed within the federal government and between federal and provincial authorities. I am also concerned that these proposals lead to a comprehensive body of programs in which the costs of energy conservation as they may be perceived, though I would assert that they shall in reality be benefits, are equitably shared.
At the present time energy is consumed in the Canadian economy in roughly equal proportions by residential, commercial, industrial and transportation users. I am convinced that very significant savings can be effected in each of these sectors, but I am also anxious to ensure that the consequences of government action are felt as equally as possible among and within these sectors.
Several measures have already been enacted by the government. First, the CANTAG program of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will result in tags including energy consumption and efficiency information being attached to consumer products such as refrigerators, air conditioners, freezers and others.
Second, the insulation standards in the Canadian Code on Residential Construction will be upgraded as of this May. This code is used by CMHC in financing mortgages under the National Housing Act. Third, the Department of Public Works intends not only to use its energy systems analysis computer program to tune up federal buildings but also to provide this service and its accumulated expertise to the private and public sectors for application to both the operation of existing buildings and the design of new ones.
As far as new proposals are concerned, their detail and number prevent me from discussing each at length. Instead I will describe them in general terms, and table a list of these proposals which I would request be reprinted as an appendix to Hansard. I wonder if the House will agree to this, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to the minister's suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For list of proposals above referred to, see Appendix "B".]


Donald Stovel Macdonald: These proposals are in various stages of research and design by my department and the other federal and provincial departments under whose

jurisdiction they fall. Though I would emphasize again our desire to see these proposals come forward in as comprehensive as possible a set of program recommendations, my sense of urgency is such that parts of this integrated structure will proceed as rapidly as the approval process will permit.
The highlights of our proposals are as follows: First, with regard to public education, in addition to our general information and advertising program, further specific public education should be undertaken in the areas of purchase, operation and maintenance of residences, commercial buildings and automobiles. Second, with regard to consumer information, the CANTAG program already referred to should be expanded to include more home appliances, cars and houses. Third, new energy efficiency standards will be considered for nation-wide insulation requirements in all buildings, appliances and industrial equipment, and for automobile performance a minimum miles per gallon standard that would rise with time.
The fourth proposal is in the area of tax measures. In the design of new tax measures consideration will be given to such measures as rapid depreciation of investment in energy conservation equipment and modifications, removal of sales tax on insulation and specific conservation equipment, such as heat pumps and heat exchanges, and new taxes on inefficient appliances, automobiles, car air conditioners and motorized recreation vehicles. The design and implementation of such measures must, of course, be consistent with over-all government fiscal designs and must ultimately be reconciled with the broader responsibilities of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
Fifth, a redirection of government subsidies and investments toward energy efficient alternatives will include consideration of improvements in passenger train services and urban rapid transit-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -and loan grants to upgrade the thermal efficiency in homes and commercial buildings.
Sixth, there are a host of other measures upon which energy conservation concerns impinge and which we will be studying. These include further federal aid to urban transportation; methods of taking lifetime costs, including energy costs, into account in mortgage lending; structuring freight rates to encourage recycling and efficient transport; the recognition of explicit conservation criteria in transportation policy decisions; development of energy performance standards for buildings; the impact of advertising and credit on energy consumption; ways to reduce packaging and disposable items; and specific federal intervention to encourage recycling.
Seventh, there are in addition a number of miscellaneous, but nevertheless important measures which include the training of energy inspectors for the residential and commercial sector who, amongst other activities, would ensure that top quality furnace servicing is being provided; a federal interdepartmental committee to promote industrial energy conservation; a conversion to returnable beverage containers; meetings with designers, builders and lenders to promote building efficiency; and promotion

February 6, 1975

of a "Canadian package" of energy saving options for automobiles.
Eighth, there are, as I noted earlier, a number of important measures that provincial and municipal governments can undertake which include, among others, the structure of urban parking fees; modified utility rate structures; flexible working hours; regulation of outdoor lighting; automobile licence fees, and speed limits.
These, in brief, are our proposals for conservation measures which merit examination and consideration because they can have an immediate impact on energy consumption. We do not present these proposals as a totally comprehensive program. For one thing, among those listed in the table, there will be changes, additions and, undoubtedly, some will in due course have to be rejected. For another, there are many areas, such as district heating and improved recycling, about which much information has been accumulated but on which some further analysis is necessary before specific applications or demonstration projects can be recommended. On both counts I invite the constructive comments of all Canadians who are concerned with conserving our valuable energy resources and who have further suggestions for consideration.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, what of the longer term future? I have in the first four phases of the energy conservation program addressed myself to measures and proposals which are concerned exclusively with the elimination of waste and inefficiency. I have included no action or proposal which I think would have substantial structural erfect upon the economy or upon our current standards of living.	*
We have begun, and it is not too soon, thinking about the longer term implications of continued growth in all forms of consumption, energy among them, and to develop credible paths for the future that are consistent with changed world conditions as we will find them in the last quarter of the twentieth century. That is why, beyond the immediate measures outlined above, we shall be assessing programs which imply more fundamental structural changes in the Canadian economy and society. We will be investigating, in detail, the relationships among energy consumption, economic growth, jobs, environment, and quality of life. We will be devising and testing mechanisms that can bring about a phased transition from a society based, as we are today, on production and consumption to one based more on services, from an economy obsessed with quantity to one that places a premium on quality, from a society founded on competition to one based more on sharing and compassion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Socialist.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The transition to what some have called the conserver society-


An hon. Member:: From the just society.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: -will be a profound challenge to us as a nation and a people, but it is a challenge that we cannot ignore. The domestic resource picture, changing economic realities, new international relationships, and our responsibilities not only to our children but
Energy
to our fellow man around the world today all dictate that we accept the challenge.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has noted, and I quote:
To continue our present rate of consumption would be to deplete in short order the heritage of countless centuries, to squander mankind's only legacy on this small and finite planet. What we face now is not deprivation, but the challenge of sharing. We need not do without, but we must be good stewards of what we have. To ensure nature's continued bounty, we are not asked to suffer, but we are asked to be reasonable.
May I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make this statement this evening, and thank hon. members for their very sympathetic and careful attention.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my first words must be that in this country we desperately need a society for the protection of ministers who read into the records of the House such stuff as we have just heard. I think the minister can rightly say that tonight he spent the longest 40 minutes of his life.
It is necessary to visualize the setting for this. For days now there have been secret hush-hush meetings between House leaders. Messages have gone forth to the various spokesmen for the parties. We were all told that if we went into our offices and let no one see this document, we could have it at six o'clock. They even got the press corralled at 6.30 p.m. Not only did we have to read this, but we missed our supper to boot. All this, this great experiment in democracy of parliament, for this statement!
The understanding I got of why we had to wait until eight o'clock and were kept in secrecy all these crucial hours was that the stock market would not dare hear this statement until the end of the day. I can just imagine tomorrow morning the value of the paper companies in Canada dropping out of sight following the statement of the minister that we are now going to save paper in the government. You should have seen what they handed us when we walked into the House tonight. They did not even pay us the conservation principle of making the paper such that we could use it the second time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I looked at all the tax items. They may consider taxing air conditioners. I do not see a single company on the stock markets of New York, Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver-


An hon. Member:: And Tokyo.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and
Tokyo-not one is going to change one cent in value because of this statement, yet they bring us in here under these conditions of great drama. The press gallery is filled with members of the media in order to get these important words and spread them to the nation. This statement has made this parliament the laughing stock not of Canada, but of the whole world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 6, 1975
Energy


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Conservation is needed all over the world and always has been, but conservation is not fiddling around with more studies and more considerations. In simple English terms, conservation is the best use of resources. Canada has so much in the form of resources, both renewable and non-renewable, that we can bring these resources to bear and save and utilize them in the best way.
Sure we can reduce consumption by 1 per cent of the growth factor without even raising a drop of sweat, but here are the facts. If you look at the estimates and the public accounts of this country, we are spending money on finding new resources of a renewable sort which are nonpolluting. On that we spend about $200,000 a year. We will spend $1 million telling the kids they better turn out the lights. By comparison, two years ago the American government announced a program of $20 billion for ten years, or $2 billion a year.
Looking at page five of this report, what are we going to do to match the American effort? We are going to "establish an office of energy research and development to review, assess and co-ordinate the activities of the federal government in energy research and development". Outside of the work we do in Atomic Energy, how big a staff will we need to supervise the expenditure of $200,000 a year?
Again quoting from page five, the minister said we are going "to establish an office of energy conservation within my department to develop and recommend a program of energy conservation and to play a coordinating role among all institutions and authorities who would have responsibility in conservation efforts". As I said, Madam Speaker, this is a roaring farce.
I am not one to laud our neighbours to the south. In his opening remarks, the minister said that no one knew this shortage would develop two years ago. My goodness, is he not literate enough to know that the experts in our own departments of government and the American department of the Interior have been trying to warn the North American public for 22 years that we were running out? What do they teach in these universities now? They certainly do not teach them to read.
You can say what you like about the Americans, but when they saw this crisis, when the lights were turned out in New York in 1970 and the population was shooting up, they immediately started to work. They set up the team that had arranged for Americans to go around the world in space and go to the moon. This NASA group began a series of studies. The report I have is two years old. It already had definitive programs, times and costs-two years ago.
What the Americans are worried about today is not setting up a study. What they are worrying about is that some of these programs they are looking at mean high cost energy for the nation. They have had to change their foreign policy in the past week. Instead of going out and trying to persuade the nations of the world to force the Arabs to accept low prices for oil on world markets, they are asking their allies to join in a program to get a high world price, to ensure that if they go into the programs of oil development which they are considering to give them security, they will not be undercut by a drop in world prices.

What I am trying to say is elementary. As the minister said, we have the fortune and good luck of having abundant resources. We have had no opportunity to squander our resources to the extent our neighbours to the south have done. We have had to sit here for 50 years, watch them squander their resources and bar our resources from their doors. Now we have the resources. It is a question of making the best use of them.
There are many ways to save and conserve, in the sense the minister was talking about. He is going to reduce the speed of federal vehicles to 55 miles per hour and will ask the provinces to do the same with regard to provincial vehicles. That will save. However, the Americans now have that in effect. I am simply pointing out that all these methods of saving could have been in place all this time.
I assure the House that, in my judgment, if the government makes it plain by its leadership that it wants us to save, people will save. They will co-operate. All I say to the government is, let's get on with it.
The minister had the colossal gall to say that his second point of conservation is consultation with the provinces. My God, if any person ever deliberately tried to start a war with the blue-eyed Arabs of Alberta, this is the minister. You never start a war with the guy who has it. Well, I won't continue with that. All I am pointing out is that we, as a people, will co-operate with government at the federal level or the provincial level in any type of reduction. We can do this by a one per cent reduction in demand growth.
, I should like to conclude my remarks on this point by saying that merely by utilizing the wastes that are around us polluting the air and the ground, we would achieve a reduction in the demand factor in the order of 10 to 15 per cent, and we would make money to boot. Every highrise in this country should recycle its water, take out the solid material and thus derive enough energy to heat the place in winter and cool it in summer. The experimental evidence is there; the federal taxpayer pays the cost of doing this research.
It is plain form this statement that whatever public relations firm was hired to write it doesn't know what is going on. There is enough waste from our cities, our farms and our forests to provide, on a continuing basis, all the energy the country needs. Remember that only 40 per cent of a tree is used as a result of our wasteful forestry methods today. But enough of that.
Consider the minister's statement about having to build a fiscal structure. He says:
We have to build a fiscal structure which would assure an equitable distribution of revenues among producers, consumers and governments and which would leave the industry sufficient incentive to continue the exploration and development activities necessary to maintain Canadian self-reliance in energy.
On the very day the minister reads that statement this House is considering a budget which, with the provincial claims, adds to the tax liability of the resource industries a load of 90 to 120 per cent on their profits. What hypocrisy! As to the deal announced the other day with Syncrude, going into a marginal set-up on an old-fashioned investment basis, nothing is left for the owners of the resource at all. Even the companies are risking their shirts, not to
February 6, 1975

speak of the governments in this set-up. I am simply saying: let there be honesty.
The minister did mention he did not intend to tax heat pumps. Hooray! Heat pumps should have been used in this country for the last 50 or 60 years.
The Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has a document in its possession showing that, in the Ottawa area alone, one simple solar energy device, available at a capital cost of about $2,000 a home, could supply 70 per cent of the heat the home requires. This is contained in its annual report. Utilization of agricultural waste, forest waste-all these things would head off the demand with a much bigger percentage than the minister is contemplating.
If we fail to take advantage of these different energy sources we shall be faced with the construction of many more nuclear power plants, intensive exploration for sources of coal, development of nuclear fusion devices-I do not know what this will mean to the quality of our environment. These other sources I have mentioned are non-polluting. Besides, they will make money for us. I have not even mentioned all the exotics-power from hydrogen and so on; we are not obliged to worry about these things because we have these other sources here on a permanent basis.
There is more money in waste in Canada today than in the products we produce. There is more money in waste straw, on the basis of present knowledge, than we get out of the wheat itself. This is true of almost all the products I could mention.
What we have witnessed here tonight is a complete surrender of a minister and a government to public relations postures. That is all it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Canada, as a nation, is strong. We shall survive. But it will be easier to survive if we get rid of this government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) for making available to us a copy of his speech. I have read it with great interest and concern. It is not possible in the few minutes we have at our disposal to deal with all the topics which are dealt with in that speech. However, I should like to make a few comments.
I begin by saying that the minister's campaign for conservation should be termed "operation bolting the door after the horse has been stolen".
The minister said in his statement tonight:
At the beginning of this decade the Government of Canada foresaw the dawning of this new era ...
Well, it may have foreseen it, but it certainly did nothing about it.
It is only four years since the members of the party to which I belong were trying desperately to get the government to veto the decision of the National Energy Board to permit the export of 6.3 billion cubic feet of gas to the United States. We contended then that our own reserves
Energy
were not sufficient for this to be done without the risk of a shortage in Canada. We were ridiculed. The fact is, as has now been admitted, that we are presently facing a very serious situation.
It is only a few years since the minister's predecessor, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) when he was Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, were making speeches in the United States inviting the oil and gas industry to come to Canada where there were unlimited resources just waiting for exploitation. If the government foresaw this situation at the beginning of the decade this did not show up in its oil policy because we have continued to export large quantities of oil. At the end of the year ending on June 30 last, for example, we exported 60 per cent of our production to the United States.
When we in this party pointed out to the government that our oil supplies were running out, the government and the National Energy Board were prepared to accept the figures of the oil industry, which have now been proven to be inflated and unrealistic, and they continued to allow a large export of oil and gas to the United States.
Even today, faced by the fact that we shall find ourselves in a deficit position in the early 'eighties, exports are being phased out over a period of seven years. At the end of seven years there will not be very much to export, whether we follow a phasing out program or not.
I am at least happy tonight to know that the moment of truth has arrived-that the government is at last saying we need to do something about the conservation of energy. Most of the opportunities to do something about this have already gone by.
The minister is now bringing down a program, and I want to commend the minister for doing so in all sincerity. While it may be late, and while I feel that the proposals he is making are not adequate for the challenge, he is to be complimented on the fact that he is recognizing what many of his colleagues, and indeed what many governments in the world, have not recognized, namely, that we are heading into a completely new era in the world.
The age of affluence is almost over; the age of scarcity is about to begin. This is true, Madam Speaker, not just with reference to energy; it is also true with reference to many vital minerals, with reference to our forest resources, with reference to water, and, before the end of the century, with reference to food.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the
last 100 years mankind has squandered-


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: The white man has.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
repeat, in the past 100 years mankind has squandered more of the earth's resources than has been squandered by the human race in all of the thousands of years prior thereto that he has inhabited this planet. This cannot continue. Unless we face up to the fact that we are moving

Energy
into a new era, we will be headed for disaster. I compliment the minister for at least facing up to the problem, and while his statement today may contain rhetoric, which is much better than his policies, he is at least recognizing the problem and I hope that the country as a whole will recognize it.
However, my concern is that the proposals the minister is making are mainly cosmetic. There are some good proposals, and I commend the minister for them. Recycling, insulation of buildings and other suggestions are excellent, but I do not think they deal with the fundamental question. I do not think they really come to grips with the problem. The government must give leadership. An ounce of example is better than a pound of precept.
What is the use of the government telling people to turn down their thermostats at home and put on a sweater, when they go downtown and see thousands of kilowatts being burned by neon signs that are doing nothing but advertising chewing gum, Coca Cola and deodorants? What is the use telling people to turn off the kitchen light, when they drive down Sussex Drive and see the Lester B. Pearson building with every light in the place burning, because there is a master switch and they either have to turn off all the lights or none at all? How are you going to persuade the people of Canada that they ought to be a little chilly in order to conserve energy when they will be asking, "How much heat are we using to heat the Prime Minister's swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive?"
What is the use of telling the Canadian people to conserve energy when the government is being ambivalent in regard to the proposed project for enriched uranium which will use one-quarter of the entire electrical output of the James Bay project, and 18,000 tons of uranium oxide a year, which is three times our annual production? We talk about conserving energy, and we will use 2,500 megawatts of electrical power a year and 18,000 tons of uranium oxide to produce uranium hexafluoride, which is not even going to be used in this country! Surely the public are going to laugh if the government does not give some leadership in this regard.
If we are really serious about telling the people to drive their cars at 55 miles an hour, then we ought to be doing something about setting national standards for automobiles and about carburetors that will use less fuel. While we tell our civil servants that they are going to have less parking spaces so they won't be able to drive their cars to work, we also surely have a responsibility in this parliament to provide the necessary money to the metropolitan areas to put in rapid transit programs. We are not going to kid the public by talking about turning off a 60 watt light if, at the same time, we are paying no attention to the squandering of power and energy resources in other regards.
The minister is going to deal with this problem by means of an advertising program costing $1.3 million. While I read the minister's statement I kept wondering why this announcement was put off until eight o'clock. I wondered what stock was going to be affected by this announcement. Then when I came to one of the items I realized why. It was because tonight's announcement will probably cause the stock of Maclaren's advertising agency, and all the other fortunate advertising agents who for 40 
years have enjoyed the patronage of the Liberal government in advertising, to go up. They are the only people whose stock is likely to go up as a result of the program the minister has announced.
The minister dealt with this question in a very serious way tonight and I commend him for that, but it is too serious, I suggest, to be resolved by slick advertising methods and by public relations experts. I have before me one of the proposed pamphlets the minister circulated. On page 7 is one of the admen's dreams. It says:
Don't bath so often. Don't worry about it. Your friends will soon tell you if you need another bath and look at all the water and energy you'll save ... you'll be a hero!
You will also be a stinker! I think that admen who may be able to sell bras and deodorants will fail to understand that we will have to make a much more serious type of appeal to the Canadian people. This is the proposed wording for the cover of the pamphlet: "100 ways to save energy and money in the home. Tips on how you can stretch Canada's energy resources and put money in your pocket". I think we will have to appeal to the Canadian people with something much more fundamental than talking about money in their pockets.
If this country and other countries are going to deal with the problem of scarcity, of sharing the world's resources, we must appeal to people on the basis of new and different standards of moral and social ethics, not on the basis of just putting money in their pockets.
We will be required to convince the people of this country that the measure of a nation's greatness does not consist of the rate of growth of the gross national product, but that the measure of a nation's greatness is how it preserves the quality of life, and how it provides a good life for all its people without destroying its environment and without squandering the resources which belong to future generations. That is the kind of appeal that has to be made to Canadians, and that is the kind of appeal to which the Canadian people will respond. I think the minister is capable of making that kind of appeal, and he does not need cheap, slick advertising to do it.
Let me say to the minister that, as far as this party is concerned, we will co-operate with him and the government in everything that can be done to persuade the Canadian people to join in a program of conservation, but it is going to require more than telling them they will save a few dollars or that they should not bother taking a bath. It is going to mean persuading Canadian people that there has to be a new motivation in our society, that we have to be prepared to join wisdom with knowledge, that we have to be prepared to use our resources without ravaging them, and that we have to be prepared to conserve those resources which we hold in trust for the benefit of the generations that come after us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léonel Beaudoin: Madam Speaker, following the important statement just made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), on behalf of my party, I should like to make a few comments
February 6, 1975

on this very important problem, namely that of the conservation of our energy resources.
First of all, may I be allowed to thank the minister for having had the courtesy of sending us a written copy of his statement with supporting documents.
On reading this voluminous document, one may get the impression, offhand, that a minister is introducing an overall policy in a given field. Still, upon closer perusal, one realizes that we are dealing with steps taken after the situation has become intolerable, and therefore in a mood that strikes me as strictly defensive. On reading even the last lines of the minister's statement, one realizes that even at the beginning of this decade, the government had already foreseen in some ways certain problems that would beset us in the field of energy supplies.
That is to say that the policy being introduced today is not an overall energy policy but rather a strictly defensive measure intended to restore some balance which, in the eyes of the minister, is sadly lacking at the present time.
That is why, Madam Speaker, seen in that perspective, we understand readily that the first word to come to this minister's mind is that of conservation. Even if he refuses to admit it openly in his statement, this is merely a contingency plan to meet an emergency.
One must point out, indeed, that on the one hand preventive steps were not taken when the situation allowed, in a relaxed atmosphere, to prevent the situation. On the other hand, one also notes in the minister's statement that he himself recognizes that the government, through its attitude, was wasteful and inefficient. May I quote an excerpt from page 8 of his statement:
The evidence that we have been wasteful and inefficient is persuasive. We all, whether in the private, the industrial, or the governmental sector, have acquired careless habits.
The minister does say "all", and I agree with him. It is true, Madam Speaker, that we must be as objective as possible in our comments, and I want to point out that in the private sector as well as among individuals, Canadians have not been used to be careful with regard to energy resources, since they have actually never been forced to think of mere conservation.
I think that in a serious situation like the one we are facing now, there is one important factor which must be considered if we are to find a real and effective solution. It is that all those concerned, at all levels, be fully aware of the situation, so that they can make a real contribution to the program of conservation outlined by the minister tonight.
Here is an excerpt from page 9:
In the design of the energy conservation policies which I am about to announce, I wish to make clear that these will be permanent policies, not contingency plans enacted in a crisis.
I do not agree on that point, Madam Speaker, because one detects some uncertainty throughout the minister's statement. In the economic context facing this country in the months to come, we are liable to be greatly influenced by the course of world events. On the other hand, the course of world events is entirely related to the energy crisis the world is experiencing, and the minister leaves the impression that all the uncertainty he feels about the future stems from the thorny and explosive oil issue.
Energy
Oil producing countries have just shown Third-World countries, that is Latin America, Africa and part of Asia, that countries can presently exercise a control over their natural resources and potential and use them as a dreadful weapon against often helplessly interdependent nations.
Concerning the phases of the program as proposed by the minister, I would like to make a few comments. First of all, I was extremely surprised to hear that the first stage of the minister's program will be to put the federal government's own house in order. He goes on to say that it is essential to eliminate waste and inefficiencies within the government's operations.
Now, here is my question: Has the minister just met that aim? Besides, when the minister states that he intends to seek the co-operation of provincial governments in order to set up specific measures with respect to energy conservation, he mentions the following two main steps he intends to take: first, he wants to reduce speed limits on highways. A rather funny step, when experts actually came up with gas saving devices several years ago. But as a matter of fact, oil companies frequently bought those devices in order to make greater profits. And meanwhile, Canadian people were throwing oil products down the drain. Scientists might have devised new kinds of engines with a lower fuel consumption than present automobiles. Besides, most citizens know that several people developed such devices but no attention was paid to them. Madam Speaker, we stand where we are only because the situation was allowed to deteriorate beyond control.
In the area of forestry for example, lumber industries were allowed to turn forests into a havoc. They were granted huge areas almost free of charge, and would make clear fellings with no obligation to retimber. In Quebec, for instance, between 1900 and 1950, huge forests were cut down in that way, and considerable amounts of wood, half-cut trees, left to rot on the space. That was a plain waste. No wonder today we are seriously worried about our timber reserves.
To me, anyway, the minister's policy appears simply and solely as a self-defense attitude in the face of a situation which may well go beyond the government's capacity.
Although the measures advocated might help a little in some cases, the fact is that the situation is highly precarious and we might well be sitting on a time bomb for which the count down has already started suddenly.
Madam Speaker, I think the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has shown us tonight by his statement that he is very embarrassed and that he has no more confidence than necessary in Canadians as responsible consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: I am given to understand, according to the order made in the House earlier this day, that the remainder of this hour, until the ordinary hour of adjournment, will be taken up with questions addressed to the minister.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question would be directed to the Minister of the Environment were she in the House. Perhaps her parliamentary

February 6, 1975
Energy
secretary, or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, could answer it.
On page 20 of this statement, which renders such a great disservice to the conservation ethic, we have an indication that standards will be established which will impose "a minimum miles per gallon standard that would rise with time", regarding automobiles.
I note that the Minister of the Environment has come in. I will repeat for the minister's information the suggestion on page 20 of the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that one of the changes would be the introduction of standards regarding automobile performance which would introduce "a minimum miles per gallon standard that would rise with time."
I ask the Minister of the Environment whether that means that the government is actively considering the removal of pollution control devices from automobiles and, if that is the case, was she consulted on the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and when will we have a statement of that policy in the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the arrangement made was with regard to questioning me, and I would be glad to respond to the hon. gentleman's question. Of course his question puts the finger on a rather difficult trade-off which we have-that a non renewable resource, petroleum, which is the principal source for locomotion in the country, if used under some of the lead removal standards, for example with regard to pollution control, would involve a very much higher use of petroleum even though it may bring about a substantial change in the environmental standards. It was, of course, because we felt that the situation is different in Canada that we have not followed the lead of the United States in this regard, and we have a different set of standards.
This really represents the difficult trade-off we have in regard to being more economical in the use of a scarce resource and, at the same time, our concern with regard to the use of a locomotion technique that itself is polluting.
I think I would have to say that in the longer run the obvious solution to this matter is to shift more of the personal transportation away from individual automobiles and on to mass transit, particularly mass transit which runs on the basis of electricity rather than internal combustion engines.


Charles Joseph Clark: In his answer the minister neglected to answer my question. Would he tell us what is going to be the future of pollution control devices on automobiles in the short term in this country? At the same time would the minister give us an indication whether, in preparing this so-called statement tonight, there has been thorough discussion with the Minister of the Environment so that what he is intimating here is in fact government policy as followed by that department?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have of course answered his question. Naturally it is government policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as I ask my question the

minister will appreciate the desire of my family to cooperate with any measure to conserve energy.


George Harris Hees: Watch Stanfields go!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was puzzled when I heard the argument as to how this statement could possibly affect the market. I do not think it will even affect the market for underwear, but I would like to ask the minister in all seriousness whether he can give us any explanation as to why this statement of a very general nature has been delayed until tonight? It has been delayed for some two years until well into the winter of 1974/75. Has the minister any possible justification for his apparent tardiness, and I would have to say negligence, in presenting this statement after such a long delay?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Office of Energy Conservation was formed just about this time last year, and the officers of that office have engaged in an extensive consultation with regard to both the provinces and other interested persons in the energy and conservation field. I suppose if we had had very many more people and a much larger bureaucracy engaged in the operation, we could have proceeded more quickly. I do not pretend to be happy about the rate of progress, but I hope that we might have the support, and perhaps a great indication of support, from the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. Joking aside, it is a very important resource conservation program for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, taking up the serious vein which the minister has struck, I would like to ask him or the government House leader whether it is possible to tell us why the government proceeded with what I think one might call the half baked conservation related tax measures, included in the budget, while the government has not presented a comprehensive fiscal policy relating to this problem?
I also ask whether the government is going to insist on proceeding with the tax measures relating to conservation which it has introduced and which have now reached the third reading stage, bearing as they do in a very inequitable fashion upon some Canadians and some sectors of the economy, or whether the government is going to introduce a comprehensive fiscal approach to this problem, and not proceed further in this half baked approach which has been proceeded with to date.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a matter of opinion as to whether it is desirable to try to reduce by fiscal measures the luxury use of some vehicles, as I am not sure which measures the hon. gentleman has specifically in mind, but with regard to vehicles and some very large power units for boats, particularly for pleasure purposes, it seems to me that this is perfectly consistent with the program set out this evening, and it is an obviously intelligent thing to do.
I made some reference to other fiscal measures which I would, of course, recommend to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and which he will have to consider before his next budgetary presentation with regard to all the
February 6, 1975

implications they would have. But over a period of time there will be a number of other proposals which, from a fiscal standpoint, will attempt to direct the domestic demand into energy practices and energy purchases which are of a conservationalist nature rather than ones which ignore the necessity of conserving important resources.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course at this stage we have no way of knowing whether these measures now before the House would in any way be consistent with the measures the government ultimately places before the House, but since the minister's program is in a very real sense a public relations exercise, I want to ask the minister or the government House leader whether the government will set an example in eliminating some obvious signs of very conspicuous consumption of energy? And I can mention several, some of which might sound rather personal, the elimination of any one of which would be worth more than the total advertising campaign of the minister. I would simply ask someone in the government to give me the assurance, if they can, that at least the lights will be turned out in the Pearson building?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have to be clear on the terms of the order adopted by the House. I must say I do not have the order in front of me now but, as I recall it, they provide for questioning only of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I know that very likely the hon. gentleman may choose to concentrate on individual examples of this. I suppose that is inevitable in the political process.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You asked for this in your statement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He would be doing the program, and the long range objectives of the program, and the interests of Canadians, a great disservice if he turned to petty politics.
I would say with regard to the comments made, for example, by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and by the hon. gentleman, that of course an obvious example of energy use is the Pearson building and buildings of that kind. They were designed in an era when there was less concern with the use of energy than with regard to the structural design, use of manpower and so on, in placing the light fixtures that the architect would have had in mind.
One of the factors that will be involved in the government's program is the trade-off between energy use- between full lighting, even at night as a heating measure for the building, and reducing dependence on a nonrenewable resource such as heating oil or natural gas. If the hon. member would pause to reflect, it does seem to make some sense.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have reflected every night as I have driven by.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. gentleman would reflect a little more deeply, if he is capable of it. In a community like the Ottawa Valley where we have con-
Energy
siderable access to hydroelectric power it makes sense to shift static energy needs such as heating into that renewable source rather than have a heavy dependence of a non-renewable resource.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on page 20 the minister talks about tax measures. He says:
In the design of new tax measures, consideration should be given to such measures as rapid depreciation of investment in energy ... removal of sales tax .. .
As I understand it, the criterion for conservation is to have security of supply of energy, meaning multiple energy, so that we can serve the needs of mankind now and for the future, here and throughout the world, wherever conservation is necessary. Has the minister found that the Minister of Finance and the other ministers of the government have had a change of heart in reference to the uncertainty of the climate they have created in Canada, which has discouraged exploration and development which, in conjunction with conservation would guarantee security of supply for the future, by unreasonable tax measures? In other words, is the government now contemplating and anticipating withdrawing from its position on the tax on resources, which has driven out drilling rigs? This has discouraged even the development of coal mines in Alberta. What is the new policy? Has there been any change?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could point out to the hon. gentleman that the delay in development of coal mines in Alberta is because of the specific decision of the provincial government to await environmental and other studies.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As to the taxation measures, we take the position, which I know the hon. gentleman opposes, that there should be fair distribution of revenues between two levels of government and industry. I do not expect to change the hon. gentleman's mind in that regard, but it is the government's position that the present budget provides for a fair division of revenues. My colleague has no change in mind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has said he does not think I will change my mind. I am sure he has met with various segments of the industry. He talked about the coal industry and I could get into an argument about that, but I would rather go on to the question of other fuel which is so important today. Has the minister not had complaints from industry, from provincial governments, and from other people not in the industry, as to the uncertainty created by the climate of federal taxation? I am not saying the provinces are above reproach, but I am asking him about the federal system of taxation which has discouraged the development and exploration which would guarantee security of supply, in conjunction with reasonable and logical conservation policies.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am relying only on the statement of the Minister of Mines and Minerals for Alberta in this regard in pointing out that in 1974 there was a marginally smaller number of holes drilled in Alberta. In the Arctic, of course, there have been some

February 6,197?
Energy
substantial developments this winter. I think it is fair to say that it is a reasonable division. I know members of the industry would like to make more money and pay less to the public sector, but I think it is a fair balance.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister regarding section vi on page 5 of his statement about the national petroleum corporation, in which he states that one of the objectives is to be able to negotiate abroad to secure imported oil on the best terms possible. Is the minister stating that this will now be government policy and when the national petroleum corporation is set up it will actively negotiate abroad to secure imported oil, or is this just a pious hope of the minister?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it will depend on the circumstances indicated abroad. From discussions with the government of Venezuela it has become clear that while they are going to be phasing out the current concession system over a period of time and replacing the private industry there, they will not be doing so in the next year or so. At a moment not defined in the future it is clear that state to state dealing may be the preferred course of action on the part of some of our crude oil suppliers. Under these circumstances it makes sense to give the petroleum corporation those powers to secure supply.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I should like now to refer to page 8 of the statement. When the minister talks about "a reduction in the current annual rate of demand growth" of energy he is setting a target of less than 1 per cent. Can the minister tell the House what the annual rate of national demand growth is for energy, in light of the American experience? That experience has not been successful, I believe, because it was voluntary. Since so much of the government program relates only to federal buildings and employees, how realistic is this less than 1 per cent growth rate compared to the American experience?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the demand growth rate could be estimated somewhere between 5 per cent and 6 per cent currently. I would have to acknowledge that the policies the government has brought forward in order to keep down the price of hydrocarbons for Canadians have to a degree worked against the measures that we might otherwise have taken to provide for greater conservation. I believe I would be correct in saying that, relatively speaking, the voluntary restraint program was successful in helping restrain demands in that country.
The decision of the United States administration to go to more drastic means presumably was made because of their concern as a world power and their wish to be free of the kind of pressures that dependence on foreign oil supply would indicate, as well as their wish to go to a faster rate of production.
The position of this government is that we are engaged in a long-run program to reduce the rate of demand and that success will be measured in the long run. We do not believe that Canadians should have this program presented to them in the context of drastic measures.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I still think the minister is being overly optimistic. I refer him to page 20, paragraph 3 of his statement, which says in part:
New energy efficiency standards will be considered for nation-wide insulation requirements ...
Can the minister estimate when concrete measures will be introduced to improve and enforce insulation standards across the country? We need such measures, instead of further studies on the problem.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been for many years within the government of Canada an apparatus for reviewing the National Building Code on a biennial basis. It is this particular operation to which I am referring at present. There has been some resistance in the past to adding additional criteria to the National Building Code. The government, by highlighting the importance of energy conservation, has directed the attention of that group, not all of whom are in the public sector, to the fact that energy conservation standards should be one of the standards looked at in connection with any changes to the National Building Code. As the hon. member knows, there is a problem of economic choice in this regard, as a higher insulation standard will add a certain amount to the initial capital cost.


Mr. Gilbert:: But the consumer will save fuel.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member says, in the long run the consumer will save on operating costs as he will subsequently save on fuel.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, on page 5 of his statement the minister mentions the assistance the government intends to give for energy research and development and in particular for nuclear-generated power. I have two points to make. First of all, the electricity produced from our hydro-electric resources is one of the best sources of energy, because it is renewable and nonpolluting. I would like to ask the minister, since we in Eastern Canada rely on imports for oil, whether in consultation with the provinces, the government intends to make a general survey of the undeveloped potential of our hydro-electric resources, and whether the minister would be willing in his program to help, for instance, the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec to finance, through loans or otherwise, the development of known resources of already launched projects in Churchill Falls, for instance, down the river and in James Bay where the project could by itself provide more than 40 per cent of all the hydroelectric power produced in the country. There is a minimum of 6,000 megawatts to be harnessed there and I wonder if the department has considered the possibility of helping the governments of those provinces to develop those resources which would be used by eastern provinces.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government's intent is to make a transfer, if possible, in the utilization of energy, from hydrocarbon sources to electrical power, especially hydro-electric or nuclear power.
Under this policy we have for instance granted loans to the province of New Brunswick for the construction of nuclear plants at Point Lepreau, and we are now consider-

February 6, 1975

ing a request from the government of Newfoundland concerning the construction of a transmission line from the hydro-electric site of Gull Island, on the Churchill, to Newfoundland itself. In the same vein, I have entered with my provincial counterparts, the Ontario minister for instance, into negociations for a possible closer interconnection between major Eastern Canada utilities, in order to protect our supplies and ensure at the same time operating economies between the six Eastern provinces, that is Ontario and the five other Eastern provinces.


Marcel Lessard: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on a supplementary.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, part of my question remains unanswered by the hon. minister.
Were there any negotiations with the Quebec government on the James Bay development? Is the government ready to enter into negotiations and cooperate by granting loans and subsidies, in order to give speed up through financial or technical assistance the development of the James Bay potential? On this point, I would like the minister to answer. Were there actual meetings, negotiations, offers from the federal government to the province of Quebec on this subject?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, our policy is not to pay construction costs of, for instance, large hydroelectric dams in the provinces. It is always in the context of provincial policy that such investments must come from the provincial utilities themselves. It is our policy to cover the cost of transmission lines. For instance, we are studying now the project for power transmission between Quebec and Newfoundland.
As far as the James Bay Corporation is concerned, we received no request for financial help.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would have two questions for the hon. Minister. I shall try to be brief. Here is my first question:
How can the hon. minister consider the fact that the government spends millions for the building of expressways and that, on the other hand, they want to lower the speed limit for motorcars?
I would like to give an example as far as new gas-saving breakthroughs are concerned. I have been making an experiment since last May. I have had a device installed in my car, a "68 Oldsmobile" which has slightly over 100,000 miles. I can get 17 miles per gallon at 90 mph. I hope there are no policemen around. Before having that gadget installed, I could get only 14 miles per gallon at 60 mph.
My question is as follows: Has the hon. minister considered asking permit holders or the purchasers of royalties on new developments for gas pumps to make use of these patents or forcing them to use them to save gas?
My second question is as follows: I have made several representations in this House asking a return to daylight saving time. We know that the United States have tried this successfully. At the end of the month, the United States will once again return to daylight saving time. They
Energy
will do so two months before we do. Did the minister consider using this method to save energy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have not considered giving special help to patent holders of developments such as those mentioned by the hon. member. On this subject, I must say that one of the objectives of the program is to have consultations with large automobile manufacturers to discuss the possibility of their changing their system, and particularly of manufacturing lower fuel consumption motors, and to discuss more compact vehicles.
As concerns the hon. member's second question about daylight saving time, as the hon. member is well aware, we have had discussions on this'issue from time to time. The studies that we made, last year for instance, indicate that daylight saving time holds no great advantages in our climate. Indeed, people would have to get up one hour earlier, at the coldest time of the morning.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, outside of the possible use of compulsion by the provinces to enforce the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, which the minister is going to ask the provinces to enforce-


An hon. Member:: They already have it in B.C.


George Harris Hees: -does he envisage any other compulsion in this whole program, or does he see it as a purely voluntary program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that of course is the most obvious one, and the one that has been tried in several jurisdictions. I do not know if the hon. member would regard it as a form of compulsion, but we would certainly discuss with the provincial utilities the question of changing the rate structure so as to discourage at least some of the uses of energy or, to put it the other way, to encourage a more conserving use of these particular energies rather than providing cheap energy which would encourage different processes. In the long run it could well be that over a period of time the provinces will agree upon and may indeed be able to suggest other measures they would like to take, such as changing the speed limit, which could assist in conserving energy.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister add to his statement tonight by advising this House whether the government is now prepared to stop Premier Bourassa's scheme to divert a major portion of the electrical potential of James Bay to the manufacture of enriched uranium for export to France?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As far as we know, Mr. Speaker, the premier does not have any such proposal at the moment. As has been pointed out to the House several times, all that the government of Quebec is engaged in at the moment is a feasibility study with regard to the James Bay project and uranium enrichment. I would have to say that, albeit involuntarily, my views on this question have been made public. I personally, have to regard as a very low priority the use of 2,500 megawatts for uranium enrichment.

February 6, 1975
Energy


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will also ask a two-part question. In view of the impact of $100 million plus investment in energy projects, which represents an increase from 15 to 30 per cent of the total capital for all construction, some scaling down of these intentions is necessary. The minister suggested one way of doing that is by reducing the demand. I would like to ask about another method, that is, the reduction of exports, not just of oil but of electricity. I am thinking of massive export projects such as the diversion of the Churchill river which was started by a Conservative government in Manitoba and, at the present time, is being vigorously pursued by an NDP government in Manitoba.
First, has the government any plans to curtail these exports? Second, is the government considering setting up a series of priorities so that energy projects of little merit, which are environmentally and socially unsound, or where the input and output could be as high as one to one, and some of the things the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was talking about, where the ratio of input to outputs was very, very poor-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the hon. member has a two-part question. However, there are only five minutes left. It would be appreciated if the hon. member would complete his question.


Paul Edmund McRae: Is the minister considering setting up a set of priorities so that some of these poorly designed projects will not be permitted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To deal with the first aspect of the question, Mr. Speaker, of course the export of electricity is, as with oil and natural gas, now covered by the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board which has to consider the same criteria as with the other two commodities. Over a period of time it has refused export permits, or has scaled down applications for export permits on projects which would be directed primarily at assisting further export rather than domestic need.
With regard specifically to the application of the Schreyer government for the export of electricity from Manitoba, or the application of the Davis government for the export of electricity from Ontario, the board has basically taken the stance it would not approve base load power, that is, the basic power that would be available for the system. However, if because of differences in climate, as is the case with regard to the proposed export of Manitoba power to states south of Manitoba, or in the case of Ontario Hydro which is basically using American coal for surplus Canadian capacity for export to the United States, under those circumstances in some cases of surplus it will permit export.
This really leads into the hon. member's second question, that is, should the federal government in an area where many of the utilities are provincially directed attempt by fiat to say a certain project should or should not go ahead? My position is that that is not the proper approach.

The capitalization problem of the energy industry is such that I would anticipate the Minister of Finance, other of my colleagues and myself, over a period of time would be seeking to gain from the provincial authorities some form of priorities of projects so there could be an interchange between provinces of power and a reduction in the demands in the capital market for projects.
Frankly, the reason for our interconnection and long distance transmission policy is that instead of having three neighbouring provinces all engaging in the construction of a capital project, each one of which will for the time being have some surplus to its needs, there should be an interconnection between the three so they can proceed on a consecutive basis and thereby avoid the bunching of capital projects.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question. There is a phrase on page 22 that strikes me, whereby the minister indicated there will be training of energy inspectors for the residential and commercial sector. I just wonder whether we are talking about compulsory inspection. Can the minister elaborate on this area for us? Is a man's home no longer his castle? Is the minister talking about that sort of thing?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Without casting aspersions, Mr. Speaker, in the past the servicing of home heating units has been the responsibility of those who are selling the oil. There may be some suggestion that there is less of an incentive to have the very thorough furnace cleaning that would be possible if there were counsellors who could indicate the kind of adjustments that should and could be made to get better energy use. In a sample program carried out here in Ottawa it was found that, in about a thousand homes, with a more thorough servicing each year there could be a very dramatic improvement in the householders' home heating bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I know it will be of interest to members of this House to remember that on January 27 a delegation of workmen from the electrical industry of Canada, specifically from the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, and locals of other electrical unions and the woodworkers' union, all affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress, came to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) to discuss a matter of very serious concern to them and, I think, to all Canadians. Briefly, that matter is the increasing number of layoffs and the dimunition of employment
February 6, 1975

in the electrical industry which they allege is caused by the import of electrical components and television sets from outside the country. This is undercutting the Canadian industry.
It was regrettable that on that day, while the meeting was set up, not a single member of the government met with these gentlemen and ladies who were with them. Efforts were made by the leader of the New Democratic Party and others and, as a result, a meeting was held later in the afternoon between the representatives and the minister.
On January 29 I raised the matter in the House of Commons. The minister said he had taken part in a fruitful discussion and would be holding another meeting in a week or two. Then we would know what was going to take place.
I believe the House would be interested in knowing exactly how serious is this problem. To that end I intend to cite sections of the brief presented by the representatives of the electrical workers. I quote from page one:
The influx of imports due to the reduction of tariff levels, the decrease in exports as a result of the protectionist measures taken by our trading partners and the many non-tariff restrictions against Canadian goods, and the threat of a further decrease in the tariffs are all creating a situation which can only lead to the demise of the Canadian electronics industry.
The brief goes on to say on page two:
While we are sympathetic to the government's desire for a more liberalized trade with the emergent and undeveloped countries, we cannot countenance a situation where Canada is in the forefront of these efforts whereas other developed countries are not co-operating and are, in fact, taking advantage of the situation. We cannot sit idly by and allow the bargaining gains and job security for which we have struggled and sacrificed to be erased through loss of jobs due to imports which have now exceeded 60 per cent of the market and are rapidly increasing.
Again, on page two, the brief goes on to say:
What is happening in our country is repeated with variations in the textile industry, in the rubber and tire and footwear industries and others. What affects our fellow workers eventually affects us. We are concerned.
What affects these workers does not only affect some of their fellow workers. It affects all Canadians, since the electronics industry is a vital and necessary component of the industrial background of this country. To indicate how serious is the situation I should like to quote from page ten of the brief:
In the TV segment itself the picture is even darker. Although the market has grown by 80 per cent, from 809,000 sets in 1968 to 1,458,000 sets in 1973, the made in Canada TV sales increased by only 50 per cent while American and offshore imports increased by 230 per cent and 106 per cent respectively. In colour TV the imports have grown by 320 per cent.
The brief estimates that in TV assembly alone some 10,000 jobs, actual and potential, have been lost. In the appendices we read that, beginning in 1967, imports accounted for 39 per cent of the domestic market, and that by 1973 imports accounted for 60 per cent. Table 2 of the brief shows that in 1967 the trade deficit between imports and exports of electronic equipment amounted to $370 million. By 1973 it had increased to $920 million. In 1969 the total number of people employed in the electronic
Adjournment Debate
industry in Canada was 78,500. By 1973 the number had dropped to 68,000.
There is no need to elaborate. These figures are stark enough in themselves. I am suggesting, and I am sure hon. members will agree, that the time has come for action to be taken on the part of the government. The cheap imports which are entering the Canadian domestic market must be dealt with in a way which is consistent with the welfare of the working people of this country and the necessity of maintaining a viable electronics industry in Canada.
My question is very simple: exactly what does the minister intend to do, and how soon will he take steps to alleviate this serious situation which, each week and each month, is resulting in fewer people being employed in this vital component of the Canadian industrial sector?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, on January 27, 1975, union representatives headed by Mr. Georges Hutchens met the officials of various departments and made representations to them regarding the employment situation in the television and electronics components industry.
At the meeting, union representatives described the employment situation as it is today in the various firms specializing in electronics. Representatives from the Department of National Revenue explained the antidumping investigation procedure now taking place in respect of television sets and the representatives from the departments of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce described some multinational trade negotiations mechanisms from GATT.
The brief submitted by the union contained different specific proposals of government measures. Since these proposals concerning government responsibility are broad, the ministers of labour, finance, external affairs and of revenue will have to be consulted concerning the moves to be taken by each one of them.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will then prepare a joint reply to the brief and organize another meeting with union officials to discuss these important issues. This procedure which was described at the meeting was universally agreed to by all participants. Since then, Mr. Hutchens has written to the department to indicate his satisfaction with the steps taken.


SOCIAL SECURITY-SUGGESTED REVIEW OF PENSION ESCALATION FORMULA-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN BASIC PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, December 11, 1974, as recorded in Hansard at page 2159, I addressed a couple of questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) concerning old age pensions.
My first question related to my suggestion that there should be a serious review of the escalation formula so that it might more closely match the needs of our people, and be on a current basis instead of in arrears. After a reply by the minister to that question I put another in
3002

February 6, 1975
Adjournment Debate
which I urged the need for an immediate and substantial boost in the basic amount of the old age pension.
As I look at the record of these questions I realize they could provide the basis for just about all of the aspects of old age pensions that I do my best to press upon the government-a substantial increase in the amount, gearing the pension to the gross national product, lowering the age, and so on-but tonight I prefer to concentrate on the first question, and I hope that the minister's reply will be directed to that as well.
I am aware of the pride that the minister expresses in the escalation program that we have, and I say thank heaven we have it. If our pensions were still on a fixed basis, or were allowed to escalate by only 2 per cent per year, the plight of our senior citizens would be a lot worse than it is. But I do urge upon the minister the need for a serious review of the escalation formula.
On the one hand I still feel that the index that is used needs to be changed. As the minister knows, this point of view has now been expressed from a good many quarters. The view that many of us hold is that the consumer price index does not adequately reflect the rise in the cost of living of old age pensioners when one thinks in terms of the things they actually have to buy. My hope is that we will soon get an index that will reflect the actual position of our senior citizens. I was encouraged by the minister's statement on December 11 that the consumer price index is now being reviewed by Statistics Canada. I am sure the minister and his department are keeping in touch with that branch of the government, and I hope that we are getting close to something being done about it.
The other point I want to emphasize in terms of a review of the escalation formula is contained in the last words of my first question of December 11, when I asked for a formula that would "more closely match the needs of our people and be on a current basis instead of in arrears". If I may presume to indicate a preference, I think this is even more serious than the actual index that is used.
As the minister knows, when an increase in old age pensions takes place in January you have to go back two months, and then take the three months before that and compare the increase in those three months with the three months before that, so the increase is always behind.
Not only is it always behind in terms of the period on the basis of which the comparison is made, the fact is that in January the old age pensioner is getting an increase to meet rising costs that he was experiencing at least five or six months before, yet in that five or six months when he needed the increase he was not getting it.
I know computers can go wrong and that we like to complain about the use of them, but the fact is that it is possible with modern computer science to get just about any information that one wants. I am confident that it is now possible for organizations like Statistics Canada, with the use of computers, to determine what will be the actual cost of living for persons like senior citizens on a current basis and for a period of time that goes a bit into the future.
I feel, therefore, that a formula for escalating old age security pensions, the guaranteed income supplement, Canada Pension Plan benefits and all the others, should be put on a current basis, for the present system is not good enough.
In pressing these two points on the minister tonight I hope he recognizes my restraint in that I am not making a long speech for a $200, $300 or $400 basic pension, and that I am not going into all the arguments for lowering the pension age to 60. He knows those arguments and I shall press them on every appropriate occasion. However, because of my restraint I hope he will give me not only a serious but a favourable response as I plead with him for a whole new look at the escalation formula. Let us make it a kind that meets the actual experience of our senior citizens, and let us make it a formula that gives money to pensioners to meet the increase in the cost of living at the time they are facing that increase, rather than in arrears. I thank the minister for staying here this late at night to answer my question. I hope his answer will be worth it.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words, but I am afraid that the shortness of his speech does not necessarily mean that the answer is to be positive. We have to look at this matter more in terms of its objective merits. Indeed, as he said, a number of individuals and organizations have recommended that social security benefits, particularly old age pensions, be escalated using an index which takes into account the real growth in national income. Others have recommended, as he mentioned, that the government of Canada escalate benefits to meet rising prices using an index developed to take into account the actual expenditures of recipient groups.
In respect of indexing using differential price indices, I acknowledge that expenditure patterns of people by income category vary, and that an index constructed using a particular basket of goods relating to a particular income group would move differently at different times than the consumer price index. How significant the differences would be, and how long run these would be, would depend on the components of that basket and the relative changes in these prices over a time we would look at, and there is no way of knowing whether a special price index would, over a period of time, rise relatively faster or more slowly than the consumer price index.
I should mention, and the hon. member surely knows this, that the Economic Council of Canada has embraced the principle of a single general index irrespective of the groups or categories of incomes involved. Surely the hon. member would not suggest that we ignore or set aside without careful consideration the advice given to us by the Economic Council of Canada.
On the other hand the chief statistician recently reported to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that Statistics Canada has begun research into the calculation of special indices for two groups of people at the lower end of the income scale because these two groups might have different expenditure patterns. These are pensioners, and the other group are mainly people with large families, often single parent families.

February 6, 1975

To assist in this research Statistics Canada is now in the field with a large scale detailed expenditure survey which will get more detail and more effective information from the lower end of income distribution. At the present time current data on expenditures cannot be used to calculate special indices for persons in different economic and social circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).


FISHERIES-PRESENCE OF PORTUGUESE AND FRENCH DRAGGERS IN ST. GEORGE'S BAY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, I must say that my question tonight is an annual one because it recurs every year at this time. It has to do with the regularity of the interference of foreign draggers who ignore agreements with Canada on the extension of fishing limits and persist in taking advantage of our marine resources regardless of what Canada introduces by way of regulations to protect our zones. Madam Speaker, you can probably do a lot more since this is the first time you are in the chair when I am bringing this matter to the attention of the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc). Over the years nothing has been done.
I am convinced that the new Minister of State (Fisheries) is sympathetic toward the problems of the fisheries in Atlantic Canada, and I am sure that he will do his utmost to achieve the objective of protection of our marine resources for the benefit of Canadian fishermen. But unfortunately he has to be guided by the apathetic determination of his government which keeps-and I hesitate to use the expression-pussyfooting around the issue of protection.
Again, as in the past, foreign draggers persist in ignoring Canadian laws, and each year they help to destroy the livelihood of our Newfoundland fishermen. It becomes more and more obvious that Canada does not have the proverbial guts to do anything about it, for political reasons. This year 38 draggers or so appeared in the Bay St. George area on the south west and west coasts of Newfoundland and continued to deplete a fast declining resource upon which fishermen in that area depend for their livelihood.
In spite of efforts by the government to build up our control and surveillance capability, these foreign draggers continue to ignore Canadian law, and in spite of the fact that concerned members of parliament bring the matter to the attention of the government time and time again, the government continues its apathetic consideration, and continues to hope that there will be agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference that we will receive acceptance of a majority of nations to implement 200 mile limits, or in the case of Newfoundland the limit of the Continental shelf.
Adjournment Debate
I have made every effort to be reasonable, but I am convinced that we are being taken for the proverbial ride. The foreign nations are laughing at us, as they are laughing at the lack of capability we project in our surveillance and patrol.
The procrastination and the apathy of our government are not serving any other purpose than to destroy any initiative or effort of individuals who are trying to maintain a viable resource industry, but are continually being discouraged by the lack of backbone portrayed by our government.
The government keeps evading the issue by relating, in answer to queries by those concerned, that Canada will achieve the desired results by ongoing discussions. I have come to the conclusion, however, that I am just as naive as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) in thinking that we will achieve some sort of agreement.
Further to my question on the persistent evidence of Portuguese and French draggers in the area mentioned, it has now come to my attention that not only are the French draggers using every advantage to fish within our 12 mile limit by way of treaty negotiations but that Portuguese draggers are imposing on our lack of backbone and applying and receiving French licences because of the preferred treaty negotiations.
I am completely alarmed at the attitude of our government with respect to the future of the control and protection of our marine resources in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I realize that the minister is sympathetic to our cause-I am sure he will do his utmost-and I am convinced that given the time he will achieve the objective of ensuring a viable industry for Atlantic Canada. But we have run out of time-long run out of time, I must repeat. Unless Canada shows some backbone in taking unilateral action in preserving or conserving our marine resources, we should admit our lack of guts. But that would betray the thousands of Canadians who continue to rely and pray that they can eke out a reasonable livelihood from our food resources.
I hope the parliamentary secretary, who is very conscientious, will be able to give me the direction the Canadian government is taking to protect the marine resources in Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes at my disposal it is difficult to answer all the questions raised by the hon. member. In order to set the complete stage I think it would have been important to talk about the territorial seas phase-out agreement that we have had with other countries, but there will not be time for that.
Reports on the presence of foreign vessels in St. George's Bay have been referred to the regional officials of the Fisheries and Marine Service in St. John's, Newfoundland, who are aware that units of the French fishing fleet have been operating in the St. George's Bay area. Under the terms of the phasing out agreement between Canada and France, metropolitan French vessels are per-
28626 - 55)4

February 6, 1975
Adjournment Debate
mitted to fish in the gulf, including St. George's Bay, but must at all times remain 12 miles from the nearest land.
The Portuguese-Canada agreement does not contain this provision and Portuguese fishing vessels must remain 12 miles outside the St. George's Bay closure line. There has been no evidence of non-compliance with this requirement by units of the Portuguese fishing fleet.
The suggestion that some Portuguese vessels have been operating under French registry has also been investigated. I am informed that a check with the two agents for the French and the Portuguese fishing fleet in St. John's has revealed they have absolutely no knowledge of such transactions and, furthermore, they would consider such a possibility extremely remote. Even if this were a possibility these vessels would still be subject to the provisions of the French agreement regarding set periods of fishing under
the agreement and the restrictions on the species of fish that may be taken.
The fisheries patrol vessel Cape Freels was dispatched to the area, but due to extreme weather conditions and severe icing the vessel had to enter Port-aux-Basques for safety reasons. Weather permitting, the Cape Freels will be in the area tomorrow.
I assure the hon. member that we are most concerned about reports he is bringing to us, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that the phase-out agreements are being observed to the letter.


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 o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.



February 6, 1975


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
I-	INTRODUCTION
This report constitutes a statement on the federal government's past, present and future programs to conserve energy within its own operations. While acknowledging the efforts to date, it concentrates on the major new measures which are being announced today as Phase 1 of the five phase Federal Energy Conservation Program.
The document consists of programs devised and agreed upon by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources; Public Works; Supply and Services; and The Treasury Board. It represents a resolve by the government to eliminate energy waste and to improve the efficiency of energy utilization in the activities of all federal departments and agencies.
Such a program will not only save significant amounts of energy but it will demonstrate the government's seriousness about energy conservation and will provide examples of conservation practice that can be adopted by individuals, other governments, business and institutions.
These measures have been communicated to all federal agencies and will soon be put before the appropriate federal employee organizations for their consideration and support.
II-	BUILDINGS
In November 1973 the Department of Public Works issued guidelines designed to conserve energy in the operation of federal buildings. They basically set out the following criteria;
Maximum Temperature	-working hours-70°F.
-silent hours-65°F. Ventilation Rate	-working hours-0.1
CFM/sp. ft.
-silent hours-none
Lighting	-occupied space-no change
-unoccupied space-none
and backed them up with specific instructions for different types of buildings and different areas in those buildings.
The Department of Public Works currently has a continuing program for maximizing the energy efficiency of all of its heating plants.
Be they relatively small furnaces or large central steam plants, their combustion is being analyzed and adjustments made to achieve and maintain the highest possible fuel efficiency.
The original November 1973 guidelines were designed to achieve an average of about 18% reduction in energy requirements.
With this program the department has achieved an average energy savings of 12% at its Ottawa steam generating plants. The actual saving was up to 40% in some buildings.
These guidelines were very helpful but, as recognized at the time, they did have four basic shortcomings:
First, since the guidelines were designed for the winter period, they did not take into account the cooling of government buildings during the summer months in regard to both the minimum temperature permitted and the potential reduction of heat loads through more efficient lighting and the control of solar radiation.
Secondly, these were general guidelines issued without reference to the particular characteristics of each building. Individual analysis would be required to determine the precise guidelines for each building that would be most energy efficient at various times of the year.
Thirdly, they were objectives that were to be pursued within constraints imposed by the current building structure and equipment without making significant alterations. For example in some of the newer office buildings there were few if any light switches so that if anyone was working in the building or on a given floor all the lights would have to be on.
Fourthly, there was little provision for monitoring the degree of compliance to these guidelines.
With these problems in mind the Department of Public Works has launched the following programs with the consultation and support of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
1.	REVISED AND RE-ISSUED OPERATING GUIDELINES
The Department of Public Works is promulgating revised guidelines for the operation of general office and similar space in Federal buildings which include the following:
Maximum Heating Temperature-working hours-70°F.
-silent hours-65°F.
Minimum cooling temperature -working hours-77°F.
Ventilation Rate
(except for purposes of cooling with outside air) CFM/sq. ft.
Lighting-occupied space
-silent hours-85°F.
-working hours-0.1
-silent hours-none -50 to 75 foot candles at work stations -30 to 50 foot candles in work areas
- 10 foot candles in nonworking areas
-unoccupied space -none except that necessary for safety and security
-exterior lighting	-none except that necessary
for safety and security
Detailed measures for achieving these revised guidelines are in the process of being issued. The objective is to design and operate thermal and lighting systems in a manner that provides both efficient use of energy and a satisfactory working environment. With the addition of cooling and further lighting guidelines and more aggres-
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1975
sive application, the average savings expected from the revised guidelines should achieve the original goal of 18% or more.
To the extent possible these revised guidelines will be applied to leased premises at the time when leases are made or re-negotiated.
2.	COMPUTER-AIDED BUILDING "TUNE-UP"-ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Since each building has its own characteristics of design, construction, type of heating and cooling and schedule of operation, the optimum operation guidelines for energy conservation will vary from building to building. Thus the Department of Public Works launched in 1971 an energy systems analysis program using a computer program developed by DPW specialists in cooperation with a private firm. This computer tool enables the department to analyse individual buildings for their energy efficiency and to balance and "tune" the building and its equipment for optimum energy savings. Every federal building will, over the next few years, be analyzed and tuned in this program. Furthermore the department with the support of EMR will be offering this computer tool and the department's accumulated expertise to other governments, engineers, architects, consultants and building operators through a special training program.
By way of example this analysis tool has saved energy in the order of $100,000 per year in one federal building in Ottawa alone. The men operating this program estimate that there is a potential saving of approximately 10% which would amount to about $300 million a year from all commercial buildings in Canada. And that's at current energy prices.
3.	BUILDING MODIFICATIONS FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Where the energy systems analysis or common sense demonstrates a need and where it is financially and physically practical modifications will be made to existing government buildings and their equipment in order to conserve energy. Such additions or modifications will include: -increased insulation in walls, roofs, floors, and around pipes;
-addition of storm windows, double glazing, storm doors, calking, weatherstripping, etc.;
-installation of separate light switches for offices, work areas and floors;
-lowering of lighting levels through lamp removal and replacement with lower wattage lamps in compliance with lighting guidelines;
-addition of drapes, blinds and window shades to screen out unwanted sunlight;
-adjustment and maintenance of service hot water systems;
-modifications to heating and cooling plants and delivery systems to conserve energy;
-application of heat recovery systems;
-installation of improved controls on heating and cooling systems;
-use of supplemental solar space heating when appropriate.
4.	COMPUTER-AIDED BUILDING DESIGN
Most large federal buildings currently under design by DPW are being analyzed for energy effectiveness through the use of the computer program mentioned above as a design tool rather than just a "tune-up" tool. In this way the federal government will be building in energy conservation from the beginning. As in the "tune-up" program, this technology will be made available to both public and private sectors.
In this regard it is safe to predict that the next generation of government buildings will be much more in tune with energy conservation needs than those of the last generation.
5.	GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE MONITORING
In order to achieve maximum application of the guidelines, the Department of Public Works will create a system to report back on the degree of compliance, problems in achieving the guidelines and requirements for additional technical assistance or modifications to buildings.
In addition the individual departments will appoint "energy conservation officers" from within their present staffs. Their main tasks will be to encourage employees to conserve energy in their daily work and to assist DPW in monitoring compliance with the building energy conservation guidelines.

[Stage Direction]
There are approximately 15,000 passenger carrying vehicles in the federal inventory thus giving the government not only the responsibility but the opportunity to effect some major savings of gasoline.
1.	AUTOMOBILE PURCHASES
At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that there are three factors in the purchase of government motor vehicles. The Treasury Board sets guidelines for acceptable orders by departments, individual departments place their orders according to their evaluation of need, and the Department of Supply and Services acts as agent to fill the orders.
At present Treasury Board guidelines emphasize that automobile acquisitions should be based on cost/benefit analysis, taking into account life cycle costs and the use to be made of the vehicle.
For the explicit purpose of energy conservation, and general government economy, the Treasury Board had agreed to further amend and rigidly enforce their guidelines as follows:
(a)	All passenger automobiles purchased by federal agencies will be of compact or smaller size unless specific justification for a larger size is made.
(b)	Acceptable justification for larger than compact passenger autos will be set on narrow grounds by the Treasury Board. For example, it will have to be demonstrated that a need for extra carrying capacity occurs regularly over the life of the vehicle rather than at intervals. Justification will have to be better as the size of the automobile desired increases. The fact that other automobiles on the road are large or that high
February 6, 1975
[Stage Direction]
speeds are alleged to be necessary will not be acceptable justifications. Special exceptions may be granted for vehicles needed for law enforcement or for security reasons, provided that these are the major use of the vehicle.
(c)	For non-passenger vehicles, the Treasury Board will establish guidelines that take into account the lifetime cost of vehicles, including their prospective fuel use, and that also incorporate the need to justify the capacity and power of the vehicle desired.
(d)	The existing stock of larger than compact vehicles and trucks larger than necessary shall be phased out in accord with normal replacement practice.
2.	LEASES AND RENTALS
Leased and rented automobiles will be subject to the same guidelines as those for purchased vehicles. In the case of long-term leases, this poses no added problem. In the case of short-term leases, which are typically used while federal employees are in travel status, the Treasury Board is amending its travel directives to indicate that, after one year, the government will no longer pay higher rental rates than those applicable to compact automobiles. This will allow rental agencies adequate time to adjust their stock of autos.
3.	SPEED LIMIT
Government vehicles shall henceforth be subject to a special speed limit regardless of where they may be operating. The maximum speed shall be 55 MPH (88 KPH). This speed limit shall be widely publicized and explicit instructions given to drivers of government vehicles that this speed is not to be exceeded.
4.	LIFETIME COST EVALUATION
An evaluation will be initiated of the lifetime costs of government-owned vehicles in an attempt to determine the major variables affecting energy consumption. The characteristics of the initial automobile, tune-up frequency, added equipment and major type and location of usage will be among the variables evaluated.

[Stage Direction]
One of the major supply requirements of government is paper, use of which is currently rising at 20% per year on average. Paper is an energy intensive product, consuming about as much energy per ton as steel. The pulp and paper industry is the largest single consumer of industrial energy in Canada. Through paper recycling we can not only conserve forest resources, and reduce the pollution problems associated with paper manufacture and disposal, but we can also conserve energy, since it generally takes less energy to produce paper from recycled stock than from virgin fibers. Government will therefore take the lead in reducing its use of paper, recycling its waste and purchasing recycled paper whenever practical.
1.	REDUCTION OF PAPER USE
The Department of Supply and Services, the various departmental administration officers and the energy conservation officers will intensify a paper conservation program that is already underway in government. The measures to reduce paper use in government include:
-two-sided printing of reports and speeches;
-more use of mimeograph and offset printing and less photocopying in order to facilitate double-sided copying;
-more complete use of printing surfaces and proper sized paper;
-re-use of files, envelopes and other stationery in government operations;
-tighter control on distribution of reports, manuals, notices, etc.
In addition the Department of Supply and Services will create new guidelines regarding the design of printed products to ensure maximum conservation of material and energy.
2.	PURCHASE OF RECYCLED PAPER
The recent sag in the waste paper market in Canada is largely a result of the fact that, while waste paper is being reclaimed by people in urban areas across the country, institutions are not creating a demand for paper made from recycled stock and pulp mills are not prepared to handle all of the waste paper for various technical and economic reasons. Thus there is a role for government to play in building this demand, in removing the blockages in the system and in encouraging and helping paper companies to install the equipment necessary for de-inking (where required) and recycling of paper.
At present the supply of Canadian produced recycled fine paper is very limited, thus making a large-scale conversion to recycled paper impossible and requiring instead a phased program over several years. To the extent possible, however, recycled paper will be used by government. Other governments and business institutions are invited to begin a similar phased program of recycled paper purchases in order to conserve energy and forest resources.
3.	RECYCLING OF GOVERNMENT WASTE PAPER
At the present time the waste paper market in some areas is overloaded and unable to handle further additions. That is why the government will place priority on stimulating the market for waste paper through a number of integrated programs. Schemes for recycling government waste paper are being pursued however. Following on a study by the waste recovery joint committee, the Department of Environment has let four contracts to determine the sources, markets, costs and procedures for recycling waste paper from federal establishments in the National Capital Area.
With the results of such studies in hand the government will institute paper recycling schemes wherever and whenever a market exists or can be created for recycling of this resource. Several pilot programs in government departments are currently being considered, one of which will take place in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It has been estimated that recycling of waste fine paper from government operations in the National Capital Area could produce a revenue in the order of $1 million per year as opposed to the disposal costs presently incurred by Government.
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1975
V-	GENERAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
The government purchases an enormous variety and quantity of articles over the course of a year. In some cases the government is a relatively small part of the market and in others it is a large part. The objective of the following procedures, most of which will be put into effect by the Department of Supply and Services, is to ensure that energy conservation is henceforth an explicit concern when placing government purchase orders. As necessary, the Treasury Board will issue procurement directives under its authority to administer real property and contracts.
1.	The existing life-cycle costing program (PROC) will be extended as much as possible and explicit guidelines for measuring energy performance as a cost element will be provided to purchasing agents.
2.	Energy conservation will henceforth be an acceptable interprogram cost. That is, allowance will be made over and above the PROC cost for special savings in energy consumption. Explicit guidelines for incorporating energy conservation will be provided to purchasing agents.
3.	Under the recent cabinet decision on government purchases and design standards, it will be made known through regular channels that the government is interested in using its purchasing power to effect better design so far as energy conservation is concerned.
4.	The Department of Supply and Services will work through its agency, the Canadian Government Specifications Board, to develop standards for products that will ensure efficient use of energy both in the fabrication of products and in their subsequent use.
VI-	EMPLOYEE SERVICES
There is one final area of energy consumption in government that deserves mention at this time, that of employee
services (such as cafeterias, canteens, parking and the like) where there are opportunities for conservation quite similar to those found in the individual home. These areas will be investigated and corrective action taken.
For example, it is surprising to note that some dispensing machines in government buildings still utilize nonreturnable metal containers, which represent a waste of energy given the obvious alternatives of returnable bottles or even paper cups.
Another area of investigation will be improving energy use in the food and cafeteria services in government buildings. Hot water recovery schemes could be installed in washrooms and cafeterias.
As a final example, free parking for government employees clearly encourages the use of private automobiles as opposed to the use of public transit systems. The Treasury Board has already announced an end to free parking for civil servants in the downtown area of Ottawa. Beyond that step it seems reasonable that parking should be allocated on the basis of the number of regular riders in the automobiles rather than on the usual criteria of rank. Also the government could encourage car-pooling and aid in setting these up.
These are just a few of the possibilities for saving energy in government by making the services provided to employees more energy efficient. There are numerous other ways that have not been mentioned. Rather than enumerating them or putting forward a specific list here, a special committee will be created composed of representatives of several departments, including DPW which contracts for many of these services, and of the unions that represent government employees. This committee will be asked to prepare that list, to develop plans for effecting changes as rapidly as possible, and to report back on both within two months. In the meantime, individual departments have been requested to take many of the required actions on their own, for in many areas the nature and direction of changes needed are quite obvious.
February 6, 1975

[Stage Direction]
The following list of measures, though far for comprehensive, have been prepared by the Office of Energy Conservation for consideration within the federal and other levels of governments. Some are already in the process of design and implementation. Others will require careful evaluation. All would have significant energy saving consequences.
EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED Related Federal Activities
Existing Program indicates whether some action has been taken to effect that proposal.
Existing Mechanism indicates whether there is a readily available way to set up that proposal (in the event there is no existing program).
Sector
Individual-Residential indicates effects on individuals as homeowners or tenants and as consumers.
Commercial indicates effects on all buildings except residential ones.
Industrial indicates effects on industry processes or production, exclusive of building operation.
Transportation indicates effects on any means of transportation or transportation industry.
3010
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1975
			SECTOR			Related Federal Activities (if any)	
	Major Dep'l Responsibility	Individual Residential	Com- mercial	Industrial	Transpor- tation	Existing Program	Existing Mechanism
Public Education
[Stage Direction]
1. purchase, operation and maintenance of residences
[Stage Direction]
N RC/CM HC/EM R
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
2. operation and maintenance of buildings
[Stage Direction]
N RC/DPW/EM R
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
3. purchase, operation and maintenance of motor vehicles
[Stage Direction]
EM R/DOE/MOT
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
Consumer Information
[Stage Direction]
4. information labels on energy efficiency of appliances-"CANTAG"
[Stage Direction]
CCA
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
5. standardized information on expected energy consumption of houses and buildings
[Stage Direction]
NRC/CMHC/DPW
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
6. information labels for cars showing expected performance
[Stage Direction]
EM R/MOT/NRC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
?
[Stage Direction]
Standards
[Stage Direction]
7. higher thermal efficiency (insulation, etc.) standards for all buildings
[Stage Direction]
N RC/CM HC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
8. insulation installation standard
[Stage Direction]
N RC/CM HC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
9. applicance performance standards
[Stage Direction]
CCA
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
10. car performance standards
[Stage Direction]
ITC/N RC/MOT EMR/DOE
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
Tax Measures
[Stage Direction]
11. rapid depreciation of investment in improving the energy efficiency of structures
[Stage Direction]
FIN/NRC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
?
[Stage Direction]
12. rapid depreciation of investment in improving the energy efficiency of industrial processes
[Stage Direction]
ITC/EMR/FIN
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
13. remove sales tax on specific pieces of equipment that improve energy efficiency
[Stage Direction]
FIN/ITC/EMR
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
14. remove sales tax on insulation
[Stage Direction]
FIN
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
15. tax appliances according to energy efficiency
[Stage Direction]
FIN/CCA
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
16. private planes and large cars not deductible as business expenses
[Stage Direction]
FIN
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
17. interim improved tax on car weight
[Stage Direction]
FIN/EMR
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
18. tax car performance (to replace tax on car weight)
[Stage Direction]
FIN/MOT/EMR
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
19. tax car air conditioners
[Stage Direction]
FIN
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
20. tax motorized recreation vehicles
[Stage Direction]
FIN
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
Other Incentives and Disincentives
[Stage Direction]
21. improve train passenger services as rapidly as possible
[Stage Direction]
MOT
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
22. examine subsidies to STOL
[Stage Direction]
MOT
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
23. increase fares for short-haul air flights
[Stage Direction]
MOT
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
24. loans and grants to upgrade thermal efficiency in existing homes
[Stage Direction]
CMHC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
25. subsidies to improve urban transportation MOT/MSUA
[Stage Direction]
February 6, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Related Federal
SECTOR	Activities (if any)
[Stage Direction]
Major Dep'l
[Stage Direction]
Individual
[Stage Direction]
Com-
[Stage Direction]
Transpor-
[Stage Direction]
Existing Existing
[Stage Direction]
Responsibility
[Stage Direction]
Residential
[Stage Direction]
mercial
[Stage Direction]
Industrial tation
[Stage Direction]
Program
[Stage Direction]
Mechanism
[Stage Direction]
Studies
26.	means of setting terms of lending on the basis of life-time costs
27.	correction of freight rates to encourage recycling
28.	insertion of explicit energy conservation criteria into transportation policy (freight and passenger)
29.	development of energy performance standards for buildings
30.	impact of advertising and credit on energy consumption
31.	ways to reduce packaging, non-returnable terns and disposable items
32.	ways to encourage recycling
33.	district heating
Miscellaneous Federal measures 34. train energy inspectors for residential and commercial sectors
35.	institute bans on specific energy intensive and "useless" products, e.g.: heated shave cream dispenser, can openers, instant-on TVs, butter warmer in refrigerator
36.	create an inter-departmental committee to promote industrial energy conservation
37.	make all beverage containers returnable
[Stage Direction]
CMHC/CCA
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
MOT
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
MOT/EMR
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
DPW/NRC/CMHC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
CCA
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
DOE/CCA/ITC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
DOE/EMR/ITC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
MSUA/CMHC/
[Stage Direction]
NRC/EMR
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
EMR/DPW/CMHC/
[Stage Direction]
NRC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
CCA
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
ITC/EMR
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
CCA/ITC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
38.
[Stage Direction]
meetings with designers, builders, lenders NRC/DPW/
[Stage Direction]
CMHC/ITC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
39.
[Stage Direction]
promote "Canadian Package" for automobiles sold in Canada (including design
[Stage Direction]
standards for northern conditions)
[Stage Direction]
MOT/EMR/NRC/
[Stage Direction]
DOE/ITC
[Stage Direction]
X
[Stage Direction]
Items for Consideration by Provinces and Municipalities
raise parking fees in urban areas
[Stage Direction]


reconsider utilities' rate structure
[Stage Direction]
consider alternative scheduling of work
hours	X
regulation of advertising, display and
street lighting	X
auto licence fees related to performance	X
reduce speed limits	X	X
28626-56*72
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 7, 1975